< July 13	July 15 >

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. At a pure nose count, this might look a "no consensus", but AfD is not a vote. In the end, there is only one "keep" argument (except for an SPA) left standing, and that discusses "importance" rather than the amount of available reference material or a pass of the corporate notability guidelines, which are deliberately strict to prevent (or at least hinder) the use of Wikipedia for promotion and PR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badman Recording Co.[edit]

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

Non-notable local business. I PROD already, but it got reverted by the business owner, therefore, AfD is the next step. Fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (but expand/improve). Full disclosure: I'm a fan of several musicians on their roster. But here and here are two interviews with their founder; I don't know if those are RS or not, but they're professional outlets. Many of their artists, such as Mark Kozelek and the Innocence Mission, are highly notable (I realize that doesn't automatically make the label notable). As I said, I'm a fan, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but they have notable artists and have been around for 20+ years, when most indie record labels disappear after a couple of releases. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Striking my previous Keep. I am neutral on whether or not the article should stand, but based on discussion I now believe the article fails WP:NCORP and will leave it to other editors to decide whether that means keep or delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @WeirdNAnnoyed: while I know you're a fan, but do you believe the article meets NCORP and is your !vote still keep taking this into consideration? I have assessed the two sources you here in this table Graywalls (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21596-q-a-dylan-magierek-badman-recording-co.html	interview with the company owner.		? Willamette Week is a local paper of the Portland, Oregon area, and does not pass WP:AUD part of NCORP	✘ No
https://www.oregonmusicnews.com/dyan-magierek-badman-coffeeshop-conversations154	much of the contents in the audio recording is interview with Badman founder Dylan	?	the text portion is routine event annoucement and very trivial coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

@Graywalls:No, I'm not completely committed to Keep. You and others do make a valid point about WP:NCORP and the sources may not be the best...so to answer your question I do not think it meets that guideline. I do like the idea of an article but in the absence of better sources I'm not going to fight for one. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first source is a local alternative weekly. The second source is not even close to meeting in depth coverage; which is required for WP:NCORP. NCORP governs notability requirements for organizations and companies including recording companies, not WP:NMUSIC. Wikipedia is a worldwide scale encyclopedia. You can see the sourcing requirements in NCORP. Coverage in Portland, Oregon metropolitan area weekly alternative only has a marginal weight in establishing NCORP notability. Notability doesn't pass down from associating with someone notable, which is in the guideline WP:INHERITORG. Since you seem to be aware already, I am not sure why you're listing out names. Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed, whose rationale follows the sense of an important record label described by WP:MUSIC. This is what we should be looking for when we are considering whether a label's cultural impact justifies encyclopedic coverage. Chubbles (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chubbles, you're citing the wrong guideline. WP:MUSIC doesn't trump WP:NCORP, the guideline designated in WP:GNG for organizations and companies and we're not going to apply the more lenient guidelines you wish to apply whose usage is not backed by any guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP does not trump anything either, and there's no reason why we would ignore the expertise of music editors when deciding what music-related articles are encyclopedic. This position - of NCORP trumping NMUSIC - is illogically not applied to bands and ensembles (which are most certainly corporations), and has been around for some years without being particularly persuasive. I addressed it at length in another AfD a while back, which discussion is instructive. Chubbles (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Record labels are not bundled with band/ensembles, they are organizations/companies. Topical expertise doesn't play a role in establishing notability of companies. NCORP was established specifically to address promotional editing and public relations activity and GNG points to NCORP as the SNG for companies. There is nothing guiding recording companies to NMUSIC. Two examples of discussions on this matter:1, 2.Graywalls (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, how those discussions were done outside of music communities. Topical expertise, of course, is at the heart of establishing the notability of labels, just as it is with bands and ensembles; otherwise we would be justified in establishing NCORP as the controlling notability standard for bands, too. PR problems apply just as much to bands as they do to labels (and are just as irrelevant when looking at defunct bands or labels, mind.) Chubbles (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistakenly thinking that the music subculture should get to decide notability guidelines for anything in the music industry matter, which would be like letting the automotive industry set a different notability standards for any business in the automotive business. For now, the general consensus is that NCORP is what should apply to record labels and the goal here is to evaluate if Badman Recording Co. fully merits inclusion through the view of NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic would assert that bands should be covered by NCORP irrespective of NMUSIC, as well. Expertise should drive encyclopedic content, and business experts do not cover music well (except for major labels, none of which need any serious discussion vis-a-vis NCORP). None of what you've asserted demands that we ignore the only people who regularly contribute to these articles or read these articles - people interested in music. Chubbles (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Graywalls may have a point, it seems WP:MUSIC does not cover recording companies, which would have to meet NCORP. So this boils down to whether the sources I mentioned above qualify as significant coverage. I'm still in favor of Keep (but not very firmly); I will shut up now. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I looked and saw discussions suggesting that labels be added to WP:NMUSIC but certainly no consensus for those suggestions. As it stands WP:NMUSIC does not cover labels, whereas WP:NORG does, and the article fails to meet that notability guideline as well as WP:GNG. Searching online I could find no reliable sources showing notability, and as interviews like the ones above do not show notability the two sources above do not contribute to meeting any relevant notability guideline. - Aoidh (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - gotta comment here. Graywall's contention that record labels fall under NCORP is stated as fact in many of these AfDs. It is absolutely his right to hold such a position, and it is not an unreasonable one. However, consensus has never been established that record labels should meet NCORP, for several reasons. By longtime precedent, record labels were judged by a inverse interpretation of NMUSIC #5, if the label had multiple notable bands signed and released by that label, it was typically been kept over the long term. On the other hand, attempts to concisely define notability for record labels at NMUSIC have failed. Why many labels have been deemend notable in the past, while not meeting strict interpretations of NCORP, boils down to the fact that a record label with many notable artists or releases has demonstrated significant impact on either regional or musical culture, and unless the label is particularly tied to one artist, it is very difficult to merge any WP:V content to any one topic, thereby violating WP:PRESERVE. That said, record labels with current operation are WP:PROMO magnets, which is exactly the reason why NCORP was set up in the first place. My opinion is that we need to think about why a topic exists. Does it contain useful, verifiable information for musicologists, music historians, collectors, etc.? Or does merely serve to promote the wondrous capabilities of the label's management? It merits thinking. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article exists, because Rdeeble (talk · contribs) created this article on 15 September 2011. Interestingly, Dylanmagierek (talk · contribs) created Robert Deeble on the same day. According to what's out there on the web, Magierek is Deeble's producer. Desire for visibility by the subject and their associates is a reasonable hypothesis for why these articles were created. Graywalls (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the removal of PROD by the company founder & owner, this is a new PR editing by a single purpose account stuffing flowery contents supported by poor sources like bandcamp and discogs. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I find 78.26's comments thoughtful and illuminating. Rigid and legalistic application of rules is not what we do here, and all guidelines should be interpreted with our encyclopedic purpose first and foremost. That's particularly important when, as here, we have guidelines that appear to work at cross purposes. But turning to the facts here, we plainly do have a promotional abuse problem, and we don't seem to have the kind of sourcing necessary for robust coverage. That leads to me to think that in this particular case NCORP considerations (which I would loosely summarize as "let's make sure our coverage is robust against commercial abuse") should probably trump NMUSIC considerations ("let's make sure our coverage of music is encyclopedically comprehensive"). (As a side note, from some light Googling it seems plausible to me that Magierek might meet WP:NARTIST point 3; perhaps that could be a better way of structuring coverage that could meet the goals of both guidelines.) -- Visviva (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full disclosure: I am a fan of several Badman artists. Having reviewed the case for deletion, I would like to present an argument for the retention of the Badman Recording Co. Wikipedia page. As others have pointed out, it is essential to understand the impact and significance of Badman Recording Co. in the music industry, particularly within the indie music scene. Firstly, the fact that this label has been active for over two decades and has managed numerous notable artists during this time suggests a certain level of durability and influence within its sphere. Several of these artists have separate Wikipedia pages indicating their own notability, showing that the label plays a significant role in supporting and promoting noteworthy artists. Secondly, I would like to challenge the assertion that the sources provided do not meet the criteria for significant coverage. The interviews with the founder in professional outlets offer valuable insight into the functioning and philosophy of the label. While these sources may not be as mainstream as some might desire, they provide an in-depth look into the workings of an independent music label, which is beneficial to an understanding of the industry as a whole. The "mainstream-ness" of a source should not be the sole determinant of its reliability or its value in establishing notability. The focus should be on the quality of the content provided. In the context of WP:MUSIC, it is also worth noting that record labels serve a crucial function in the music industry. The decisions they make - which artists to sign, how to promote them, etc. - have a significant influence on music culture. Therefore, they should be evaluated from a music industry perspective as well. A strict application of WP:NCORP might not fully capture the nuances of notability in these cases. Finally, regarding the promotional tone of the article, I believe this can be addressed through edits and improvements to the article, rather than deletion. Wikipedia has a firm policy against promotional content, but this should not mean that subjects with promotional content should be deleted outright. Instead, efforts should be made to ensure that the content is neutral and factual. For example, it would seem useful and factual to allow the page owner to post the artists in their roster. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the Badman Recording Co. satisfies the notability criteria when viewed through a balanced application of WP:NCORP and WP:MUSIC, and I therefore propose that it should be kept and improved, not deleted. -- MolluskArgento (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC) — MolluskArgento (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Just to clarify, there is no such thing as the "page owner". Please see WP:OWN. Nobody "owns" any page. This does not mean that people associated with the article subject should be creating or directly editing pages which results in conflict of interest issues. I noticed you created the account specifically to participate in this AfD. May I ask how you were acquainted to this discussion? Do you have any connection to Dylan, or Badman Recordings? Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply @WeirdNAnnoyed. When you've decided, please reflect your !vote to what you find to be appropriate taking everything into consideration. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 22 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ivandjiiski[edit]

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

Founder of the libertarian financial blog Zero Hedge. Fails WP:BASIC. This article is mostly based on primary sources and sources about Zero Hedge that mention Ivanjiiski tangentially. Does not merit a stand-alone article. Schierbecker (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect there are a number of secondary sources referenced in the page (New Republic, New York Magazine, Bloomberg) but given the (crazy) importance of Zero Hedge, even if we decided that it doesn't merit a stand-alone article, it would make sense to redirect to the blog's article per WP:ATD-R. Jahaza (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the above. --Bduke (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Delete In the past when I have nominated for afd ceos and founder types (who were not notable for anything except the founding) I received spankings stating there was a notability policy for this version of BLP. Come someone link to that here? Anyone know what I am talking about, or did I hit my head recently? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf, I took the liberty of looking for any noms made by you that would meet this description. I think you might be thinking of this dual nom where WP:NBASIC was cited. -- Visviva (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could be right, it was those two nominations that were both founders of Lyft. Both were more or less snow closed to I went away with my tail between my legs. But as you show, there is indeed no policy making founders or CEOs notable, so I retract my above statement. Clearly I hit my head somewhere along the road. I have changed my vote on this, and given that we are talking about a BLP that essentially outs the founder of Zero Hedge, who seemingly wanted to be anon, I think I will lean towards delete on this (also given that sourcing clearly fails GNG Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. I was a little bit surprised on a WP:BEFORE, but it seems that aside from the blog, everything else is WP:ROUTINE, lacking in SIGCOV (jobs, $780 insider trading, marriage/divorce, family). Notability is not inherited and subject does not meet WP:BIO. Regarding the above voter's note about a special notability poilicy, I think it's probably ANYBIO.2. Personally, I don't think that WP:ANYBIO.2 applies: Zero Hedge's reliance on conspiracy theories and sensationalism suggests that the individual's contribution will not remain part of the enduring historical record in the field of finance. But I could be convinced otherwise. —siro χ o 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting my bolded !vote, but my other comments stand. I'm not confident in my determination based on non-blog coverage, whether it counts as significant. —siro χ o 21:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Past AfD spankings and "crazy" importance of ZeroHedge are not good arguments to keep. I've previous discussed the "number of secondary sources" in this BLP on the ZeroHedge talk page (link). The argument is short enough that I can repeat it here: The article cites 14 sources. 8 are unacceptable primary sources. The two most-cited sources are about ZeroHedge, and only mention him as a tangent. The only three sources that provide significant coverage of him were all published on the exact same day (WP:RSBREAKING, which should never be the basis for a whole BLP), and are all about him in relation to ZeroHedge. See WP:NOPAGE. DFlhb (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might want to read my post again. I said that due to the importance of Zerohedge (which I referred to as crazy, because of its importance despite its conspiratorial and tabloid nature, not because of the intensity of its importance), we should at least redirect the name, not that we should keep it on that basis. The name of the founder of a notable web site that has been extensively covered by legacy media is at the least a plausible search term, even if the founder is only notable for the web site. Jahaza (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely not a Delete. Despite his pathological desire to be anonymous (e.g. when Nigel Farage was given a breakfast with Ivandjiski in 2012, it made the Spectator), he had coverage in 2009 in his first unmasking in The New Yorker, and Business Insider, and wider SIGCOV in his 2016 unmasking in Forture, Bloomberg, Sydney Morning Herald, and South China Morning Post, and SIGCOV on himself (and his father) in 2022 in The New Republic (which is a WP:RS/P). He also gets quite a lot of WP:BASIC type coverage, such as in The Hill, the Straits Times, CNN Business, the Daily Dot, and CBS News. A search of books here also demonstrates a lot of WP:BASIC coverage. Definitely not a delete, this person, despite his best efforts, is of note. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think "his pathological desire to be anonymous" is a criteria for us to keep an article. Zerohege is clearly notable, what we are talking about is if the BLP of the founder is notable, or he is just passing mention as part of the publication notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question, is there any notability (that's not a minor personal detail) aside from that inherited from the blog or family? —siro χ o 22:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he wants to be a public figure, the question is whether it makes sense to have a page separate from ZeroHedge discussing him. A merge would also be fine, though the target article already seems to mention all the relevant bits (hence my support for redirecting). WP:OVERLAP strongly applies; articles shouldn't have other articles as 'semi-required' background reading, and any info about him is more relevant to covering ZeroHedge than to covering him. It's better that he be covered in the ZeroHedge article than in this "perma-Start-class" short article with very low views. I don't like us keeping articles that are this short and have minimal prospect for expansion. It's also a pretty strong case of WP:PSEUDO. DFlhb (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person has the standalone SIGCOV (2009, 2016, 2022) for WP:GNG, and in addition is referenced widely enough in media and books for WP:BASIC. I am sorry Mr. Ivandjiiski, despite your desire for anonymity, you are a textbook case of Wikipedia notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After this post on my talk page, I will respectfully withdraw from this AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, in the interest of fairness, so will I. DFlhb (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a great enough difference of opinion here that I think a week's relisting is worth doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not quite sure what is going on in the above discussion. But I think it is useful to distinguish "has received significant coverage owing to role in Zero Hedge, therefore notable" from "has role in Zero Hedge, therefore notable". The second would be problematic, but the first does not raise any issues that I can discern. On review of the sources posted by Aszx5000 above, it seems to me that the article subject meets the NBASIC requirement of having received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: because there seems to be some continuing debate on the quality of the sources, and because a number of the above-linked sources are below the sigcov threshold, I would point to the following as my preferred WP:THREE: New York Magazine (2009), Bloomberg (2016), New Republic (2022). -- Visviva (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva. Okoslavia (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am good for a Keep Seeyouincourt (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA who arrived today. scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Looked at the three blocks of references, since the first two blocks only have 6 of the 14 refs. WP:BLP's need real WP:SECONDARY sources to be a valid articles and I'm not seeing it, here. Most of the coverage seems to be primary from the blog or part of blog domain. He doesn't seem to have any standalone notability as far as I can a determine. A WP:BEFORE on the subject, found lots on the blog, mentioned the blog, linked to the blog, in the context of the blog, butnothing on him as an individual outside the blog. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. There is no discernable coverage. scope_creep^Talk 08:53, 20 July 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!} 23:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tuman[edit]

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

Non-notable as a failed political candidate, non-notable host of a crypto podcast that is also up for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, seems promotional and sources do not seem enough to support the article. - Indefensible (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Also, related article Monero Talk is currently being AfD'ed too, some relevant discussion is there. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The related article's Monero Talk AfD just concluded as delete. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable in the absence of a properly demonstrated and properly sourced WP:GNG pass for it, but the article is based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, with virtually no evidence of GNG-building coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 4, as we do with such failed political candidates. A source search did not find anything beyond run-of-the-mill election coverage which is typical of these races. Since the article is so promotional, delete-and-redirect is preferable than just WP:BLAR. Curbon7 (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing enough RS referencing to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only trivial mentions and quotes in the media. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:20, 21 July 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!} 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Being elected as the ~~vice~~ president of the Gujarat Cricket Association doesn't meet the criteria for notability under Wikipedia's ~~guidelines for politicians (WP:NPOL) or the~~ general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Moreover, a sockpuppet account accepted the article at the Articles for Creation stage. CGGCA201 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. CGGCA201 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CGGCA201: Welcome to Wikipedia! I see this is the first time you have nominated an article for deletion. A few minutes before this nomination, you nominated Neeru Yadav (which I'm yet to look at), so these are your first entries. A pre-requisite before nominating is to do some checks as part of WP:BEFORE. Dhanraj Nathwani is the President, and not vice president as your nomination states. I understand that the Career section states vice president, while the lead states president, and the references are from 2019, but he was elected president few months back. See [1] or the GCA page which should have been part of your WP:BEFORE. Jay 💬 17:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay WP:BEFORE check is a must, noted. However, I am currently having some difficulty comprehending how to modify the nomination statement. CGGCA201 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If all you want is to change one word, you can use the strike out (... as the ~~vice~~ president of the ...), so participants know what the wordings were earlier. If you want to change the rationale of the nomination, you may strike out the entire nomination, and write your new reasoning under it. If you wish to withdraw, you can add a line under your nomination saying you wish to withdraw and a closer will close the AfD before the scheduled 7 days. Jay 💬 05:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is an industrialist and administrator. How does WP:NPOL matter? Jay 💬 08:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay cricket associations in India are political hotbeds. Regarding Nathwani, how can someone who doesn't have a cricketing background ascend to the presidency of a state cricket administrative body? If he doesn't satisfy the NPOL criteria, he appears to fall short of other Wikipedia standards as well, including the WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:SNG. CGGCA201 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the answer to your question on the criteria for presidency of GCA. The point here is does NPOL matter. The article does not call him a politician. Do others, including himself, project him as a policitian? I didn't understand the second part of your sentence. Are you saying that GNG, BIO, SNG are dependent on NPOL? Jay 💬 17:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do others, including himself, project him as a policitian? The Answer is Yes.
Scroll article excerpt: "Dhanraj Nathwani, son of Parimal Nathwani, the Reliance Industries’ Group President overseeing Corporate Affairs and Projects, is vice-president of the committee managing the Dwarkadhish temple in Gujarat. Why would corporate bosses want to be managing temples? According to the sociologist, this adds to the company’s security in relation to the state government. “If they can control the Vaishnav sampradaya, it gives them a political advantage,” he explained."

