< July 22	July 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Boogie[edit]

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

Non-notable work by a non-notable artist Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable music work, no charting singles, no critical notice, no reviews, no sales records. Nothing for GNG or NMsuic. Oaktree b (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't appear to be the subject of any substantial coverage. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When the band has no article that is an indication that they are non-notable, and if that's true then so are their albums. This one received no pro reviews or any other reliable coverage that I can find, and it's only visible in the usual retail and streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:52, 28 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!} 23:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff[edit]

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

Non-notable author. a large number of references provided (or at least, formatted as references) but as far as I can tell they are all either self-published or contain only trivial mentions of the article subject. The excessive amount of inane personal biographical information seems designed to cover the basic fact that this author is non-notable. Jdcooper (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing found for the author, not very much of anything found. Sources used are orange or red, or not registering for reliability. Rather extensive PROMO it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most reviews are about her Star Wars works, from Fantha. Screen Rant has a name drop, but that's about it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 9-time Pegasus Award nominee, 3-time winner - http://www.ovff.org/pegasus/groups/bohnhoffs.html. But yes, needs some serious WP:PROMO cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, yes, the article needs a major cleanup to remove all the promo language. But along with winning the Pegasus Award three times, Bohnhoff has been a finalist for both the Sidewise Award and the British Science Fiction Award along with publishing novels with major publishers and a large number of stories in magazines such as Analog, Interzone, and other places. In addition, I've found reviews of their work in Science Fiction Chronicle, Dragon Magazine, a starred review in Library Journal (linked here), and multiple reviews in Publishers Weekly (see links 1, 2, and 3) and Kirkus Reviews (see 1, 2, and 3). All of that shows that Bohnhoff meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, per WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews identified by SouthernNights. pburka (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews and other critical attention identified in this discussion; the Internet Speculative Fiction Database also shows, e.g. for The Meri, a review in Locus; same for Taminy; 2nd place Analog Award for Shaman; 2 reviews for The Spirit Gate. Beccaynr (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified. Always open to rewrite for improving articles but keep in mind if a reasonable source published details, then that is the level of mention in Wikipedia, not arbitrary decisions in Wikipedia culture of what to include (i say culture vs policies because individuals may decide what they personally want to include but policy is another matter.) Smkolins (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the votes above, as the author clearly has some notable accomplishments and pro reviews. But clean up severely, TNT even, because the personal trivia and fan/self-cruft are downright ridiculous. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources provided, this just meets WP:AUTHOR User:Let'srun 21:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:15, 28 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. An interested editor can create a redirect from this page title to a target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time Force[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This was created by a blocked UPE. The coverage is either routine or related to brand ambassadors. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Mercenf (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Power Rangers Time Force Americanfreedom (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfreedom:Are you recommending a "keep" or a "redirect"? They aren't the same thing. Joyous! Noise! 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the title, redirect the page to Power Rangers: Time Force Americanfreedom (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this we usually just say "redirect". "Keep" usually implies keeping the content/history of the article rather than just the title. Redirecting implies keeping the title (how else would it redirect). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of references are there.. they have some of the biggest ad campaigns for watches out there.. Most articles need 5-10 sources .. vandalism comment. Has tagged team the entire set of pages in editing war.. Both are from upwork.. He nominated 2 pages and didnt even leave the required notifications on the talk pages. This is vandalism. This user has over 5m views on his pages.. All articles are well referenced before they were attacked. 135.148.233.69 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have sufficient referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "sufficient referencing" you should to be able to point to at least two specific references which meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Please provide me with links to any two references (and the paragraphs within those references) which meet WP:SIRS - that is, have in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND) about the company. It would be nice if you started including this information with your future AfD !voting. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Indefensible and others. Okoslavia (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think some of the points brought up by the others are... interesting, to say the least. I think I shall have to take the time to review this one as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that Okoslavia is making pile-on votes. I believe their rationale mean nothing when they say "Keep per Indefensible and others", because Indefensible hasn't demonstrated that the references are sufficient, and others have been blocked for being sockpuppets of ScienceAdvisor (the creator of this article). Mercenf (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep: I know the brand, has known track record in different countries, and I dare say I now consider it is better. I do not agree that they want to eliminate it. Besides, everything is rightly referenced. Kathe Moreno M (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Kathe Moreno M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 14:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep: I know for a fact this is an actual brand I have bought items from them in the past, actually they have social media, and website. Everything is well referenced Javiro04 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Javiro04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete reference [3] and [4] are just sites selling the watches. Ref [5] is about the opening of one branch. Ref [6] is about a photograph competition that mentions the brand in passing. Three of the references are about some famous people who are brand ambassadors which isn't anything out of the ordinary (for famous people I mean). Two of the references are a potted history of the brand. I've had a (very) brief look for any more references and can't find anything other than sales sites. Someone else might be able to come up with more refs.Knitsey (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ScienceAdvisor seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of our notability guidelines, and doesn't see likely to be convinced otherwise, for all that's now mostly a moot point. Having big ad campaigns is, in fact, not a reason to retain an article on Wikipedia. From my review (though TWL is still not working for me on my laptop for some reason) I would agree with the assessment made in a previous AfD on another subject, that it is very unlikely that better sources could be found on this topic. Sock disruption aside, a topic for which there is no and can be no encyclopedic article written to standards is deleted, with prejudice. The redirect may be restored after deletion, but I do not believe the article should be kept in page history. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Knitsey above that the sources fails to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, the references used fails to contain sufficient in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Power Rangers Time Force: Fails GNG and NCORP. Plausible enough redirect, delete to prevent confusion from an article being redirected to a totally unrelated topic. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:18, 23 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!} 23:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Time Force seems ok Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for lack of a merge target. I won't clog up the discussion with my search findings since I don't believe they are germane to the outcome. But I will say that my searching leaves me at the same time convinced that this is a brand of some encyclopedic significance, for which sources meeting NCORP might well exist, and that no such sources are apparent at present. (I would note that searching Colombian and Spanish sources yields better results, including some that might meet the GNG, but I'm not seeing any that go the full CORPDEPTH.) And given the history of the article, I can see no reason to extend any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. I do not think there should be any particular prejudice against good faith re-creation, but the redirect proposed above seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 00:30, 25 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!} 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edesio Alejandro[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMG. Only one reference to a source of questionable reliability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article may need a copyedit but does indicate notability. Seems to meet both WP:BASIC/GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Bit of a BEFORE shows a ton of English language stuff. Allmusic prose biography with a credited author is promising per WP:ALLMUSIC [7]. Some sigcov in books eg [8] Credited composer on several notable films including some festival awards and tons of niminations. Given native language, Spanish language sources will likely provide more. —siro χ o 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I haven't done a full search yet but as well as the AllMusic bio there is also a staff review of one of his albums here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has had a Grammy nomination as shown here which meets criteria 8 of WP:NMUSIC and means we really should be covering him. Looking for sources there are many articles in Cuban news. There is significant coverage here from Radio Enciclopedia, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 30 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. The amount of bad faith and argument by assertion is deeply disappointing and we are back into schoolnotability territory where it's impossible to make a policy based consensus because one side isn't arguing from a policy position but have a clear super majority. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable (notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization) ElKevbo (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts article was added to the Oregon State University main article several years ago, along with articles on the Colleges of Engineering, Business, and Science. The goal has been to provide articles for all of OSU's colleges over time, just as many other universities do on Wikipedia. Each of these articles has been growing with the additions from multiple writers - especially the Liberal Arts College article. Inside the article's talk page you will note that there have been no recent discussions about issues from anyone - although old and resolved issues still remain. Elkebvo placed, what I feel is a random and unnecessary, Request for Deletion (7/8/23) on this article due to the subject not being "notable". I, of course, couldn't disagree more and question how it is even possible to consider a major public university's college not "notable". There has been zero correspondence leading up to this notification and no history of abuse with this article. I am dumbfounded by the argument as a whole since hundreds of universities on Wikipedia have an article for their college of liberal arts, college of arts and letters and college of arts and sciences. Why is OSU's CLA article being singled out? Not a single sentence is duplicated on the parent article.