His social media posts, specifically the thread, mostly revolve around political pleasantries rather than his actual role in Reliance corporate affairs. This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate his portrayal of political ambitions.
Facebook post: depicts political inclination

Another Facebook post: depicts political inclination

Now, turning to the second portion of my statement. From my understanding of the notability guidelines, WP:NPOL is an extremely specific category that is considered a final option when we are unable to assess someone's notability according to WP:GNG/WP:BIO at the initial stage, or WP:SNG at an intermediate stage. CGGCA201 (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding on the "projecting" part. I was looking for something more explicit. An analyst in his commentary talks about political advantage, and social media posts indicate his ideological leanings. If he had claimed he is a politician, or others had said so, and if the presence of his article on Wikipedia was as a result of the claim of his notability as a policitian, NPOL would have been applicable, however what we have now is a subject who is an industrialist and administrator.

What you have said regarding NPOL is one of the usages of NPOL, but the way you had worded it in your previous post was misleading. If a subject who is a politician satisifies GNG, it is not necessary that he satisfy NPOL, and vice versa. So considered on their own, they are not dependent. See the WP:BIO#Additional criteria on how the basic and additional criteria work. Jay 💬 05:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the Career section to be consistent with the lead, and replaced the 2019 references with the 2022 one. Jay 💬 14:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator may have erroneously linked the Gujarat Cricket Association with a political party. NPOL only applies to politicians and judges. Since the subject in question is not the president of a political party, NPOL is irrelevant and inapplicable in this case.AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. This article was previously nominated for deletion and speedily kept after the nominator learned that offline sources are acceptable for Wikipedia. I cannot evaluate the offline Gujarati-language sources cited in the article, but I think the English-language sources are likely sufficient to meet the GNG, in that they demonstrate nontrivial coverage of the article subject in independent reliable sources. Based on the outcome of the previous AFD, which doesn't appear to be disputed here, I would have to assume that the Gujarati sources would eliminate any remaining doubt on the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many other AFDs, this discussion would benefit from more participation from our experienced editor corps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPOL doesn’t apply to being president of cricket associations. Appears to meet WP:GNG per the sources. Robo^Cric Let's chat 04:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many other reliable sources in the article to satisfy WP:GNG. Some are [2], offline coverage from Divya Bhaskar, Gujarat Today etc. These all discuss the life and career of the subject other than his involvement in GCA. Giksongeorge (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It clearly passes the WP:GNG and have significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to the subject like DeshGujarat, Times of India, Indian express, etc. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close now per Wikipedia:Relist. Okoslavia (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okoslavia, you've been editing for 2 1/2 months. I'm glad you are learning about Wikipedia policies. But don't try to tell discussion closers what to do. I've seen you do this twice now, order a discussion closed. You don't have the editing experience to lecture others. Collegiality and getting along with other editors can be as important as knowing Wikipedia code words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Analysis

Citation No: 1 Yuva Bharat: The Heroes of Today By Devir Singh Bhandari (Source date: 26 Jan 2021) - The portion of the book that discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani predominantly consists of his own quotes, with minimal input from the author.

રિલાયન્સના ધનરાજ નથવાણી મુશ્કેલ અર્થવ્યવસ્થામાં સકારાત્મક રહેવા પર Citation No:2 (Offline Source date:17 July 2020) - English Translation of the Title: Reliance's Dhanraj Nathwani on staying positive in a tough economy. It is evident from the title itself that this printed article solely presents his perspective on the Indian economy. WP:INTERVIEWS

Citation No: 3 Top RIL executive succeeds Amit Shah as Gujarat cricket body chief (Source date: 20 Nov 2022) - A citation from a reliable source, as added by Jay, in accordance with WP:RS.

Citation No: 4 The Political Fix: What does the 'Narendra Modi Cricket stadium' tell us about his politics? (Source date: 1 May 2021)- There is only a minimal mention that briefly discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani's presence on a stage alongside his father. It lacks substantial coverage on him, but it clearly indicates that his appointment as GCA president is a political decision.

ધનરાજ નથવાણી જીસીએના નવા પ્રમુખ છે Citation No:5 (Offline Source date:29 Sep 2019) - English Translation of the Title: Dhanraj Nathwani is the new president of GCA. WP:CHURN

Citation No: 6 Find out who is Dhanraj Nathani, the new chairman of the GCA. (Source date:28 Sep 2019)- Merely a profile of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani found on a generic media portal that does not meet the criteria of being considered a reliable source according to WP:RS.

Citation No: 7 Dhanraj Nathwani unanimously elected president of GSFA (Source date: 7 Aug 2017)- It is merely an announcement of his election as the head of the state football association. I question whether it even qualifies as WP:FOOTY

Citation No: 8 GCA elects all officials, except Amit Shah’s successor (Source date: 29 Sep 2017) - There is a brief mention of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani being appointed as a vice president of GCA (Gujarat Cricket Association). However, it lacks significant coverage or in-depth information. WP:SIGCOV.

Citation No: 9 Dhanraj Nathwani takes over as Vice Chairman of Dwarka Devasthan Samiti (Source date: 11 Aug 2016) - The text simply serves as an announcement of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani's election as the leader of a religious organization. Interestingly, it also highlights a pattern in his career advancement. It appears that positions previously held by his father, whether in Reliance Industries, Gujarat Cricket Association, or Dwarka Devasthan Samiti, have been directly transferred to him without any opposition. It is quite evident that when his father resigns from Rajya Sabha, it is highly likely that Dhanraj will pursue that position without facing any opposition. Perhaps during that time, he might meet the criteria for being considered under WP:NPOL.

ધનરાજ નથવાણી સાથે મુલાકાત Citation No:10 (Offline Source date:29 Sep 2019) - English Translation of the Title: Interview with Dhanraj Nathwani. WP:INTERVIEWS and WP:CHURN

In addition to the aforementioned citations, the other offline citations in the local language are essentially WP:INTERVIEWS and WP:CHURN. They fail to meet the criteria for Wikipedia Notability in every aspect. If anyone requests it, I can compile a list of few of these citations and share it here for others to consider. Charlie (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to respond to new source analysis by those advocating Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CGGCA201: Which other offline citations are you referring to? Are they newspapers/magazines without an internet presence? Which Notability criteria for citations are you referring to? Here, since the discussion is about notability of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani, are you saying that there are no credible sources, not only in the article, but otherwise, that have substantive coverage of the person? Jay 💬 09:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay The offline citations I mentioned earlier can be found at Nathwani's official website, where they were listed. As an Indian, I can easily recognize that a significant portion of the news articles, due to the strong similarities between Hindi and Gujarati texts, are predominantly WP:CHURN and WP:INTERVIEWS. Charlie (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage snippets at his official website are not relevant to this AfD. It is not clear if you are suggesting if the subject does not satisfy GNG. Jay 💬 06:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any lack of clarity in my previous communication. The reason for nominating this page is primarily due to the subject's inability to meet the necessary GNG criteria, both in terms of online citations and offline references. Charlie (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Leaning towards keeping this article because of the availability of offline sources because of his administrative positions. He holds the administrator positions of two important sports associations. Because of this there must be offline sources available other than the ones already in the article. I'm adding some other online sources giving him good coverage to meet GNG. [3], [4]. Also it is only the assumption of the nominator that some of the offline sources are WP:CHURN by just looking at the title. It is true that many of the articles will be in the form of interviews. But most of them are not completely interviews; indeed gives in-depth coverage about who the person is what is their career about etc. Moreover the offline sources are from some of the most reputed publications in the country. 117.254.34.1 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I Looked at all the refs and it passes basic. Desertarun (talk) 09:37, 19 July 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. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. If anyone would like to work on it in Draft space, let me know on my Talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fulton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evident indication of fulfilment of WP:GNG. Refs are apparently largely writings and papers of the subject himself, public and administrative records confirming dates, appointments etc. and mentions in passing, rather than significant coverage of the subject himself in independent sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Africa, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, from what I can piece together, the British Empire had appointed Directors of Veterinary Services in colonial regions whose work was control of the major livestock diseases. Source on the position in Egypt/Sudan. So I have two questions: 1) if it's verified he occupied that position in Sierra Leone and The Gambia, is that a WP:NPOL position (i.e. does being the appointed director over all livestock in a colony meet NPOL)? and 2) is there any WP:RS to WP:VERIFY he held the position? If the answer to either question is no I think we have notability problems. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a civil service appointment, not a political office, so WP:NPOL would not pertain. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that being an appointment is enough to rule out NPOL given the colonial context (sadly the guidelines aren't really written to be easily applicable to colonial examples). I think the question is more did they actually wield political power in the colonial governance. But I don't think your wrong on the outcome here. I'm very skeptical that this is the type of position that would give notability. Unless the position was some sort of livestock czar (political term) for the colonies, this seems non-notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that there was a previous AFD for an article of this name, then a PROD but it would appear that regarded a different subject. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd. The article history has creation in June 2023 and the previous AFD with no consensus is from 2005. Also worth noting the article author has a declared WP:COI with the subject. I'd be okay with a Delete here given the circumstances. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case there is some confusion, the previous AFD and PROD should have no bearing on this discussion as they regard a different subject, a different Adam Fulton (an animator). Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this and this for a start. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first appears to be user-generated content. The second appears to be an archival survey. Which may indicate notability, but only really tells us there are physical archives that contain primary sources related to this guy and doesn't help fix the WP:V problem the article currently has. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source I linked was originally published in the 1994 Spring issue of the Western Front Association journal "Stand To", so it's not user-generated content. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, even if that is true, it's on a website anyone can make an account on and edit the text of the page. That's a user generated content issue. Is there any other copy of that journal article on a different website that is not editable by users? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is here[5], but one needs to be a member to access. Jahaza (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly because of unfixable WP:V issues. None of the citations in the article appear to be verifiable by a reliable source. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your comments and considerations.

My comments are as follows:

Noteworthiness.

· This wasn’t originally identified as an issue.

· However, Fulton was responsible for the animal welfare and wellbeing, and therefore indirectly, the livelihoods, economic and societal development for a large part of West Africa for a population of approximately 5-6m individuals at that time.

· His experimental vaccine use is documented and a foot note is included. The impact of this alone, preventing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of animals is important.

References

· There are multiple verifiable sources pertaining to his war service and civil service appointments. In regards to his west African experience,

· The Cameron article reproduced in the Border regiment online page has been faithfully copied from its paper version printed in the Western Front journal. A simple remedy is to remove the online reference and keep only the paper article reference.

· In regards to formatting, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Glasgow, I know this individual, not only did he write this article himself without any COI declaration, all of his references except one are made to articles behind a pay wall.

Gambian Poultry Scheme

· As I noted, Fulton’s assessment of this disaster could not be made public without impact to his career. Thus, the only references are his notes and conversations. His comments add an important dimension to the project. I have also referenced Hansard wherein the details are repeated. However, this paragraph could be amended to read, that the scheme occurred during his appointment, leaving the Hansard reference.

Summary

· Fulton’s contribution to African animal welfare is documented footnote 12 – ‘In Ghana, the livestock immunisation “breakthrough came with a virus passed through rabbits. This lapinized strain, developed by A Fulton in Sierra Leone from a virus originally cultured in Egypt, was tried in Ghana in 1950-51, when twenty-five thousand head were inoculated with no deaths”. Patterson, K. David. “The Veterinary Department and the Animal Industry in the Gold Coast, 1909-1955.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, 1980, pp. 476’

· Fulton’s appointments as Countries’ Director of Veterinary services is documented – footnote 9 Appointments, Colonial Office List 1949, p454>

· Further confirmation of veterinary service activities can be found in the Cameron article, although copied online and which can be amended, the original article stands.

· You have thus three sources to confirm his impact.

· The question remains as to whether or not his position, his responsibilities, and his impact (with the, the at least one cited benefit to animal welfare, footnote 12) makes him noteworthy or not. The answer is clearly yes.

· The areas where there are fewer citations available ie the Gambian poultry scheme, can be removed. Hughf2 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the general concept veterinary medicine in Africa and impact made, I would also respectfully refer you to the following:

Patterson, K. D. (1980). The Veterinary Department and the Animal Industry in the Gold Coast, 1909-1955. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 13(3), 457–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/218952

https://www.jstor.org/stable/218952, Patterson states, ‘Veterinary work was one of the most successful developmental activities during the colonial period. The control of epizootic diseases allowed herds and flocks to increase, providing income for livestock owners and nutritionally vital protein for agricultural and urban populations’.

Fulton's contribution generally is recognized and specifically in regards to footnote 12.

As I've indicated a revised entry, which could include the above reference, can be made easily. Hughf2 (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A revised format, it is a rough draft, could read as follows (and which would also include the relevant publicly accessible citations, including Patterson above):

Thank you for your consideration and time spent in reviewing this entry Hughf2 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible to insert photos of some of the personal documentation - ie the letter of commendation concerning disease control Hughf2 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of the veterinary service in two colonies. Appears to satisfy notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revised entry submitted that may address concerns raised. Hughf2 (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The only relevant WP:SNG appears to be WP:NBIO, of which the "Basic criteria" reduce to WP:GNG. Of the NBIO "Additional criteria", only WP:ANYBIO appears relevant, but I'm not seeing evidence that any of these would be met (and even if one of the additional criteria was met, see WP:BIOSPECIAL for what to do when the basic criteria/GNG is not concurrently met).
The extant sourcing does not appear to pass GNG. I don't have full access to Veterinary medicine from the further reading section, but what I'm seeing is not confidence inspiring. The most promising reference is the Reminiscences... text, but the title and the first few paras gives me great concern regarding it's independence from the subject. Absent further sourcing to clearly establish a GNG/NBASIC pass, I can't in good conscience !vote anything but delete. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks again for constructive comments and assistance.

Please note that a second draft for his entry is now in place which is intended to address the issues raised.

In regards to noteworthiness, in general terms, Fulton played a vital role in protecting the wellbeing and welfare of livestock, ensuring the stability of the agricultural sector, and securing the food supply for millions of people in West Africa. These achievements, combined with the verification of these claims through independent and credible sources, further substantiate Fulton's noteworthy status in the field. His expertise in West African veterinary issues, promotion to key positions, and groundbreaking contributions in combatting rinderpest exemplify his significant and enduring impact on veterinary medicine.

1. Fulton's career progression, marked by his promotion to significant positions, is a testament to his exceptional abilities and the recognition he received within the veterinary community.

o In the Gold Coast/Ghana, Fulton through merit based, progressive promotion moved from Veterinary Officer (VO) in the Northern Territories of the GC/Ghana to Senior Veterinary Officer (SVO) and often deputised as country Director of Veterinary Services (DVS). These appointments have been confirmed at footnote 7, Fulton was variously appointed as, Veterinary Officer in 1926, Senior Veterinary Officer in 1937 and Director Veterinary Services also in 1937, confirmation is found through this link: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Colonial_Veterinary_Service_List/lwciAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Adam+Fulton+MRCVS&pg=PA5&printsec=frontcover

o His appointment as the Director of Veterinary Services for Sierra Leone and The Gambia highlights the trust placed in him to lead and oversee critical initiatives related to veterinary services and disease control in these countries. The appointment, ‘DVS, SL & Gam 1948’, is confirmed at: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Colonial_Office_List/BHFEDWheazEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Adam+Fulton+MRCVS&pg=PA454&printsec=frontcover

2. Perhaps his most remarkable contribution was his innovative approach to combatting rinderpest, a highly fatal disease that posed a severe threat to livestock populations. Fulton's pioneering work in this area led to the development of a successful vaccine that effectively countered the devastating impact of rinderpest, saving countless cattle and preserving the livelihoods of communities dependent on these animals. This breakthrough solidifies his legacy as a visionary in the field of veterinary medicine and disease control.

o His pioneering vaccine work as Director for Sierra Leone and The Gambia is confirmed at https://www.jstor.org/stable/218952?seq=20 page 476 – JSTOR membership is required to access the relevant section but Patterson’s words are repeated in the footnote. Hughf2 (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the best you can find is footnotes and passing references (which the JSTOR article is, I have access to the full version through work), if anything, seems like confirmation of my !vote. Ljleppan (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ljleppan,

Many thanks for your reply.

My apologies, my contention is that the attainment of such a high-profile position and the resulting impact on veterinary services in two countries is significant. That, his directorship alone should signify his expertise, leadership capabilities, and lasting influence on veterinary medicine, establishing him as a noteworthy figure in the profession. His appointment is well documented in publicly available official records including his obituary.

In regards to his pioneering use of vaccinations, this is one example of his prowess and impact. This is also referenced, at least once with the Patterson article. I have also added the letter of appreciation to Fulton’s entry sent by the then Governor of Sierra Leone - “During this time the Veterinary Services in Sierra Leone have been properly established and a degree of control of animal disease never before existing has been developed on sound lines. The speedy and successful way in which two serious outbreaks of rinderpest were dealt with in 1950 and 1951 gave ample proof of the effective organisation built up under your directions and in the face of difficulties”.

As you will read, his service in the First World War was also of note, but, as I’ve indicated the main thrust of why he should be included is because he attained country level directorship.

In regards to footnotes, I am referring to my own footnotes created for his wiki entry. I am not citing footnotes in other work. Hughf2 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sierra Leone informing them of this AfD --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The heavy use of primary sources makes this original research. For example, the first three are archival records, and thus definitely OR. Then we have various lists and records, including a Wiki (Wiki's are informal and not reliable sources) that copies a War Diary from an archival source. I removed one irrelevant source but I see that there are others that do not support the content. And a whole section on his "personal life" is unreferenced. This is definitely not the place for this information, and I'm glad that the related Wiki that can carry his info exists. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lamona,

Thank you for review. References now applied to section, 'Personal Life'. Also, both references to the respective battalion war diaries are now linked to the official and original source held with the National Archives - the footnote link to Wiki now removed, but retained in the 'further reading' section. Hughf2 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[User:Hughf2|Hughf2]], I removed the notice that the section was unreferenced. Unfortunately that does not change the fact that most of the content here is original research based on primary sources. If you haven't done so, please read through WP:OR. For an article to pass must here you need secondary sources, as defined in that page. Lamona (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lamona, your guidance appreciated Hughf2 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further revisions to entry made to increase neutrality. Hughf2 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'New Entry' - Hello to everyone. Thank you for the very valuable insights and guidance to date. I have thoroughly revised the entry and kindly request your time and consideration to re-review it. Taking your comments into consideration, I have made significant improvements and updates, ensuring its accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia's standards - I hope. Thank you again for your support. Hughf2 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is still the problem of secondary sources. I see that the Journal of African Historical Studies mentions his work, and that is grand but is not enough for notability. The obituary would help if it is more than a paragraph or two, so if you have a copy of that it would be great to show it to us. I have tried to find the book you reference (From Mons to Messines and beyond) but it isn't searchable. We need to find substantial (not just naming or mentions) secondary sources about this person. Lamona (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lamona, I uploaded copies of 'From Mons..' and the obituary to flicker https://flic.kr/ps/3ZM81t The obituary is written in the Courier which may not be a UK national newspaper but is a Scottish country wide newspaper Hughf2 (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article has undergone a great deal of changes in the two weeks since it was nominated. Maybe a fresh look is called for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just noting for the benefit of the closer that I've found the changes and discussions since my !vote unpersuasive, and can confirm the The International Journal of African Historical Studies is indeed a passing mention. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid the reworking of the article has not allayed my original concerns regarding notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think then that the issue for consideration is simply this, does his appointment as countries director, holding executive responsibility for policy development and implementation in matters concerning the welfare and well-being of livestock (and indirectly impacting on the respective populations) make him noteworthy or not? In common with Necrothesp, I think that some individuals, due to the level of appointment attained, demonstrate inherent notability. My contention for Fulton’s noteworthiness primarily, is that he was promoted on merit to the highest executive veterinary appointment, that is country director for two countries - head of an nation wide organisation at a national level, (I draw to your attention the entry for Charles Heddle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Heddle for comparison). Of secondary importance was the acknowledgement by Patterson for Fulton's work with the rinderpest vaccine, and by the Colonial leadership of Fulton's work generally including disease control during his appointment. The other details, including his war service, is provided to give some depth and ‘colour’ for the individual. Thank you again for the valuable time you have spent on reviewing this entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughf2 (talk • contribs)

I'd agree, there is a similar lack of notability demonstrated in the Heddle article. (Possibly best resolved by a redirect to Heddle's Farm but that is a separate matter.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:44, 17 July 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 Chad international footballers. Moderate discussion with no strong delete opinions or keep opinions. Closing as Redirect. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Djikoloum[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. One appearance for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. Jogurney (talk) 16:21, 19 July 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. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've deleted this under WP:G5 and salted the title, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anne Barrington

ICM.com[edit]

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

Non-notable financial outfit. Most of the article is in bullet points, so doesn't have much to say. Sourcing confirms there isn't much to say, as nothing is found we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United Kingdom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 14 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monero Talk[edit]

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

Non-notable youtube/podcast thing. Nothing found for sourcing beyond where I can stream it. Very PROMO and sourcing is all primary. And crypto related. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Non-notable crypto Libertarian podcast, primary sources. I'm not too sure the host, Douglas Tuman, meets GNG either. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The author, @Aesuithiel apparently regularly creates articles about non-notable subjects which are promptly deleted after the move to main space. Douglas Tuman appears to fall into the same category as well. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated that article as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was declined by AfC, no improvements here does not meet GNG —siro χ o 21:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Non-notable crypto-podcast. Can't find any real RS on it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, podcasts are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but the article is based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-building coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing enough RS referencing to establish notability for the podcast or Tuman. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crypto stuff. Declined twice to AfC for not being notable, and then was copied and pasted(?) here. SWinxy (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sufficient coverage in independent sources, just like the page about Douglas Tuman. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:27, 21 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mmesoma Ejikeme[edit]

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

Per BLP1E Princess of Ara 20:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Education, and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A pretty definitive WP:BLP1E case. Her "fame" is a result of one minor event. Joyous! Noise! 20:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fits all 3 criteria of BLP1E, unless the event turns out to somehow become a significant event in some way. —siro χ o 22:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E as explained, she scored highly on an exam, but has done nothing outside of that mundane event that makes her notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination and above votes. This is a clear case of BLP1E. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 02:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:40, 21 July 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. czar 21:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Desjardins[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, bit parts and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with a significant role in Lost & Found (2016 American film) (wide release film) and Flower Shop Mysteries (series of tv films) —siro χ o 22:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello siroxo. Is there evidence that her role in Flower Shop Mysteries is significant? If so, I would agree that WP:NACTOR is met. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen them so no direct evidence. She apparently plays the daughter of the main character, which seems to be a plot element in the second movie at least. —siro χ o 05:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether the role sounds significant to you or not — it's a question of whether she has enough reliable source coverage about her and her performances to pass WP:GNG for them or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She's got the lead roles in several Hallmark and Lifetime films, that's indicative of a promising career ahead of her. Jaiquiero (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball, and the possibility of future notability is not an argument for notability today; see also WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a keep pursuant to WP:NACTOR needs to be backed up by reliable sources, particularly the supposed significance of her roles in the notable works. The role in Lost & Found (2016) is described here, and I'm not sure I'd call that significant. Other than that, I could not find any reliable coverage of her acting that would establish notability under WP:NACTOR. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation if and when she passes the criteria. The notability test for actors is not passed by having roles per se, because having roles is literally the job description — the notability test for actors is passed by the reception of third-party validation of the significance of her performances in those roles, such as notable award nominations (Emmy, Oscar, Canadian Screen Award, etc.) and/or sufficient reliable source coverage about her performances to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR with no significant third-party coverage. Heck, the article itself doesn't even have any content, let alone sources. Her filmography isn't really all that either with a few TV movies and 2-3 episode guest appearances in a small number of shows. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Seems to be a fan page. 128.252.154.3 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 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!} 23:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Golestaneh[edit]

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

Bringing this here for discussion as I have some concerns about the quality of references and whether there's enough for ANYBIO. The 2017 "win" (although sourcing says runner up) doesn't appear to be the Arnold, which has a stronger pull for anybio. This is not about the state of the article, which can be cleaned up if he is indeed notable. Star Mississippi 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Health and fitness, and Iran. Star Mississippi 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I edited this article for a Guild of Copy Editors. At the time, I looked closely at the sources used. I agree the case for notability seems thin but there truly are adequate sources to document notability. These sources are mostly Iranian publications and were, therefore, printed in Persian. There are several feature articles about him, including his competing and being an international judge. BTW, he did indeed place in two categories in the Arnold 2017: Men’s Physique Class F Over 182 cm (11th place) and 2017 Arnold Classic USA Men’s Model Search (6th place). Not significant wins IMO but it really doesn't matter because there are other sources that are feature articles to prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep examining the sources there appears to be enough for WP:BASIC (excluding interviews etc), but I am not positive as I'm both unfamiliar with the sources and reading through Google translate. I am unsure about ANYBIO re nom. —siro χ o 22:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - did a spot check on some of the Iranian references as well, I think probably has enough to indicate notability. - Indefensible (talk) 20:13, 15 July 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 Samantha Scarlette. although the target article has also been nominated for an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disintegration EP[edit]

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

Non-notable musical work, there are no reviews nor much of anything for this. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article survives this process, its title should be moved to Disintegration (Samantha Scarlette EP), as "EP" is not part of the album title and this article's creator may have been thwarted by Disintegration (The Cure album) and other stuff at the Disintegration disambig page. Also, the singer has two other album articles here -- Into the Darkness EP & Demos and Violent Delights + Violent Ends -- and I think they should all be redirected due to a shortage of reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samantha Scarlette. The article was created on the same day the album was released (yesterday), and it may be unfair to expect lots of pro reviews and other reliable media coverage just 24 hours later. It's in the usual streaming services and self-promotional sites, and that's all as of now. I could say "too soon" and someone else could say "give it time". However, this singer's previous albums are largely unknown as well (see above), so I don't expect anything different to happen for this one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:42, 15 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paychatìk[edit]

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

Another non-notable crypto thing. Even the sources used are flowery. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Nigeria. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. None of the sources in the article show any notability. Source assessment follows. - Aoidh (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://dailytimesng.com/top-10-bitcoin-wallets-for-all-cryptocurrencies-available-in-nigeria/	Churnalism, text can be found word-for-word here as well.	Reprinted PR	~	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/how-paychatik-name-tag-on-crypto-transactions-will-save-you-from-risks/	churnalism, made very obvious by the fact that the press release it's based off of is found word-for-word in other unrelated sites.	Reprinted PR		✘ No
https://www.thecable.ng/crypto-users-can-build-risk-free-portfolios-with-paychatik-tag-says-founder	Interview with founder, all information is a direct quote from them	?	~	✘ No
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2022/06/14/meet-indiscov-nigerian-content-creator-theoder-innocent-okechukwu/	Interview with founder	?	Trivial mention of this article's subject	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/05/akashirike-young-techpreneur-with-passion-for-excellence/	Interview with founder	?	Trivial mention of this article's subject	✘ No
https://dailytimesng.com/digital-currency-risks-how-paychatik-name-tag-on-crypto-transactions-can-save-you/	Churnalism; same text can be found here.	Based on PR		✘ No
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2022/03/28/theoder-innocent-named-among-top-10-nigerian-young-entrepreneurs/	?	?	Trivial mention of this article's subject	✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/inventions-will-tackle-cryptocurrency-challenges/	Churnalism, also found here.	Based off of PR		✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/08/how-paychatik-name-tag-on-crypto-transactions-will-save-you-from-risks/	Churnalism from the same source as Ref 6: here.	Based off PR		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/10/08/inflowpost-rebranded	PR copy about an unrelated business		Very trivial passing mention of this article's subject	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/nigerian-innovative-tech-news-website-inflowpost-rebranded/	As with Ref 10, this is PR about an unrelated business and looks to be from the same PR		Very trivial passing mention of this article's subject	✘ No
https://independent.ng/paychatik-introduces-nfc-to-users/	Churnalism; PR can also be found here	Based off PR		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The article's sources are all churnalism based off of PR. Moving from the sources in the article I could not find a single independent reliable source with significant coverage of the subject anywhere online; to meet WP:GNG articles must have multiple such sources, but this one does not even appear to have one, which is to say nothing of WP:NORG which is even stricter. - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the text was copied/adapted from Bundle Africa. — Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Aoidh's source assessment table appears accurate. —siro χ o 22:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Aoidh fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That is a very comprehensive and damming source analysis table. scope_creep^Talk 10:47, 21 July 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. Strong policy based reasonings for keeping the article. No delete opinions. Closing as keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judikay[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Nothing found that we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Judikay is one of Nigeria and Africa's top gospel artistes. Her second album received a Boomplay plaque after hitting over 50 million streams on Global Music Network. According to Wikipedia notability requirements namely: significant coverage, reliable, secondary sources etc, the individual is highly notable with lots of media coverage, works and even awards. If I may ask, what exact metric is your cause for concern as regards her notability? Also, what do you mean by "nothing to show" as regards her notability? I'll really love to know. I have also added more reliable sources and references to show notability. I hope this would suffice. Cheers!! Mevoelo (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Streams are not notable here and we have no reliable sources discussing this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume references can be made to streams to further show notability and if it is significant or a major achievement especially internationally. Top Wikipedia articles for musicians have made references in this light. I can give dozens of example if need be. The article has both primary and secondary sources as per Wiki guidelines. You can refer to WP:BAND. Also, I have added a few more reliable sources. I hope you check it out. Cheers! Mevoelo (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per creator and basic. Okoslavia (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequately sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has multiple cites to Nigerian newspapers, demonstrating she is a popular artist in Nigeria. Looks notable to me. Also, WP:BIAS is a relevant concern in cases like this. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. In addition, she is possibly meeting WP:MUSICBIO for Top 10 Gospel song and having been nominated and winning multiple awards. Hkkingg (talk) 08:18, 16 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Goel[edit]

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

Non-notable mid-level party functionary. No sources used in the article, none found either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suppose there was an issue with the WP:BEFORE search, because sources covering this individual were easily found through a Google search. I think the sources I added to the article very clearly establish the notability of Goel as an article subject; I'd suggest withdrawing the nom (WP:CLOSEAFD) to save some valuable AfD resources. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Oaktree b :) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed since it was nominated, perhaps the electoral commissioner is notable, but I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 8 sources from 6 different publications in the article, all of which provide detailed coverage of Goel's appointment and the subsequent Supreme Court case. On what basis is this individual not notable? Actualcpscm (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think the electoral commissioners meet WP:NPOL on its face, but I do think it highly likely that the 3 Election Commissioners of India are notable. There are only 3 of them and they appear to oversee elections in one of the most populous democracies. That being said, someone does need to expand and improve this article. The current sourcing may meet WP:GNG, but there isn't much actually written with the sources in the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, referencing looks sufficient. - Indefensible (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nom. It passes the WP:GNG as all the presented references in this article seems to be reliable and independent to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear failure of before. Okoslavia (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arun Goel holds the position of the Election Commissioner of India, which is a significant public office in the world's largest democracy. This makes him notable in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and government officials. Bash7oven (talk) 15:14, 20 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Live As It Gets Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable tour, few if any mentions of it found in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable tour that fails WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. Aspects (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable tour fails WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:47, 21 July 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. A separate discussion can be held regarding the article's title, but the consensus to keep is clear. ^Complex/_Rational 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esso Station[edit]

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

An article about a single gas station in Piggott, Arkansas, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which was torn down "sometime after 2013". It seems like a good addition to the article on the town, but I don't think it merits its own article.

Incidentally, even if the article is kept, "Esso Station" isn't a good title. There's a lot of Esso stations out there.

Ormewood (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general, things listed on the NRHP are considered notable by default and there exists at some coverage of it outside of just the NRHP filing. See Arkansas listings in the National Register of Historic Places, Latimer, Franklin Allen, Arkansas Historical Quarterly, Summ 2002, Vol. 61, Issue 2. It has several sentences of historical details and a pull photo of it, in particular Although not large in size, the Esso Station in Piggott is notable for its Colonial Revival style of architecture and its excellent state of preservation.. And being torn down doesn't really change anything since notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. For the name, there's no other full article with that base name. But changing this to a disambiguation page with links to this and other Esso stations that are under other names may make sense once this AFD is resolved (either boldly or through a WP:REQUESTEDMOVE.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Skynxnex, a future merge may work, but the article on the town is a bit of a hodgepodge and needs some organizatio, so I think for the moment a merge would not improve the state of the encyclopedia for readers seeking knowledge. —siro χ o 22:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with title change. Agree with Ormewood that the title is useless, but Skynxnex is right about NRHP subjects. Last1in (talk) 20:29, 16 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detelin Cheneshkov[edit]

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

Similar case to Darin Andonov in that it's another badly sourced BLP. According to the one source cited, he played 6 games at professional level but that alone isn't enough for notability, which requires WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Best Bulgarian sources found were Gong, a single passing mention, Borba, a match report mentioning him as a goalscorer, Darik News, a trivial mention, and Blitz, another trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. --Nk (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 14:01, 17 July 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 World Affairs Councils of America. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Affairs Council of Kentucky and Southern Indiana[edit]

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

Propose redirect to parent org World Affairs Councils of America. Fails to meet WP:ORG on its own. The only coverage is about the Council hosting events and panels, rather than WP:SIGCOV about the Council itself. Otherwise, it's a non-notable chapter of the WACA with ~100 chapters. Longhornsg (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Indiana, and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A WP:REDIRECT is proposed and this does not require a deletion discussion. Should we close this? ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Affairs Councils of America per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:49, 21 July 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. czar 21:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Gemunupura College[edit]

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

Similar case to Dharmaraja Vidyalaya and Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya. All of my searches in English and Sinhala (ඩෙල්ටා ගැමුණුපුර විද්‍යාලය) don't seem to yield any decent coverage for this to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG or at least one of those guidelines. All that seems to come up is the school's own Facebook account and basic database entries like Lanka Information, none of which confer any notability. Furthermore, the article was created by a problematic WP:SPA and spam account that has repeatedly tried to promote this school here. See User talk:Chathura prabhashwara 0. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in gnews. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delwin Fraser[edit]

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

Six appearances for the Guyana national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delroy Fraser[edit]

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

Three official appearances for the Guyana national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 15 July 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. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regressive Left[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neologism briefly popular among conservaive new atheists. No indication of encyclopedic relevance nor as an actual tendency within the left. Since it seems to have dropped off in usage by 2018 when all these guys started handwringing about "wokeness" instead I think it likely fails WP:10Y Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've sent a notification to every editor who worked on this article in 2023. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Simonm223, this AFD is not transcluded correctly to the day's AFD log (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7). So, a lot of editors, and all editors and admins who close discussions will not see it listed. Please correct this error if you want to get the participation of other editors in this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now, closers may wish to take into account time of listing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s very odd. I'm not sure how it happened. But I appreciate the assist. Simonm223 (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reason was case sensitivity (left vs Left), easy mistake to make, I'd probably do it all the time. I highly recommend Twinkle in order to not have to worry about these things, it really does make a lot of tasks much easier. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I completely forgot about the case sensitivity issue - have been inactive a while - but that makes sense. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maajid Nawaz. Although this term has a Wiktionary page which claims a slightly older origin[6], with the more specific meaning in the article, it's primarily associated with Nawaz and hasn't got beyond him and a small circle of New Atheist personalities he chums around with. Flash in the pan: as the OP says it seems to have died as a buzzword. A lot of Google hits are for the band of the same name, but I don't think they're notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be satisfied with Colapeninsula's suggestion if that is the broader consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the term has received enough coverage in notable sources to establish notability. Redirecting to Maajid Nawaz and detailing there is not a better solution than a standalone article, because while Nawaz coined the term, much of the substance of the article concerns usage of the term by others. Per the nomination, it's also worth noting the none of the prominent New Atheists are conservatives. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Thanks for your help with the AFD listing, Alpha3031.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fulfills WP:SIGCOV for stand-alone article. Loksmythe (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage. Thriley (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:SIGCOV test. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets our WP:WORDISSUBJECT policy Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 22 July 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kato Crews[edit]

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominee has been reported by committee. Establishes eligibility as a magistrate judge who was nominated to district court judge. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent". Magistrate judges don't fulfill that criteria on its own. Let'srun (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios.

MIAJudges (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the Pueblo Chieftain sources and those regarding Internet question stumbles, for me, satisfy GNG. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting notability, low level judge, sources are basically talking about the appointment. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily agree; if the content and sources were restricted to the nomination itself, I'd go for deletion or draftification. But several of the later sources focus on Crews's stumbles in a confirmation hearing; that then is about him as opposed to the nomination itself. These stumbles aren't routine; that's why people and media have seized upon them. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG Andre🚐 03:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain your policy-based rationale for this article meeting GNG? Let'srun (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources currently in the article demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG. Specifically, there is coverage of him in major national outlets such as Bloomberg and NBC. Marquardtika (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kato Crews is a notable figure in the American judiciary, serving as a United States magistrate judge and currently nominated to serve as a district judge, positions of considerable relevance and influence in the legal landscape of the United States. The page cites reliable secondary sources, like judiciary committee documents, press releases from senators, and reputable news outlets that detail his professional career and accomplishments, thereby establishing the subject's notability. Should be kept I think. Bash7oven (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current service as a federal magistrate judge meets WP:JUDGE. Valadius (talk) 03:02, 21 July 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!} 23:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Petramale[edit]

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

One appearance for the U.S. national team. Does not pass WP:GNG. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV during a WP:BEFORE check. Let'srun (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Softball, and Illinois. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's SIGCOV already in the article: see here. There should be more that exists, considering he was inducted into the 16-Inch Softball Hall of Fame, Illinois Soccer Hall of Fame, and played for the United States national team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In two hall of fames, played for US national team, both in pre internet era, clearly significant figure in Illinois sports, Article needs improvement not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG; minor sports figure with no SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the 300+ word biography I linked above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is the nature of the source. This "hall of fame" appears to be a volunteer organization that maintains a park and issues the awards; that doesn't make it a reliable source for purposes of determining notability. Ideally, a local news organization like the Chicago Tribune or Sun-Times would have covered this individual if he were notable (as they do for actually notable local Chicago sports figures). Jogurney (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @BeanieFan11 - Beanie, I found a quick mention here of him - https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/54204225/?terms=%22Petramale%22%20bobcats&match=1 KatoKungLee (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I had found a few brief mentions on Newspapers.com as well - I contacted the 16 Inch Softball Hall of Fame to see if they could find any more coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - BeanieFan11 - No joke, I was actually going to recommend trying that.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No hits in the LOC newspaper database, that goes to about 1963 [7]. Appears to be a purely local hero. Not much in the sources above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have attended a BBQ on July 4, 1961 at a friend's house [8], nothing at all found for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 16 July 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. czar 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DDamage[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND. UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even in the French article, it's not much of anything for sourcing. This is the best I can find and it doesn't help [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Molinari[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Doesn't cite any RS and couldn't find any myself. WPscatter ^t/_c 15:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. WPscatter ^t/_c 15:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google returns 42 hits. Only one of them looked like it could be relevant before I clicked it, but it was only a brief wrapper over a press release about the return of the Tester series, and only mentioned Molinari in passing. Largoplazo (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Play Station Network? Some mention of the show in Wired [10], but nothing I'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of Molinari or Tester at Play Station Network, so why? It would leave a reader in the dark. Largoplazo (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Capital[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable company per NCORP at all: just routine coverage and mostly primary data via Google, and no secondary sourcing apart from the one acquisition. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is trivial or inherited from the companies that the subject has acquired. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews only sends back PR items, nothing for the company otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 14 July 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 Allister. czar 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown to Nowhere[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and Illinois. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, the article fails WP:NALBUM. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allister: found no evidence of notability beyond limited coverage in article. The album isn't even listed on AllMusic despite them having reviews for three other albums by this band, and that can't be a good sign. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allister. Fails WP:NALBUM for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 21 July 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. With no delete opinions or !votes, the consensus falls to keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Santos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Philippines. UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He won Best Actor in the Star Awards, the Philippines' major award-giving body for television which is the equivalent of the US' Emmy Awards. That alone should merit a keep for Filipino actors. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep per Tito Pao's argument. I stumbled upon some news about part of his personal life and his near-death experience. SBKSPP (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG Last time was a no-consensus. I am nominating this article again for further discussion. The project is no longer active. References do not provide any significant independent coverage. Imcdc Contact 12:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Imcdc Contact 12:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find significant coverage of this project, fails WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found, sources in German are the only hits I get. The project does not appear in internet searches either, there appear to be streamers or social media users with this name. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 14 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amir shokrgozar[edit]

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

Non-notable bodybuilder. Had to search pretty far to even find any vague mentions of him (and they are all not reliable sites + passing mentions). I just don't see proof of his notability. ULPS (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources shown in article dont appear to be WP:SIGCOV. One is a link to what appears to be an online shop, one is a Wikipedia article in another language, and the other seems to be a passing mention with debatable reliability. I tried to find more sources myself, but as the nominator suggested, there are almost none. Definitely fails WP:GNG and isn’t notable enough for an article at this time. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject of the article doesn't have any achievements or sources that verify any achievements. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article itself does not have sufficient resources and I was not able to find any significant coverage on this person, neither in English nor in Persian. Obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. YRhyre (talk) 17:00, 18 July 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. The draft can then be re-evaluated depending on whether the election takes place. ^Complex/_Rational 13:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Democrats 66 leadership election[edit]

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

Delete or draftify, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Very little information is currently known about the selection process for Kaag's successor. The available information is mostly speculation. — Ætoms ^[talk] 13:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. — Ætoms ^[talk] 13:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all unlikely there won't be a leadership election at all. Luxorr (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know for a fact there is unlikely to be a leadership election? Giantsfann48 (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. I see no reason to delete. If there ends up being no election, then we'll go from there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. and Estar8806. WP:TOOSOON for now, but has definite potential for future expansion. Sal2100 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Agree this is WP:TOOSOON but it is likely there will be enough secondary sources about the topic to warrant an article in the future. User:Let'srun 22:00, 18 July 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 Mount Dandenong (Victoria). Daniel (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SkyHigh Mount Dandenong[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 16 years. No significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to have closed [11], unsure how that affects notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it means future coverage is unlikely. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wouldn't be sorry to see it deleted, however I have added a contemporary reference from The Age (which mentions among other things that SkyHigh used to employ 90 people). Spinifex&Sand (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Dandenong (Victoria), some of the content is about the summit area generally, I think this could all be covered together.Reywas92^Talk 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Miles Cheong[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. His only fame is for race-baiting engagement on Twitter and has no other impactful notability. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and Malaysia. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Not a fan, but there seem to be ample sources to support notability. Daily Dot, thetigernews, Newsweek, WaPo, Medium etc. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Newsweek media coverage is about PragerU Presenter Karlyn Borysenko. --2003:E0:F713:C000:10C1:F60F:F858:5F88 (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are RS's proving his existence, but none proving his notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is all about this event [12]. Nothing notable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fear what might come if news of this AFD discussion hits Reddit. But then, I was around for the Gamergate years. Glad that is history now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kiddin me? The German Wikipedia waved it through. Much more restrictive. A Dutch guy User:Kleuske helped me out and you think he is not notableFossa_?! 22:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Twitter guy with little media coverage, only two times in 2020. Not notability proved by this. --2003:E0:F713:C000:942C:2B13:F455:A0D9 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. Nothing significant and not unique enough to have its own article written. There are so many other similar Internet celebrity with such similar background. It fails WP:GNG. Chongkian (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:13, 21 July 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!} 06:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politics & War[edit]

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

This is a non-notable browser game that fails WP:GNG. The sole source here is its own non-independent website, and my BEFORE mainly found user-generated context which aren't reliable. This is almost an A7 but because the article is mainly about the game and not the website I don't think it unambiguously falls under web context, so am bringing it to AfD. VickKiang (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. VickKiang (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very clearly a non-notable browser game, I can't find any reliable source so fails WP:GNG. An edge case regarding A7: since it's a browser game it does fall under the category of web content, but the claim of 6.5k weekly users plausibly counts as a credible claim of significance. Either way, this should be deleted. WJ94 (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not demonstrate any evidence of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NO coverage at all for this game. Delete for lack of sourcing, PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article self-evidently lacks the sources to justify general notability. There is minor coverage providing more context to the game ([13][14][15]) but these fall short of establishing reliable or significant coverage. Vrxces (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a promo. Also, I left an Uw-coi alert on the author's Talk page. Deckkohl (talk) 13:47, 20 July 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. Once we discard the assertive votes and strange influx of new users there is a clear consensus we don't keep this content. I'll draftify at the request of any established user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Garnett[edit]

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Them not being inherently notable does not mean they aren't notable, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. You are trying to blanketly take down the pages of all nominees but there simply is no way a person can be nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. What you are trying to do goes against all Wikipedia precedent in this category.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She and fellow presidential district court nominee Karoline Mehalchick both women and both with professorships in their resume, with a Brooklyn Law School professorship in the resume of Margaret Garnett.

I want to add that in terms of her professorship, [Notability for Academic Professionals] should apply: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." All district court nominees are women with diverse backgrounds, and articles such as this one give insight for historians as to how President Biden selects judicial appointments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs)

Draftify: both keep votes above cite absolutely no reasoning based on policy. Currently the article has five sources, the first three [16] [17] [18] are not WP:SIGCOV, being passing mentions. [19] is not an independent secondary source, despite being a profile; the article subject works at Columbia. [20] is also not SIGCOV; the only mention of the subject is But the findings by Mr. O’Malley, who worked closely with a senior prosecutor, Margaret M. Garnett, would seem to raise serious questions about the convictions in Ms. Raymond’s killing because the Bronx prosecutor’s office relied on the same key witnesses and said the two murders were related. This doesn't mean that there won't be coverage or WP:JUDGE in the future; I expect there to be. As it stands, though, there's no basis in policy for this article to exist in mainspace. I'll note previous disputes over AfDs like this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright; if draftified or deleted, I'd recommend considering salting. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject will likely be notable in the future, but isn't now, not even according to Wikipedia's fairly low notability thresholds. Some of the above comments suggest that this is really a booster/fan page, an indication consistent with some of the content of article itself, especially that the NYT reference is not actually entitled Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people, but rather 5 Jailed in 95 Killing of Cabby Didnt Do It, U.S. Inquiry Says. 128.252.172.12 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I just saw the misattribution of the NYT article myself, which was done by -- big surprise -- MIAJudges, whom I am quite comfortable with asserting is acting in bad faith in trying to mislead the participants here. [21] Such sources as are here are press releases, primary or namedrops, none of which meet the GNG. No objection to draftification. Ravenswing 06:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can feel free to get quite uncomfortable with your assertion. I have made over 5,000 edits on Wikipedia & as I have said to you on multiple other deletion request, you need to stop with the mudslinging when somebody disagrees with your position. I called you out on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request & on the main AFD. I'm done responding to you because every time I do I believe more & more you r not acting in good faith & I really do not want to believe that about anybody on Wikipedia.

MIAJudges (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to do be your standard: kicking and flailing and doing everything but answer. You have consistently refused to state upon what explicit notability criteria on you base your judicial keeps. You have consistently refused to give any evidence whatsoever over your repeated charge that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted. You have consistently refused to address concerns over your admission that this is an alternate user account. And you have persistently refused to provide answers over your falsification of a source's headline in this article.
This is not "disagreement with your position." What is going on here is that you are engaging in dishonest behavior, and persistently displaying a "lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns," as WP:NOTHERE puts it. The only mudslinging here is coming from your keyboard -- understandable, when that's the only response you can make that doesn't incriminate you -- and any time you'd like to stop, that would be welcome. You want me to stop? Then answer the questions. Disclose to one of the admins in the ANI thread what your real account is, and how you're in compliance with the policy governing alternate accounts. Present the evidence that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted. Post links to the explicit criteria under which you're spamming your keep advocacy. Account for your falsification of that headline. Or admit that you really don't have a leg to stand on. Ravenswing 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My only account in 2023 on Wikipedia is MIAJudges. Same as last year, the year before that, the year before that & for years now. I am not engaging in dishonest behavior regardless of how many times you repeatedly type it on your keyboard. Stop obsessing over me. As I have told you for an EIGTH straight day now this is not about ME. I have given my opinion repeatedly now. You have now engaged in attacking me so many times on so many different pages, other users are calling you out on other threads. You have become unhinged to be honest. Rarely if at all in the past week have I seen you reply with just opinions on the subject. I am only responding to you now because I happen to be updating pages & ran across yet ANOTHER BS attack by you. Log off the computer, go outside & breath. Your obsession on this subject & myself is frankly getting sickening. I have really tried to assume you were acting in good faith over the past week but no more. Try keeping my name out of your mouth for a day. You have failed for the past 8 days so maybe the 9th time will be a charm.

MIAJudges (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I found multiple articles about her: [22][23][24][25]; the first is an interview & therefore lacks independence while the others are more focused on the departments she worked in than her. I think draftification until she is confirmed is the best option here. Hatman31 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepJoco179 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... would you care to proffer a policy-based rationale for that? Ravenswing 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A review of the news coverage involving Garnett, dating to long before her federal judicial nomination, shows meaningful coverage in her role as the New York City DOI commissioner -- a role in which she was appointed by the then-mayor and confirmed by the City Council. (I took this from the Global Newsstream database; others can use LexisNexis to confirm.) Garnett was involved in numerous controversies that were well-covered by national news media, so I don't think this AfD is a close call. I also don't believe draftification makes sense here, but I do feel that this article could stand to be improved meaningfully with more sources and citations from the news coverage of her work over the years (with references to controversies she was a part of). I'd like to see someone take a stab at improving the article. So I'd favor a good-faith perspective from all that involves Keeping the article while editors work to improve it. Just my $0.02. Jarvishunt (talk) 06:58 12 July 2023
Keep. Second everything Jarvishunt said - there seems to be enough coverage of her and her career in the NYT, Gothamist, etc. to satisfy notability. I'm pretty sure she passes WP:NPOL by being a local politician who received significant press coverage for both her time as commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation and Deputy USA, S.D.N.Y. SDNY is arguably one of, if not the most important/influential federal district court - it's not like she's a deputy for the District of Idaho, whose U.S. Attorney doesn't even have a page. Kalethan (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userfy Andre🚐 03:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...would you care to proffer a policy-based rationale for that? 73.209.8.138 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
basically per the comments by Actively Disinterested and Snickers2686, and NOTBURO Andre🚐 06:10, 16 July 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 Miss Nicaragua. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nicaragua 2022[edit]

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT due to a lack of reliable sources covering the event in-depth. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nicaragua. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nicaragua may be appropriate given that it was an actual instance of that —siro χ o 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of sources -NBC, MSN, Swiss Info, LaPrensani, Vostv, LaPrensani, Ipnicaragua, ElHeraldo, 20Minutos 100NoticiasKatoKungLee (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources exist but do not establish notability, but I've also seen so many other non-notable pageant winners so many there is some policy that pageant winners are auto-notable that I'm missing. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this appears to be an article about the pageant, not the pageant winner. Suriname0 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chamaemelum - "sources exist but do not establish notability" - What? Why would it have these sources if it wasn't notable? These aren't database entries. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I PRODded this before, but I guess we have to do it this way. Obviously I agree with the nomination. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Bri - Have you checked through the sources in the article between nominations? KatoKungLee (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you mean the sources added in this delta there aren't any. If you mean the sources subsequent to the AfD nom, I just had a look, I'd say they boost the notability of Norma Huembes more than the pageant. Maybe they should be merged to the bio article. In summary the pageant still looks nn from here, specifically to the requirements for source depth and sustained sources. A couple of mentions of the venue and (maybe) a list of contestants doesn't cut it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to maintain as a redirect (to Miss Nicaragua), with no prejudice against future expansion. Suriname0 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, a redirect would be perfectly fine. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:30, 14 July 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 Page move to Luzzi as proposed in the discussion.‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luzzi (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Delete; redundant to Luzzi (surname). J947 † ^edits 04:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. J947 † ^edits 04:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at this and it looks like the page is misplaced, it should just be at the base "Luzzi" title, because there's nothing to indicate that the town is the primary topic over the surname. I've moved the town article now and recommend that we close this by moving the disambiguation page to the base title. --Joy (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Wiki has the town at the base name, which is something, given that the Italian dab page has many more Luzzis. Srnec (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec I don't see much point in trying to infer anything from that, because wiki organization is arbitrary and subject to editorial discretion. Do you think the average English reader is actually better served by being short-circuited to the stub about the small town? I don't see why this would be the case. --Joy (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm not clear on what the proposed move is. Are you suggesting moving this page to Luzzi? Explain it to me like I'm a new editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Yes. As is, the page doesn't make sense. But if it's simply moved to be at Luzzi (replacing the redirect over there that isn't justified), then it does. --Joy (talk) 08:57, 17 July 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!} 07:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Bamrauli[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, or school/college databases. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found good sources, too. Deckkohl (talk) 17:21, 8 July 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!} 05:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it please. Only passing mentions on Google books. Okoslavia (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 14 July 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!} 06:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Arcs[edit]

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

The two reviews already present are the only reliable sources I can find for this album. If there were a couple more reviews or even coverage of singles then I could probably give this a pass, but at the moment I'm not even finding that and I think what little is here is cutting it too close. Perhaps more will come later in the year, but for now I don't think this is enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the article is only just barely not an orphan because of its listing at List of 2023 albums. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums does not list a minimum number of sources, but two valid reviews is sufficient for me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there isn't a set minimum of sources, in my experience most editors seem to go by WP:THREE as the rule of thumb. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has more reviews that other albums/songs/books I've seen in AfD. Willing to give it a pass with the two listed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the artist doesn't need to have an article first before any of his albums or songs get one? Americanfreedom (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required and I don't like doing biographies that much, so I didn't bother. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums says, "Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." Generally, editors take that to mean that even if the artist is notable and just doesn't have a page of their own, you can still make the album page. I think it'd be pretty silly if that weren't the case. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, well that's good to know! Thanks! Americanfreedom (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 14 July 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. I'm minded to discard the views of everyone here who personalised the discussion rather than focusing on policy and sourcing but regardless of that no one has challenged this is promotional and the consensus is clear. Whether we have another go at this is a different question but I'd advise anyone attempting that to start with the 3 best sources and write something based only on that. Then see what we have. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post Alley Pizza[edit]

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

A restaurant that only gets local coverage/reviews. Would need wider coverage as per WP:AUD to meet GNG or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator) as the topic has been covered by multiple independent and reliable sources. This is a continuation of restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily (my user talk page is littered with notifications for similar entries which have been kept following AfD discussions). Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional news sources as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator many times to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the WP:ADHOM comments, if this was a straightforward keep with reliable sources, you would have 100% keep votes...which is not the case. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every one of the many sources in the article is either a local review or mentions the subject as a passing example. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded significantly, if you're willing to take another look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not getting any notability 'vibe' here. Sparse history. Nothing about the decor or building or culture. All I'm seeing is elements of a menu, names of owners and local reviews of the type, "here's a great pizza". Looked at a few of these bars/eateries/restaurants nominated for deletion and normally find something to latch on to and see why a keep opinion is warranted. Not going to wade through all the sources. I'm evaluating the notability of the pizzeria from what's written in the article. Many bland, shallow, rote "reviews" do not make this place notable and it seems that this article has little else but such reviews to shore it up — witness the length of the Reception section compared with the rest of the article. Fails all notability criteria including GNG. Firstly, there's no credible claim as to why this place is notable. The only indication is that it "offers granulated garlic to shake on your slice". Secondly, the reviews appear not to fulfill the requirement of WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS and hence do not amount to significant, indepth coverage. If someone kindly points out the reviews with most depth, I'll take a second look. The onus on providing the evidence for notability rests with those seeking to keep the article. Rupples (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article with more operational history and demonstrated reach outside the Seattle area via Timothy Egan of The New York Times. Will continue to expand as time allows. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article passes the notability guidelines per WP:ORGIND. Sahaib (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think the current references pass the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS requirement above, most are just reviews. However, there are a lot of references on there, leading me to believe that cleanup could be possible. However, I am very much on the fence here, the references for the most part in the article now are not enough to provide notability. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An independent pizza joint is somehow notable? Nice that Seattle has such as vibrant media scene, but hyper-local media 'Five places to snack' pieces do not get us past WP:GNG, folks... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an independent pizzeria can be notable. To pass GNG, a topic just needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like Post Alley! Not all of the sources here are local. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, User:Another Believer has added several new sources to the article. Some are WP:LOCAL, such as each Seattle Times article, but there are some sources from outside of Seattle (two from Portland, one from the New York Times), and one from a not-sure-if-reputable pizza magazine (PMQ Pizza Magazine). Given the sources themselves, I am not sure if they meet WP:GNG given the content of the source articles. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one of the supposed fast-food joints as being notable. Coverage is just woeful again. I don't understand why the incessant need to put every eatery in for that city. I often wonder if its money or some kind of coi. Anyway, I suspect that in the months leading up to Christmas, more of them will be reaching Afd. scope_creep^Talk 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the vague COI accusations and threats to continue hounding me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a pattern of behavior, they made a similar comment to User:A. B. on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accel-KKR and received a warning against "casting aspersions" on their talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked this editor to leave me alone many times. The community seemingly doesn't really seem interested in punishing them for their problematic behaviors. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm holding off on !voting until I look deeper into the sourcing, but I have to say this article is extremely promotional. (No offense to the creator who has obviously worked hard on it.) I'm sure the pizza is great and the owners are good people, who like ~~tens~~ hundreds of thousands of small business owners do nice things for their community and donate to charitable causes. However I really wonder if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to have actual menu items and ordering options in an article like The menu has also included breakfast sandwiches made with English muffins; varieties include: B.E.C.; sausage; vegetarian; and one with bacon, cashew butter, roasted delicata squash, and honey. and Other ingredients for Italian sandwiches have included sesame hoagie rolls, finocchiona salami, spicy coppa, ham, provolone, red onion, and coleslaw. "Hoagie jazz”, an anchovy spread with calabrian chiles and garlic, has been served on the side. Dipping sauces include a homemade ranch and calabrian chili buffalo sauce. If it is kept I suggest removing all the advertorial content and it pruning it back to a short piece. Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss specific content on the article's talk page. I will say, though, that I've included similar menu overviews in the many (50+) restaurant entries I've promoted to Good article status. We can discuss any text you might find promotional but basic menu summaries are pretty standard for restaurant articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment on the article talk page. Netherzone (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look and I'd be happy to address your concerns but not until this discussion is closed (and assuming the article is kept). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:

@Another Believer, I'm unable to !vote k**p at this time because there is so much superfluous content and verbiage and an overabundance of hyper-local sourcing that it is hard to see the wood for the trees. I can't tell what is really there! If it were stripped back to a short stub article with about 3-to-5 of the very best sources that would help. I'm willing to devote the time and effort into doing so before this AfD closes but can't promise that it would result in a k**p. And I would not want my efforts to be perceived as destructive, deletionist or disruptive to the AfD or otherwise uncollegial. So at this time, I'm leaning towards TNT.

~~@Elemimele, I think you hit the nail on the head, not just in terms of this article but a larger issue regarding the lack of guidance/policy on restaurant articles.~~ Something that keeps coming up for me in relation to this is: Do we want articles on restaurants to be proper encyclopedia articles, or do we want them to be a compendium of restaurant reviews proving how fabulous the eatery is? My way of thinking is aligned with the former. Netherzone (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone I understand you have issues with specific text, but this is a discussion about secondary coverage. If you prefer, you can totally ignore the text of this Wikipedia entry and focus solely on the citations to determine whether or not you feel there's enough coverage to justify an entry on Wikipedia. I'm all for article improvements by you and other editors, especially this late in the stage of AfD. By all means, please make the entry better, but know unless you vote keep your time may be wasted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer, what are the 3 to 5 best sources?

Could you please list them here? Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TNT because the article is so, so overpromotional that even if it is notable, you'd have to start from scratch in writing it. But, Comment, we really need a proper consensus not just on this restaurant but on restaurants in general, about what makes them notable. The normal requirement of multiple independent sources breaks down totally with restaurants because writing reviews about food outlets is a major part of what every newspaper does. Every restaurant in the universe has newspaper writeups. Even national newspapers do it, and not necessarily of nationally relevant restaurants - they run out of significant restaurants to write about, and write about anywhere their journalist could find. It's almost impossible to be a restaurant without sources. Strewth, if you stand outside a railway station selling cookies for half an hour, someone will write a review about you. If we carry on with no guidelines, we're going to get more-or-less random keeps and deletes according to who happens to turn up at an AfD, and whether they reckon a heap of local newspaper raves and a celebrity-sighting is enough. What is it that makes a restaurant stand out from the crowd? I don't think granulated garlic (which this particular restaurant provides, uniquely in Seattle) is sufficient. Elemimele (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele As someone who's on the receiving end of a constant stream of deletion notifications about restaurants, I could not agree more about coming up with standards for restaurant entries. However, I completely disagree about all restaurants getting news coverage. The vast majority of restaurants do not get much coverage. But, I'll take back my comment if you can demonstrate the ease of getting someone to review your 1/2 hour bake sale. :P ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although many of the sources would only qualify as passing mentions (that do serve verifiability), the review by the SeattleMet is significant coverage meeting WP:SIRS. Multiple The Seattle Times sources also qualify as statewide and Pacific Northwest regional circulation, meeting the WP:AUD requirement, at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you've highlighted contributes as one source towards satisfying WP:SIRS. SIRS requires multiple such sources to establish notability and this is the only one that does. Hence, the article does not meet SIRS. Rupples (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this also counts and would allow further article development. This entry could benefit from a bit more detail about how the business has evolved based on ownership -- the pizzeria was established in 1997, yet Portland Monthly called the business a "star newcomer" in 2023 and one of the owners was recently called a "rising star". Combined with all of the talk page comments, it seems there's at least some interest in getting this entry to a more polished state. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:ORGIND as much of the content is quotes from the owner. There's not sufficient depth in what remains.Rupples (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Refined "source" states on their "About" page: "We would love to feature your business, interests, favorite restaurants, etc. on our Seattle Refined platforms. If you'd like to advertise or partner with us, please reach out to our sales team here. If you're interested in pitching us a story about something cool in the Pacific Northwest, please contact our editorial team at hello@seattlerefined.com." - This is the very definition of advertorial native advertising. It is not SIGCOV. It's paid "product" placement. Netherzone (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying but I'd be comfortable using this source for basic operational history details. You'll forgive me for moving on to other tasks. This never ending train of restaurant deletion nominations (I see LibStar just tagged yet another...) is really killing the enjoyment of contributing to Wikipedia. Constant pings, notifications, tags, one after the next, seemingly indiscriminately because most of the nominations have survived AfD. If editors decide to keep this entry, I'm happy to collaborate on the article's talk page, but this will be my last comment in this AfD discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is a relative concept. For example, many of the cited sources meet the WP:100W bar; this one, for example, tallies at 170 words; this one and this on each at 105 words. Do you have other criteria rather than word count to establish significant coverage? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'm using WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS as the guideline that establishes significant coverage for any one source. Rupples (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because otherwise this looks like another restaurant AFD closing as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Can anything be done to slow down the restaurant nominations? I am clearly being targeted: Rubinstein Bagels, Askatu Bakery, Volunteer Park Cafe & Pantry, Lockspot Cafe, etc. This is not sustainable and there has to be a better way to go about discussing notability of restaurants than indiscriminately nominating at AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, in my 18 months closing discussions at AFD, it's not unheard of for one editor to mass-nominate the work of another editor but it's usually done with new, inexperienced editors. And, with your articles, this has been going on for months. I doubt a word on a User talk page will change another editor's mind so I think your only alternative is to go to ANI. But I think this issue has already been brought to that noticeboard without a satisfying result or else it still wouldn't be happening. I'm sorry I don't have a quick, painless solution. There are a few admins who would boldly take action in a situation like this without community consensus but that's not my approach to this job. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A real case of WP:OWN. It's not targeting, I also have recently nominated Australian restaurants too. It's WP:ADHOM as well. How is this not sustainable? Any article created by anyone at any time and in any order can be nominated for deletion. If this had what you consider 100% notability it would have sailed through as a WP:SNOW keep. If you don't like articles being nominated for deletion, maybe you should create your own website of every restaurant/cafe that existed in the USA. There are options outside Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support the idea of holding off on further restaurant nominations and instead sorting out an RFC on what makes restaurants notable. We need to have some guidelines. There is no question that some restaurants are notable, and most are not, but if we're forced by multiple nominations in a short time-frame to make a lot of decisions with no consistent measuring-stick to use, we're going to end up with rubbish, inconsistent decisions. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have guidelines - WP:NCORP and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS (and WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and WP:ROUTINE for coverage). We don't need new guidelines just because there's several non-notable restaurants that have had articles created about them using "top 7 pizza restaurants in neighbourhood" articles. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, many proposals for specific notability guidelines fail to materialise. Asking to hold off nominating restaurants for a while is just a tactic to keep them without challenge. At the very basic level, we have GNG and the guidelines SportingFlyer has named. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly targeting me and unwilling to voluntarily back off even after I've asked you to leave me alone many times. Please stop or I will be seeking an interaction ban. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar. I'm pleased to see you've placed notability tags on two of the articles User:Another Believer highlighted above rather than going straight to AfD. I don't believe you are targetting a single editor, but are acting in good faith and basing nominations on proper grounds. However, if as an AfD nominator, you are aware, or should be aware, that the articles are written by/substantially contributed to by a single editor then it could be perceived as targetting if many such articles are put up for AfD over a short period of time. Rupples (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How am I targeting Another Believer if I've also recently nominated Australian restaurant articles with similar reasoning? Another Believer you are definitely displaying WP:OWN of articles you've created. Your comments do not deter me from nominating any article of any topic or created by any editor. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone and stop your WP:ADHOM. Stop acting if you own these articles. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for purpose of WP:TNT, this could potentially work as an article but as it stands right now, this article is a disaster. Tear it down and start over. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! If "this could potentially work as an article", then you should be voting keep. This is a discussion about notability, not the current state of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of TNT IS "could potentially work but is in such a dire state that the best solution is to wipe it and start over" TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting delete when "this could potentially work as an article" seems ridiculous and unfair to me. This article is not "hopelessly irreparable". Either this is an entry about a notable topic which could easily be trimmed and/or improved appropriately, or the topic is not notable. @TheInsatiableOne: Please consider changing your vote to keep if you believe an article could exist for this topic. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My vote remains unchanged. Delete for the purpose of TNT. " For pages that are beyond fixing, it may be better to start from scratch." TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer, but had to ask. I must say, though, the page is definitely not beyond repair. Editors could easily and quickly trim appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP's WP:AUD prong. It's just a local restaurant that hasn't received any specific coverage outside of generic local media restaurant reviews. If we have an article on this, every restaurant in every city with a food columnist would be notable, and that's not how we operate. SportingFlyer T·C 11:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder to the closer that NCORP is more restrictive than GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article creator as meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well sourced and improved page, meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's acceptable under Wikipedia policy for notability of restaurant articles to be established from local media dining out recommendations in "Best of listicles" and brief meal reviews, I ~~take it~~ can only conclude that WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS (which I've used as the guideline to assess sources for meeting the GNG here) might as well be redundant. Rupples (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) edited to clarify Rupples (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC) and again.Rupples (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for me, the salient piece of that guidance (which is by no means redundant, one assumes you are applying a degree of giddy levity to this comment) is "Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience)."... And the excellent source assessment below brings that very weakness to light. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~. I created a source analysis table for this article. I am not well-versed with such local restaurants and how they relate to WP:NCORP ~~hence the neutral !vote~~. So my assessment here will be mostly based on the standards set under WP:GNG and the general guidelines of WP:NCORP. Also, please feel free to update the "?" to either good or bad. Also, if I'm being harsh on the restaurant reviews, let me know. Conyo14 (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: I'd mark The Infatuation, The Stranger (an alternative weekly with a three decade run), and Seattle Refined as reliable, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise. Some of these are perhaps not ideal sources, but they are being used for commentary and operational history details, not for verifying contentious/controversial claims. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 7/18/2023 10:12AM PT

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/10/how-post-alley-came-to-make-some-of-the-best-pizza-in-seattle				✔ Yes
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/reviews/post-alley-pizza		? Official restaurant review site, I'm not as familiar with review sites	WP:ROUTINE	✘ No
https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/restaurants-m-s/			Brief mention among several restaurants	✘ No
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/travel/whatsdoing/wd980510.html			Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/seattle-s-best-pizza-from-thick-crust-to-thin			WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/as-seattle-restaurants-reopen-from-pandemic-mode-we-look-back-at-some-of-the-best-neighborhood-eats-you-should-revisit/			Brief mention	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-breakfast-sandwiches-in-seattle	Another restaurant reviewer	The publisher is Vox which is reliable, just unsure of the WP:LOCAL here	Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-sandwiches-seattle-summer		?	WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-lunch-downtown-seattle		?	WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.pmq.com/seattle-minimum-wage-law-challenges-small-restaurants-pizzerias/	Quote from owner is the only mention	?		✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/will-halloween-in-seattle-be-canceled-by-covid-19-not-exactly-but-heres-how-the-holiday-will-be-different/			Refers to owner and has nothing to do with Post Alley Pizza	✘ No
https://www.kuow.org/stories/as-the-pandemic-drags-on-restaurants-open-despite-uncertain-times			Refers to owner and has nothing to do with Post Alley Pizza	✘ No
https://seattlerefined.com/eat-drink/post-alley-pizza-claims-to-have-probably-the-best-slices-in-town	Site is an advertisement-zone (businesses ask the site to be featured)			✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2020/08/portland-restaurants-serve-fried-chicken-specials-in-memory-of-chef-cameron-addy.html			Brief mention	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/2021/6/22/22545827/bens-bread-plans-phinney-ridge-bakery-fall-2021		Local Vox Media source	Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/07/bens-bread-opening-phinney-ridge-seattle			Brief mention	✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/comfort-food-favorite-french-bread-pizza-is-back-and-the-one-you-make-can-be-the-best-ever/			? Brief mention, but might work better for the statement	? Unknown
https://www.thestranger.com/food-and-drink/2023/03/29/78922914/food-fighters			Owner's statements not regarding Post Pizza Alley	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/04/saint-bread-bakery-opens-on-portage-bay-seattle			Owner's statements not regarding Post Pizza Alley	✘ No
https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/best-bites/			WP:ROUTINE mention	✘ No
https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/10-seattle-bites-under-10/			Feels like an advertisement	✘ No
https://www.thestranger.com/food-and-drink/2018/01/26/25754930/pizza-pie-face-off-searching-for-the-best-slice-in-seattle			Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/4-great-spots-to-grab-a-scrumptious-breakfast-sandwich-in-the-seattle-area/			? In my opinion, it is WP:ROUTINE but uncertain	? Unknown
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/seattle-ten-dollar-meals-takeout	?	?	WP:ADVERTISEMENT	✘ No
https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-pizza-in-seattle		?	Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-pizza-places-seattle-restaurants			Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/pike-place-market-where-to-eat-seattle			Restaurant reviews	✘ No
https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/the-best-breakfast-sandwiches-in-seattle			Advertisements galore	✘ No
https://www.pdxmonthly.com/travel-and-outdoors/last-minute-spring-break-destinations			Brief mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete - based on the excellent source analysis table of Conyo14. It's a LOT of work to put that together so thank you, Conyo. I had asked above for 3-to-5 of the best sources, but I guess that got buried in the discussion. The source analysis clearly shows that this establishment is not Wiki-notable per WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NCORP at this time. I also wanted to let Another Believer know that their work creating 50+ restaurant Good articles is appreciated; you have done alot of excellent work for a long time bringing attention to many other restaurants that are Wiki-notable to our readers and the encyclopedia is better because of it. Any way you slice it, unfortunately this one doesn't make the cut. Another Believer, please see my comment above on why I don't consider Seattle Refined as a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I, too, appreciate the work that's been put into this table, but I do not agree with the assessment in its entirety. Also, several sources seem to be missing from the table and I'm not convinced the sources currently used in the article represent all available coverage. I've forgotten where I left off in my source search because I'm having to defend quite a few entries at the moment, but that's no one's problem but mine. I'll be requesting a restoration in the draft space if this article is deleted, so I can revisit expansion at a later date if needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother putting in newspaper clippings. That is very difficult to verify. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, we're just going to pretend some sources don't exist and present this as a complete assessment of all available coverage? Here's where I exit the discussion (again). This whole restaurant AfD fiasco has just become a predictable "game" of the same editors voting the same way over and over again in circles, perpetuated by a handful of editors who seem to enjoy spending a few seconds initiating drive-by deletion discussions. The hounding has felt relentless for months. Sure, a handful of entries have been "successfully" deleted but the vast majority have been kept. Yet, even after demonstrating many successful rescues, too often the "reward" for saving an entry at AfD is ... another AfD nomination by one of the same nominators. Not exactly my idea of a good time. I'll try to resume work here at a later date (in draft or main space), but I have other fish to fry right now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop taking this to heart man, everyone creates articles that make it to AfD. The source analysis table analyzes sources that are verifiable. Besides, I still enjoyed creating it :) Conyo14 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the source table to mark Seattle Refined as not independent and reliable. The Stranger is indeed reliable, but I'm still uncertain about The Infatuation Conyo14 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would take a look at whether https://seattle.eater.com/2021/6/22/22545827/bens-bread-plans-phinney-ridge-bakery-fall-2021 amounts to significant coverage as the article is about the "collaborating" partner Ben's Bread. There's only a one sentence mention of Post Alley - it tells us there is to be a collaboration but that's all. No further analysis. I did try and put in a 'dissenting' opinion but it keeps overwriting what's already there, so gave up. No obligation to change anything, just wanted to put forward my view. Thanks. Rupples (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think because the statement it's paired with is simply that two companies did some kind of collaboration. It only requires the brief mention, not something that's terribly in-depth. I didn't expect it to be changed to good though. Conyo14 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It changed after you put the table up. Flicked over automatically to "good" when the reliable 'box' was ticked. I've changed the wording. Also changed the first source to sig=yes as I'd previously assessed it so. Trust you're OK with this? Rupples (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah go for it! Conyo14 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, the first Seattle Metropolitan article is currently marked as not independent... because the author offers personal opinions? Journalists do this all the time, especially w/r/t restaurants, but that doesn't mean the source is problematic. Even Rupples said, "Surprised you hadn't made more use of it. That source counts towards notability IMO."

I don't understand why a few editors are trying so hard to delete this entry and others I've worked on. Multiple editors have shown an interest in content improvement on the talk page, and even one delete voter above said "this could potentially work as an article".---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's.not.personal. Please don't take it as such - certainly not from my POV and others I know from here who have voted at other AfDs. It's a number of people trying to apply (often to understand/finesse) guidance resulting from consensus, arrived at over years and a million wrangles. If you let it become personal, it'll just bend you out of shape and ruin your day. /end holier than thou/ Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking anything personal here (well, except for the hounding by a couple editors, which I'm actively addressing by building cases for ANI / interaction bans). I'm trying to point out inconsistencies and seek clarification. Seems there's a fairly even split of keep vs delete votes (more deletes, but a couple I take less seriously because of editor behavior issues and voting patterns which may or may not be apparent to other AfD participants and closing admins). I certainly don't base my self esteem on restaurant Wikipedia entries, but I will say these restaurant AfD deletions and discussions feel more like attempts to tear down, rather than constructive spaces for building and collaborating. The toxicity is maddening, and yet we just keep circling the drain instead of seeking a positive path forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your assertion the AfD nominations are an attempt to "tear down" anything or to "gut coverage of the restaurant industry" and I don't see bad faith nominations/hounding. The AfD merely questions and seeks opinion as to whether this article meets accepted notability guidelines. After evaluating the article and sources, I'm convinced this does not and hence my view is it should be deleted. That plainly and simply is it. By the way, "voting patterns" can operate just as much for keep as delete. Also, while !votes are an indicator of opinion, it's the strength of each side's argument in close keep/delete !voting that should determine an AfD's outcome. Rupples (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the process. As someone who's been on the receiving end of many unnecessary AfD nominations for many months now, I can assure you, there is hounding involved whether or not that's apparent to you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If hounding is involved there would be cause to override other considerations and !vote keep on principle. No way dismissing your concerns because you obviously feel this is the case. Not in a position to judge - would need to weigh-up other editors' opinions and review how previous claims of hounding were determined to see how the harassment policy is applied in practice. Rupples (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I might weigh in here, Another Believer has shown a tendency towards OWN, taking delete votes as personal attacks rather than impartial judgements. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, I very much welcome collaboration. I don't take delete votes personally, I take people following me around and nominating my work for deletion unnecessarily personally. Big difference. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be pointed at you in particular, but rather restaurant articles which can be a thorny issue in AfD. This is more likely an unfortunate coincidence than any sort of malice. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine if that's your assessment. I'll continue to share my own experiences and observations, since I've been on the receiving end of the hounding, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you welcome collaboration and you don't welcome reviews or critical critiques of your work. You seem to be happily building a directory of eating establishment which against all criteria for an encyclopeadia and as more times passes I'm more and more sure that your that have some kind of coi. I have zero faith that your trying to do the best for Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought. Last year when we did the doughnut stand Afd, I did an analysis of your articles and noticed that you have written an article on almost every eatery in Portand, Oregon, including the dead companies. Is everyone one of those, hundreds of articles, notable? scope_creep^Talk 16:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, can I please, please counsel a 'time out' here? 24 hours' break? At least a focus on the current AfD? The role of peace maker sits ill with me, so apologies if I'm doing this badly, but WP:ANI is an unkind place and I'd hate for this to end there. kthanksbi. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second above plea. Restrict comments to this article please. Rupples (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apologies in advance for being blunt, but this is the kind of article that risks making Wikipedia into a laughing stock. (Actually, the photograph with its caption "A slice of pizza, 2022" did indeed make me laugh out loud - thank you whoever put it there for cheering up my day, though I suspect that wasn't the intention.) It is about what is probably a very nice pizza restaurant, but there's nothing interesting or special about it - it is like any number of other pizza restaurants in any number of other towns; there is nothing notable about its location, its history, its founder, its menu - nothing at all - so the article consists entirely of run of the mill stuff, which is dwelled upon in painful detail - for example: Post Alley Pizza is a pizzeria in the back of a parking garage at the intersection of Post Avenue and Seneca Street in the Central Waterfront district, approximately three blocks south from the Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle. The interior features Phish posters. I think the only thing it doesn't tell me is the colour of the walls in the rest rooms. And then there is the "Reception" section - around half of the content, and nothing but gushing praise. Wikipedia is not a directory; there is no requirement - indeed, there is no wish - for an article on every venue to be included. Please, consign this to the bin. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've not really offered any sort of source assessment here, but I'm happy to address specific content concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rupples and Dorsetonian, and fails WP:GNG via the source analysis, fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. So, we need another two independent, reliable sources with significant coverage that will satisfy the article. I would change my vote if there is a secondary reliable source that states why this pizza place exists. I visited Seattle multiple times and heard no notability about this random local restaurant. Conyo14 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conyo14, I find 2 sources that are listed as WP:ROUTINE on the source analysis chart that I would change to a check mark as significant coverage:
- Seattle’s Best Pizza by Neighborhood: A decades-old slice shop tucked behind a parking garage recently acquired serious culinary bona fides—and new owners with connections to London Plane. Post Alley didn’t get fancier, exactly, but now local grains power a crust that could hold its own in the sort of restaurant with wine lists and a bread program...
- 4 great spots to grab a scrumptious breakfast sandwich in the Seattle area: Ruel and Andrew Gregory started turning pizza dough into sesame-seed-topped English muffins in late summer, selling them only Saturday mornings beginning at 10 a.m. The menu specifics change weekly, but there's always bacon and sausage plus a veg option or one of the muffins slathered simply with butter and cinnamon sugar... This source is unique in that it describes breakfast sandwiches, made with the restaurant's pizza dough.
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First Source: is WP:ROUTINE in context of the article. It lists off several pizza places per neighborhoods and is not WP:SIGCOV.

Second Source: The one you provided isn't the same as the source analysis nor the wiki article. Yours' I can't access. The one I hope you're referring to 4 great spots to grab a scrumptious breakfast sandwich in the Seattle area is a WP:ROUTINE mention in the source. Beyond that, does it really state to the validity of an article?
Conyo14 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First source: No, WP:ROUTINE refers to routine announcements and events, which is not the nature of the coverage in this source.

Second source: I provided a link to the The Seattle Times archive, which is available with a $1 temporary subscription, for the url I included above. Again, not an announcement or event that qualifies as WP:ROUTINE. You asked, "does it really state to the validity of an article?" Notability for organizations only relies on whether there are enough articles to meet the WP:SIRS requirement.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you advertising a subscription service when it's unnecessary? Almost every newspaper site has a way around that (disable JavaScript). Regardless though, even brief mentions do not count towards the sustainability, validity, and notability of an article. Gotta have WP:SIGCOV. Conyo14 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Good one. I'm afraid my coding skills are limited to FORTRAN , MAP and COBOL, which I learned for a summer internship in the mid-1960's. Rather than learn another programming language, I'd rather use my remaining brain cells to make apple crisp, so a $1 subscription now and then seems a reasonable way to achieve that goal. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another trick is to clear the cookies for that website in your browser preferences. ;-) Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, you can do better than this :) The first source you highlight, The Seattle Met can't be used twice to establish notability. If you click thru the link in the article, "recently acquired serious culinary bona fides", lo and behold one arrives at the first source in the source analysis table, already acknowledged as meeting GNG. The second amounts to a couple of sentences basically telling us about an addition to the menu followed by a recommendation to go there for a sausage sandwich and coffee. Granted, it supports content but does nothing to establish notability. Rupples (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree to disagree. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, @Grand'mere Eugene, these are not significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've resumed article improvements after avoiding the entry for two weeks. I've done some content restructuring, added more sources, included mention of another former owner, noted the dough recipe's use at a new restaurant, among other improvements. Apart from the couple editors who are clearly trying to disrupt my editing experience, I'm more than happy to collaborate with others on the talk page regarding specific content concerns, in order to make this entry more polished. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote remains unchanged, the sources do not reach WP:NCORP nor GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good! Didn't mean to suggest these edits would change any votes, was just offering a status update + an invite for talk page collaboration. Having given this a bit more thought on my gym break, I think I'll remove the construction template for now and just revisit things when this discussion has ended. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well sourced and improved page. There is no RS guideline which rejects local coverage. RS is RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:32, 22 July 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. After being relisted twice no significant discussion has taken place other than one keep !vote and the original nominator. I'm closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dais Records[edit]

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

Record labels are a business organization whose line of business just happens to deal with business; and that doesn't exempt from having to meet WP:NCORP. Does not satisfy CORPDEPTH, ORGIND. Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bands are a business organization whose line of business just happens to deal with business, too; that doesn't preclude from having alternate means of establishing notability, and there's no reason to ignore the expertise of those interested in music when deciding on the encyclopedic value of a record label. This one has a substantial roster of noteworthy acts, which suggests importance in the sense used at WP:MUSIC, and in addition to the Fact article already cited in the page, they have received quite a bit of notice in press outlets - [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Chubbles (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we have WP:NBAND for bands record labels are not classified as such. There has been several discussions and general consensus is that record labels are evaluated as WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those conversations have been terribly robust, and there were several discussions at WP:MUSIC about adding explicit criteria for labels, as well. In any case, there is no logical reason why bands should be exempted from WP:NCORP if labels aren't, as well; bands and musical ensembles are most certainly groups of more than one person formed together for a purpose, and indeed, for a commercial purpose in almost all cases. Chubbles (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on CORP vs MUSIC. Seems to me the criteria rests on NCORP Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_38#RfC:_Notability_criteria_for_record_label Graywalls (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 14 July 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. Any other decision at this point in the discussion would involve with me basing the closure on my own opinion which is permitted. So, no consensus it is and it might be suitable to have another AFD after a suitable period of time has passed (weeks or months, not days). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Gromyko[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited; not notable in herself but only as the spouse of a notable person. All sources are minor or in passing, so WP:BIOFAMILY. Merger with Andrei Gromyko might be suitable. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Russia. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Громыко, Лидия Дмитриевна was deleted in March 2020. Absolutely nothing remarkable in the biography. She played no role in the political life of the USSR. --Khinkali (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First, the relevant rule. WP:BIOFAMILY consists of the following two sentences: Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. (My emphasis.) In other words, the fact of being related to a notable person has neither a positive nor a negative effect, and likewise the fact that a person received coverage only because of their relationship to another person also does not detract from the value of such sources. Moving on: I can't evaluate any Russian sources (although they seem numerous), but even in the Western press she attracted sufficient coverage to support a basic article. This 1959 Der Spiegel piece has brief but nontrivial detail, as do the numerous stories around her being selected to escort Nancy Reagan around Leningrad four decades later. Moreover, despite her deliberately low profile, she was sometimes noted for her own diplomatic activity, whether advocating for a limited test ban treaty in the 1960s or warning Nelson Rockefeller about Cuba in 1943. On the whole, this is a bit of an awkward one as, at least in the Western press, Gromyko was mostly noted for not being very noticeable -- but at any rate she was noted for it, quite widely and over many decades. A merge to Andrei Gromyko wouldn't be the worst thing, but having an article about two different people is always going to be a bit awkward and doesn't work well with things like categories. Given that she meets the standard criterion of article-worthiness I am inclined to think that the articles should be kept separate. -- Visviva (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally a merge, but there's nothing really to merge - everything that you would merge is already in her husband's article in some form. Almost all of the sources in the article are on him, not her, and is not enough to support GNG/a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrei Gromyko. There are multiple sources about the Nancy Reagan incident, but that was typical "what message is Russia sending?" cold war speculation. Being able to cobble together biographical details isn't enough to support a stand-alone article for a person who was only given any attention at all because of her spouse. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soviet Union asking for opinions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:32, 17 July 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. Closing per Liz's comment during the last relist. No further discussion has taken place and there is no clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Executive[edit]

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

Relatively minor group of villains from Comics. Can't find any notable sources, and the group is basically covered by Technet's article. (And that article's notability is already debateable.) I propose merging with Technet for the time being. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 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. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage in Moore bios: -
On top of the sources already in the article that's a lot more notable than a good chunk of the Marvel pollution even before looking at Amazing Heroes, Wizard (at least one of AM's interviews in Wizard fingers the SE as the reason he got pissed with Marvel), Speakeasy etc (I'm hip-deep in Fleetway so not sure when I'll be able to look at that). I'd say Keep or at worst merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/beep-the-meep-and-9-other-classic-doctor-who-comic-characters-that-could-appear-in-the-tv-series/ We Got This Covered clickbait listicle, but shows up on GNews BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: more Lance Parkin stuff, including quotes about creation by Moore taken from things not on Google - https://comicsforum.org/2012/09/05/doctor-who-and-the-genesis-of-alan-moore-by-lance-parkin/ BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions on CBR and Comicon: -

-https://www.cbr.com/jaspers-warp-alan-moore-x-men/

-https://www.comicon.com/2023/03/18/art-from-arts-sake-200-a-celebration-of-the-daredevils-at-40/

-https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/5-alan-moore-comics-ready-for-the-watchmen-treatment/

While not in-depth, that they can be mentioned by so many notable sources suggests they're worth a page.

-https://lanceparkin.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/alan-moore-interview-part-iii-scary-dog-sun-dodgers-rob-liefeld-urinals/ - another AM interview with a nugget of information in it.

The in-depth stuff and tying it together is surely what Wikipedia's here for. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft that fails WP:GNG. Lacks reliable secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (edited) Lacks reliable secondary sources to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say here I'm a little interested in finding out why the sources listed both in the article and here aren't reliable, or at least enough to argue for a merge. There's a worrying trend on Wikipedia for subjecting articles on fiction to a different standard to many others (random villages, obscure one-off aircraft, unremarkable sporting seasons etc), including a rising use of "fancruft" as a drive-by pejorative. Not saying that's what happens here, but some conversation about
- a) how Tor, two Alan Moore biographies, Modern Masters and Bleeding Cool aren't reliable secondary sources
- and b) what's "fancrufty" about the article and how that could be improved
would very much be appreciated to ensure further effort on fictional articles doesn't go to waste.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:42, an article needs significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. It is incredibly common for editors to throw a reliable source into an AfD simply because it has a sentence or two mentioning the subject and then call it proof of notability.

Saying that one-off aircraft or random villages are subjected to a different standard is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pop culture stuff simply gets more attention because the material has more fans. Very few people have likely visited *random village in the middle of nowhere*.

"Fancruft" is another way of saying "this article is entirely or almost entirely plot". Non-fancrufty articles minimize the plot elements and maximize the characters' reception and importance in the real world, if any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One example of a lack of SIGCOV is looking at the Tor article. Tor offers significant coverage of the specific "Black Sun Rising" comic, but not the Special Executive themselves. Does this suggest perhaps some things might be split from Doctor Who Magazine? Perhaps, but we're talking about the actual comic here. Characters from the comic are different and not discussed in great detail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, typing while typing. So a potential answer would be to merge to List of Doctor Who comic stories, rather than outright delete as you and @Shooterwalker have advocated. Or to do an article on "Black Sun Rising" and mention the SE in it, which seems ridiculously counter-intuitive and counter to any other media coverage on Wikipedia. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that could be a possible ATD. Problem is there is no proof that the comics themselves are notable, and Doctor Who Magazine is written in such a fannish way that it's hard to figure out anything concrete. But if you could prove that the original comic or comics was actually standalone notable, it would be a viable target for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to find a consensus, I would accept a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the Tor source and Modern Masters are both quite in-depth and not a sentence or two, same with the Lance Parkin books. Even counting the Parkin books as one, that's three in-depth reliable sources, and just from what can be looked up on Google. Again, a merge as minimum seems tenable, though the article could be reinforced with the aforementioned sources to be standalone by most standards.

With respect, OtherStuffExists is another thing that seems to be lapsing into overuse and a dismissive term to excuse the fact that poor-quality, low-notability articles have been left to fester on Wikipedia for years and yet it's only when people try to improve them AfDs and the like tend to be triggered. Saying "yeah a load of Wikipedia is shit but this less shit bit needs to be deleted *now*!!!!" seems like an unhelpful position to take. That's the sort of attitude that led the Special Executive article sitting there for 13 years tagged for various source reasons and all but unsourced, but then when someone comes in and puts some work into addressing that it gets caught up in someone's mass prod and people who haven't given a fig about the subject before suddenly have strong opinions. No offense to anyone, but that policy seems absurd when applied to this case. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it can be down to shifting consensus where previously articles that might have been assumed to simply need editing and expansion are now realized to be unsalvageable. So, while it seems like the article may have been unacceptable for all of those 13 years, it may have just been thought of as in need of a bit of extra work before. Per WP:ARTICLEAGE, consensus can shift. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact that people don't want to sift through mountains of fannish content to find the bad stuff. Maybe they aren't interested in nominating the particular articles themselves, or are active somewhere else, but when it comes up for a vote, they will still follow policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So... now that the article has been moved towards acceptability it's the time to call it as unsalvageable? Again, both that and the haste to outright delete the article strike me as the wrong way of doing things, and very off-putting to anyone looking to contribute to Wikipedia going forward. What's the point in adding sources or other content to extant articles if it's just going to get arbitrarily deleted whenever someone goes on a tagging rampage? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its the editor's job to decide whether the article is likely to be deleted. If it's got very solid sourcing, then it will probably withstand the so-called "tagging rampage." The sources are all listed there for everyone to see. If its sourcing isn't solid, checking for WP:SIGCOV should probably be a first priority before adding a great deal of content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so do all the research no-one else has bothered with *first* and then just write it off and don't bother because someone might quibble about it some random point down the line? Again, that seems obstructive to the ongoing good of the project, potentially intimidating to any new editors or anyone who decides to improve past procedural negligence and, frankly, laziness (IIRC I either found the page through the list of clean-up required comic articles or found the Jaspers' Warp page on the same list and followed to Special Executive, I forget the order as it's not important; therefore that no-one else bothered to do anything about it either way for multiple years, despite having ample opportunity to do so). Some areas of Wikipedia seem desperately short of enthusiastic, knowledgeable editors and it would be a shame if a dogmatic approach where recent edits are held to a higher set of standards than older ones contributed to that.

Modern Masters is solid, but naturally doesn't come up fully searchable on Google (and nor should it as profit margins for that sort of thing must be wafer-thin). Same goes for the Moore biogs; all come up on Google Books, which is one of the things editors are suggested to use to find sources. The sources are, IMHO, robust enough to pass and probably shouldn't have been tagged as AfD so rashly without some sort of intermediate discussion on a talk page or via notability tags. Again, where was this rush to delete the article a year ago when it was shit, and had been tagged as shit for some time? That someone didn't bother to check it for decades or didn't care enough to take it to AfD then strikes me as a flawed explanation, however many principles can be used to excuse it.

Pokelego's spate of tagging crashed the AfD software, and was possibly bad faith as there's little sign of BEFORE being done for many of the articles, and no sign of adding anything to the discussion beyond the nominations. His/her/their behaviour means I'm going to lose too much sleep describing it as a "rampage", if I'm honest. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to refer to WP:SOURCESEXIST in this case. People can claim sources are "out there" until they're blue in the face, but if they are unable to prove it when an AfD nomination comes up, then it's not notable. Could they be in print somewhere, as you stated? Perhaps, but whoever made the article didn't bother to look for them. There's no rule that says articles can't get a do-over as a draft if sources are later found. Right now, the demonstrated sources don't seem to show notability for the characters. The spate of nominations was disruptive but not provably done in bad faith as for the most part the nominated articles indeed appear to be minor and trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a pass for sources when rewriting it and what I found on the first pass seemed to justify the article, what with massively improving it over the version tagged with maintenance tags everyone ignored for a decade-plus because they "didn't bother" to do anything about it either way. At the time there seemed no need to dig into print archives any further than had already been done. That someone would declare them unsatisfactory having taken no previous interest in the article was not something factored in at the time; I apologise profusely for not anticipating that by editing the article and attempting to improve it I was actively moving it towards deletion, and for not having my entire physical archive in one location.

IIRC, I updated the article with materials I had found when working on Captain Britain, hence the focus on that side of things. Having gleaned what I could from that material and moved on to other projects, returning Marvel UK-related material to storage in favour of other stuff. Again, seeing as the largely unsourced article had sat tagged and unchallenged for 15 years and I merely added further sources to it, an objection 10 weeks later by someone who'd never cared before was not something I anticipated.

FWIW, @Pokelego999 is having access problems; he/she/they have posted to my talk page User talk:BoomboxTestarossa#Response to the current discussion in Special Executive's AfD on the subject. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This and some other AfD pages may need an extra week for discussion. A massive spike in nominations just prior to the 4th of July holiday has taxed both the human and machine parts of this proccess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today_is_semi-broken

Rjjiii (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - recent improvements by BoomboxTestarossa show the potential for this topic, but if consensus is against keeping then a merge seems more reasonable than deletion. Not sure where exactly it would be merged if necessary, but they are mentioned the most at Jaspers' Warp so that is a possibility. BOZ (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as those advocating Keep are open to Merging but there are two different Merge targets suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since this is still missing any reception/analysis despite claimed improvements, and I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV in sources above that goes beyond some plot summary. Feel free to ping me if I missed some good source and I'll reconsider my vote, but right now this still looks like WP:FANCRUFT with plot summary and little else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Since there was a bit of improvement but still no reception/analysis, I'd also say merge for the 'publication history' (to Doctor Who Magazine I guess). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a Moore biography as another source.Rjjiii (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added another source after looking through this discussion. Rjjiii (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added another source, 1980s dual interview with Alan Moore and Chris Claremont. Rjjiii (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On page 68, Parkin (2001) gives this info which could be worked into the publication history: To coincide with the arrival of the Special Executive in Captain Britain, their first appearance in the Time Lord strips were reprinted, slightly edited to downplay the link to Doctor Who, in The Daredevils issues 5-7 (May-July 1983). Issue 5 also has a text page from Moore re-introducing his creations. Also, BoomboxTestarossa, you suggested Parkin above and I've had a chance to track down and add those two bios to the sources. Do you have any other suggestions for print sources? Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not specifically enough to cite in the next few weeks; I have read an interview where either Moore or Davis discussed a little about the group in relation to the former's fallout with Marvel UK, including the unusual British copyright law that allowed Moore to retain ownership of them, and him quitting Doctor Who strips in support of Steve (no relation) Moore. However, whether than was in Speakeasy, Modern Masters, Kimota, Amazing Heroes or even Wizard I am afraid I can't recall, and I do not have those materials to hand and probably won't until possibly August. I really should have nailed more down when I was working on the Miracleman pages as the sources overlap, but sadly didn't think it was a priority at the time, for which I apologise.
- In case it's lost in the debate, one of the links is a Lance Parkin interview (https://comicsforum.org/2012/09/05/doctor-who-and-the-genesis-of-alan-moore-by-lance-parkin/) that's actually fairly well cited even if the website itself seems to not necessarily be notable.
- The Daredevils #5 might well be worth a look; while a Marvel title a mixture of British culture and the magnificent Bernie Jaye meant the magazine's text features were often very candid (it ran an essay where Moore picked apart Stan Lee), though whether the SE page covered that I can't remember. I have the complete run but again my next storage run is a while off.
I feel there is the potential to move the article away from being all plot due to the group's short but catfight-filled history; there's the pre-professional creation; the being jammed into a Doctor Who strip for one of the medium's most famous and acclaimed writers earliest professional gigs; the first of many, many of said writer's spats with a publisher; the Captain Britain appearances; and Alan Davis reconfiguring the group as the Technet around Moore's ownership (not to mention Moore belatedly selling the characters, though I believe it's unclear if this happened in 1994 or 2001). With the right sources that's got to be a paragraph or so of non-plot content. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize for that; even if you're outvoted isn't there an option to temporarily move the page to draft or user space for improvements? I've worked in the references that I could find and will un-watch this page, but feel free to ((ping)) me anytime. Rjjiii (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm thinking a cookie-cutter merge (with maybe a little compression; I remember not liking the "Unconfirmed members" bit at the time but didn't feel confident enough to gut it, while the list of members itself could probably be converted into a paragraph) to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations with a redirect might be a fair compromise in the meantime, assuming that once an AfD is filed we're locked into a hard decision. My objection is largely to the idea of flat delete; FWIW as noted above, the nominator didn't even mean to put the article forward for outright deletion. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing any consensus here so the options are to close this discussion as No consensus or give this discussion another week. Another admin is free to close this early if you can see a consensus here which I've missed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 14 July 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 Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series)#Characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Ho Kelly[edit]

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

Many of the sources used are unreliable (IMDB) or primary, which does not prove the character's notability. A quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove notability either. Spinixster (chat!) 01:51, 14 July 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 Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawaii_Five-O_(1968_TV_series)#Characters. Plot summary, nothing to suggest GNG is met. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:PLOT without WP:SIGCOV in third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KJCN-LP[edit]

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

Defunct LPTV; no sources; fails WP:GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list... I can't find SIGCOV in papers, mostly incidental mentions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KCCE-LP[edit]

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

Defunct LPTV; no sources; fails WP:GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:41, 14 July 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 Doctor Who villains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borusa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite being a decently recurring character and notable antagonist in the classic era of the show, I just can't find any good sources referencing Borusa outside of passing mention. I feel it's possible for him to keep his article, but he needs additional sources that I just don't think exist. As of right now, he doesn't meet SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 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 Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's an attempt at secondary coverage here, so I think this should have the opportunity to be built up or at least merged elsewhere. U-Mos (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of Doctor Who characters. I don't see the attempt at secondary coverage User:U-Mos notes - no reception or analysis section, just plot summary all the way through (backstory, appearances...). Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per Piotrus. I also don't see enough WP:SIGCOV to write a meaningful reception/analysis section. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, List of Doctor Who characters can't be a redirect target as it is a redirect. Another suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who villains (maybe that's what people meant?) The work done on the article is impressive but from the sources I am able to access I would have to agree that they do not clear the WP:SIGCOV threshold that no original research is needed to extract the content. I would say mentions in plot summaries that are then strung into a story of the character are in, or at any rate uncomfortably near, OR territory. -- Visviva (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of Doctor Who villains is a reasonable redirect target. The target can also be revisited through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Girls Inter College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/C.D.Girls Inter College

Articles for deletion/C.D. Girls Inter College (2nd nomination)

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

Since the last AfD we are a lot stricter on school notability. Only primary sources provided, no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/C.D.Girls_Inter_College. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no sources cited on the page, which in and of itself would yield a delete vote. When considering the prior AfD from 2016, that was before the 2017 RfC where WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES switched from assuming notability for post-secondary education to assuming not notability. If sources showing notability are found, I would be happy to change my vote.

Editchecker123 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the small amount of referenced content to Rura#Education, where there seems to be plenty of room. Agree that there is nothing here to support a full article; disagree that this content is so unencyclopedic that it should be cast out entirely. -- Visviva (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to suggest Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is not really much to merge. I guess maybe the pictures? - Indefensible (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hate to leave even a sentence of referenced encyclopedic information behind, but I would have no substantial objection to a redirect-without-merging. -- Visviva (talk) 04:05, 16 July 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. This is a messy situation and I'm probably going to get yelled at for closing this as a non-admin, however, the nominator is now on the keep side of the field and there seems to be a larger majority that wish to keep the article than redirect the article. Since redirection is not a deletion, I feel that the discussion for redirection can be taken up on the talk page or another avenue. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polly (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

While she is a companion, and a classic series one at that, Polly's article, alongside Ben's, rely excessively on primary sources, and I can't find any sources for her, either. Given that she is a companion, there may be bits and pieces of reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if it's enough to warrant a full article. Worst comes to worst, she should be merged with Ben's article, or merged into the Companions article. As it stands right now, she doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 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 Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character with some sources, and ample potential for more from DVD features/interviews. Improve, but don't delete. U-Mos (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Keep Notable companion side character should stand in line with WP:WAF, makes sense to keep. Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We were over this, if I recall, with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Potts. You seem to be living in some weird alternate universe where WP:ALLORNOTHING is a legitimate deletion argument, at least in regard to TV characters. Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely different case, given Doctor Who companions are a well-defined subset of Doctor Who characters. They even have their own category! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a completely different case. You’re literally making the exact same argument. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all my years editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever noticed any edict making you the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate and which are not. Care to point me in its direction? If it doesn't exist, I'll stick to my original comment, if it's all the same with you. This is, after all, an AfD, where editors are free to make whatever comment they wish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is acting like “the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate” here except you. Multiple editors have shot down this argument at three of at least four instances of your use of it (here, AfD linked above, and Vislor Turlough) Dronebogus (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While editors are free to make the arguments they wish to make, the arguments are expected to correspond to accepted policy. Repeated arguments that ignore the general consensus can reach the level of WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no accepted consensus on this particular issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Now that secondary sources have been found after all, why not incorporate this into your argumentation as suggested by the neutral party, Liz, here? Daranios (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Now meets W:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As usual, it all comes down to, do available sources, in the article or found in current investigations, establish GNG for this article subject? For good or ill, notability that Keeps an article doesn't lie in the eye of the beholder but in the coverage that can be tracked down about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring her exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail. Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail Well, there is at least Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations, p. 104-110. So I guess it's always better to search for oneself rather than simply speculate. @Pokelego999: Incidentally, that's right the first hit for me when I do the Google Scholar search. Now I wonder if there are more such sources out there... Daranios (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). No evidence of notability shown in the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: As the current state of the article is not the decisive factor, what about the sources found outside the article? Daranios (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the decisive factor for deletion at least. I'm not suggesting deletion however, nor do I think this was necessarily a matter to bring to AfD. If the section can be expanded to a sufficient amount, with good enough sources, it can easily be split off again and I have no prejudice towards doing that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note that a redirect is not a merge. Are you suggesting a specific Polly section at Companion (Doctor Who), where no other companion is covered in that way? U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason no to for companions that are provably covered somewhere.

I still think the article in its current state is largely plot, so there is not that much point in a merge, but creating a section on her at the target is not out of the question. The article needs significant cleanup and reorganization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Zero sigcov. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, because Polly is a notable character after all: Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, p. 9, 13-17, is a another secondary source discussing the character. Together with the one mentioned above and multiple secondary sources with shorter mentions of Polly, that's enough to fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar if somewhat shorter analysis: Doctor Who: A British Alien?, p. 65. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Can you comment on how those sources meet SIGCOV? I think I see it in Ruminations... but I am having trouble finding it in Women... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Women in Dr. Who, p. 9 as a group "female teenagers whose main job appears to be screaining for rescue", in need of babysitting, "disposable companions all playing the same role". P. 13-16 specific: "girl-in-distress", "Polly was the it girl, played by a popular actress", "more conventionally pretty…", relationship with Ben "evoking male fantasy of...", "very much the embodiment of the then-contemporary 1960's...", "refreshingly authentic" for the time, "upbeat", brings in emotion "as the traditional companion's role", another paragraph about the actress' intentions for the character, "good-bye to her is traditionally gender-coded...", contrasted as stronger "damsel" compared to past ages. Daranios (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sources found by Daranios likely amount to SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are divided between those arguing for a Redirection and those stating enough coverage exists to Keep. But there isn't a lot of policy-based argument on either side and stating "I highly doubt that any sources exist" translates to "I didn't look for sources". But that's okay, participants aren't obliged to look for sources but it's not a strong argument to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. I seem to have missed several of these secondary sources during my search, and I now agree with the consensus that coverage for Polly exists. As a result, it seems she definitely is passing GNG/SIGCOV. Not sure if that means anything this late in the game, but I felt that I may as well leave my thoughts regarding the discussion here. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character with coverage and reliable sources. Companion is a major role in the series.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Many sources exist and she has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Ben's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:14, 17 July 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!} 06:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023 Tel Aviv attack[edit]

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

Arguably fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. This article is about your average attack during the Israel-Palestine conflict and, aside from some coverage updating the victim count, doesn't look to be significant from a NOTNEWS standpoint. Also, the death toll of two isn't much either. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Sadly a mundane Israel-Palestine conflict occurrence. Not discernably notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID also meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE [31],[32],[33] --Shrike (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets both the WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, as detailed above, and does not violate WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, notable and violent events in West Asia and elsewhere keep coming. The experience for Israel is that books and news media keep getting back to such events. gidonb (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have major long term consequences. The only coverage is news coverage, not sustained secondary coverage. As such, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of interesting news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough news coverage that it WP:GNG is met (beyond WP:NOTNEWS). ParadaJulio (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTNEWS would apply here if it were a "routine" car ramming or coverage was limited to the local police blotter; this one received WP:SIGCOV in international media like the BBC, France 24, CNN, Reuters, and more WP:RS, clearly qualifying it under WP:GNG. The event also received news coverage after the event. Longhornsg (talk) 04:55, 19 July 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 rought consensus among editors that sources existing in the aritlcle and recently added are sufficient to establish notability that warrants an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Hollaren[edit]

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

American business executive and government official, not notable as a businessperson (failing WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON) and not elected to any office (failing WP:NPOL). Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Oregon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. He was the Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Deputy Assistant to President George W. Bush, and Chief External Affairs Officer of a multi-billion dollar company. Was Nike's senior vice president of government and public affairs. Was senior vice president of global government relations for Honeywell and director of tax and environment for Union Pacific Corp. Between these and his government positions, there are multiple secondary independent sources with non-trival coverage.
Chamaemelum (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to persons' significant contributions both in public service and the private sector. His roles as Commissioner at the Port of Portland, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, and key contributor to the creation of significant institutions like the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security (after 9/11 attacks) demonstrate his notable public service. He also serves as a trustee at Willamette University and as the chairman of the Board of Directors of the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry, with extensive media coverage of his roles in these positions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets several of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which helps ensure it. The person has significant coverage (a Commissioner at the Port of Portland, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs etc). The information provided in the article is derived from reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people include the clause that an individual may be notable if they've held a high-ranking position within a notable organization or corporation. O'Hollaren's roles as Vice President at Honeywell and Senior Vice President at Nike, Inc., as well as his current position as CEO at Albemarle, meet this criterion. --Loewstisch (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep !votes aside, none of which has addressed the actual sourcing, the article currently fails WP:GNG with only the Politico birthday article possibly counting. Everything else isn't secondary or independent. Article also reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaning towards Keep. The subject is quite notable (WP:GNG) with significant roles in both the public sector and private industry. Additional credibility comes from additional sources like books and Congress reports (which I've just added), as well as the biggest global identifier systems (e.g., VIAF ID, ISNI, FAST ID, Library of Congress authority ID where O'Hollaren is presented). To address concerns of resembling a CV, certain content has to be revised and removed. Despite SportingFlyer's critique of the sources, Politico's biography details, government records, authoritative mentions in the international press (e.g. Xinhua) and reports from the organizations he has been part of may be considered reliable sources. Bash7oven (talk) 15:48, 20 July 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!} 08:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Development Bank[edit]

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

The page does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's policies on significant coverage, neutral point of view, and reliable sources for companies. The majority of the references primarily consist of announcements and press releases that include statements from the institution's own officials. These press releases are typically published on platforms that are predominantly owned or influenced by the Government of UAE, which, in turn, holds ownership of the Emirates Development Bank. Our focus on Wikipedia is not to create a biased or favorable portrayal of the UAE but rather to present an objective and unbiased perspective. Regrettably, achieving this goal is often challenging when relying solely on domestic media sources. However, I am open to retracting the nomination if the article undergoes improvements in accordance with the guidelines specified in The Heymann Standard. RPSkokie (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. RPSkokie (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a >30 billion dirham bank and a major funder for UAE national development and private sector development initiatives - the presumption that it is not notable is frankly ridiculous. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard link cited in the nomination does not link to consensus to deprecate these media as sources, BTW. And, finally, deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how absurd a nomination may seem to you, it is important to maintain politeness. The best way you can contribute is by either updating the page or conducting a thorough analysis of the sources, which can help generate a consensus. Also the deletion is not cleanup; I agree. Twice the page has been draftified for incubation, but each time it has been moved back to the main space without any significant modifications. This is a cause for concern. RPSkokie (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the largest bank in terms of assets in the Middle East, owner and administered by the government of UAE.(Starling2022 (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article needs plenty of work and clean-up, the bank has received plenty of coverage from both Middle Eastern sources and Western sources (see, for example, Reuters). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- clearly notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.d. Here's another. Although one feels vaguely silly applying WP:NCORP to a major governmental agency, I don't think there's any real question that the requirement of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is met. -- Visviva (talk) 04:50, 16 July 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!} 00:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Imafidon[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Gsearch is straight to social media; article also details his arrest/criminal charges, which seem to have more information than the rest of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and believe he is already notable and with the publication by Penguin of That Peckham Boy next week he will receive extensive coverage and be even more notable.

He co-founded and leads a respected and financially successful think tank.

He is a published author

He is notable, as far as the major UK news outlets are concerned for his life story and the way he overcame prejudice and a potential lengthy jail sentence.

His charitable work is substantial, including BBC Children in Need, which is very much a 'great and good' organisation.

He met the Queen - OK I'm not that convinced by that one but many people are. Jimmy Wales big fan of Royal Family.

He is already a significant black voice in society with regular interviews on the mainstream media and is likely to become an even more significant figure as his work continues.

His 'Gsearch' is just like most Think Tanks - books are so 20th century I am afraid. most of their work is for clients and does not make it into public print except in brief headlines from time to time.

YellowFratello (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no published sources about him, the article can't be kept. We need proof of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is not a published source? YellowFratello (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt - I have done more research and added references from The BBC, The Independent Newspaper and The UK Daily Mirror. I hope these will answer any questions of Notability.

YellowFratello (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources. It seems he's notable on more than one count - for the charitable work, which now has independent sources to verify, and also potentially for being the first person to sit and pass A Levels in prison (less coverage but more is possibly findable on this). I think the page should passes GNG and should be kept.Zeromonk (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose remove deletion template as concerns addresses by a group of editors working on page.YellowFratello (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NBASIC. Significant coverage can be found in The Independent, The Evening Standard, Time Out, The Mirror, & The Bookseller. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think we have agreement will remove template.YellowFratello (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources added since the nomination show that the subject meets WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Design Magazine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has a severe lack of independent coverage needed to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERIODICAL. --My Pants Metal (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and potentially add a sentence or so if appropriate into Harvard Graduate School of Design but substantially trim down useless cruft Graywalls (talk). Changing ! vote as substantial public relations editing has been detected in article space. 23:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at Talk:Harvard Graduate School of Design#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Design Magazine asking for comments at this AfD and noting the possibility that the magazine article might best be merged into the grad school article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should also be judged against WP:NJOURNALS (an essay but widely used). Perhaps someone who follows WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals and understands journals will weigh in here. My own search finds lot of articles out there that reference this magazine.

I'll also note that from another AfD, I've learned design people love to write about each other in countless reliable sources. (None are magazines you'll see at a hardware store or a Wal-Mart.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A JSTOR search turns up 23 books or journals that cite this magazine. There are none about the magazine.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Scholar search shows many articles in this publication that are each cited dozens of times. I got as far as the 30th page of results (that's 300 articles cited) and stopped -- there were still more search result pages to go.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJOURNAL is only an essay and given that as far as I can tell, its not linked from notability guideline pages, so I don't believe it's even a widely vetted essay. WP:NBOOK SNG specifically says magazines are excluded. So I believe magazine falls into NCORP or GNG. I am not sure how to interpret the citation quantity result. I remember someone doing a comparative analysis against books/journals of similar types and see if it was extraordinary. WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't really an argument. That essay is linked from several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Graywalls (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This journal is indexed in Scopus and MIAR.^[1] Hence, it meets WP:NJOURNALS guidelines. However, it can definitely use some cleanup. Nanosci (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Harvard Design Magazine". MIAR: Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals. University of Barcelona. Retrieved 8 July 2024.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its Index inclusions show that it is both notable and well known. Established in the late 20th century, the magazine, from a major college, has both history and continuous publication continuity. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Horrible article needing a ton of work, but indexing in Scopus (from 2009 to 2019, from 2021 to 2022) meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the inclusion in selective indices and coverage of its offshoots (e.g., [34][35][36]), I think there's enough to justify a page. Regarding the conversation above, Google Scholar is a search engine specialized for finding academic papers (though its standards for what to include are somewhat loose). GS showing that a person or a publication is widely cited will generally be more informative than an ordinary Google search returning a lot of hits, which is pretty much meaningless. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 18 July 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 traffic collisions (2000–present)#2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Galicia bus crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. The crash received a brief spike of coverage at the time but neither the sources in the article nor a search for other coverage finds any indication that it had lasting notability. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should stay as the accident happened in a country that normally does not get mass casualty incidents like this and when they do should be documented as such
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not have the massive societal ramifications or long-term retrospective coverage necessary to meet WP:NEVENTS. Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively and without prejudice) into List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2022. Yet another case of bizarre fragmentation! The topic may be notable or not. The answer DOES NOT MATTER as, regardless of the answer, this is an improper WP:SPINOFF from its parent that has just the listing and one short sentence on the accident and could use ALL OF THE SOURCES! gidonb (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have continuing coverage through at least March 2023 in national as well as local media. The investigation is apparently still ongoing. It's not clear to me that there is persistent coverage, but it's also not entirely clear that there isn't, or won't be. That said, I don't see any compelling reason not to merge. -- Visviva (talk) 03:19, 16 July 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. Closing a second time after XFDCloser couldn't handle an article move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Athletic Association Football Conference[edit]

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

The information in this article is already included in the Colonial Athletic Association article and has been for over a decade. The consensus of previous discussions was not to separate the articles, making this article unnecessary as it is a new article created in May 2023 that is merely a duplicate of information already available on the main article that was created in March 2004.Superman7515 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colonial Athletic Association

Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 03:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Football, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colonial Athletic Association per previous discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: CAA and CAA Football are separate entities similar to the Missouri Valley Conference and Missouri Valley Football Conference and the ASUN Conference/Western Athletic Conference and United Athletic Conference. In addition, there is enough additional information about the CAA Football League that would warrant its own article. The information has been removed from the Colonial Athletic Association article and moved to this article to shorted the length of the other article. Shl13132 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (EST)
Redirect per above. No reason or need to split this off. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Upon further review I agree with User:Shl13132. See the CAA's official announcement (7/20/23) that "The name change will carry over to the league’s football conference, which will be officially recognized as the Coastal Athletic Association Football Conference but continue to be referred to as the CAA Football Conference." SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment/Question Is this basically similar to the Missouri Valley Conference/Missouri Valley Football Conference situation?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the same situation. It was also similar to the Southland Conference and the Southland Bowling League before the bowling league was absorbed by Conference USA. They are run by the same administration/use the same branding but are different entities. Shl13132 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per discussion above. It would be a misnomer to merge two separate entites.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similarly named but distinct entities. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as they are distinct entities. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 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.