From the "Not Notable" Wikipedia page:

"avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics" Are these "really" indiscriminate topics?

Schools
History
Academics
Student awards
Budget cuts
Expansion
Notable alumni
Notable faculty

The whole "presumed" and "trivial" question is subjective, to say in the least. We could have the same debate over every single page on Wikipedia, which brings me back to why is this article being singled out with no precedential communication from Elkevbo or other Wikipedia editors. As I remember, all issues have been addressed up until this very random notification for this article. I am not the only writer for this article, but I am a regular contributor. Everything on this page is sourced and are well-known historical facts. If Wikipedia readers believed a source was not accurate, they would have provided a "Talk" comment over the last +2 years so it could be debated or addressed. I see no history of that.

One of the issues we all have when writing an article about a university college is finding secondary sources. Mostly, because mainstream news rarely provides in-depth historical information about individual colleges within universities. In addition, many of the NP archives are paywalled. Does that make individual colleges less "notable?" Of course not, it does however make it more difficult to find secondary sources. I will admit that ALL university college pages are universally low on secondary sources. In most cases, the secondary sources used in the majority of these articles was a rewrite from a college press release. Is that really bad or make it "not notable"? Again, no. College press releases are routinely used as reliable information by all outlets and should be considered a highly reliable source of information by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludviggy (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ludviggy Keep(talk)

A "keep" argument would probably be most convincing to other editors if you could provide - here or in the article - reliable sources that clearly and explicitly discuss this college in sufficient detail to establish that it's independently notable. Sources that are independent of the college would probably be more convincing to many editors. ElKevbo (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is well written and well sourced., PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources don't discuss the subject of the article - that is what WP:N requires. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a lot of material to merge back into the parent article. Will the other colleges such as Oregon State University College of Business be merged back as well upon review? There is a lot of WP:PRIMARY references but might be worth keeping or at least draftifying. - Indefensible (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not merge most of the material back into the parent article; much of it is unnecessarily detailed.

My initial sense is that several of the other colleges meet WP:GNG as there are multiple, independent sources that explicitly discuss them. That's just not the case for this particular one (in my experience, colleges of art, science, or both typically don't have the same cohesion of mission and identity as other colleges that focus on a specific, cohesive discipline or set of closely related disciplines - that also means that many of them have not been the subject of focused inquiry and documentation hence they're often not independently notable). We should not expect all subunits of a notable organization, including many universities, to themselves be notable. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other 3 colleges do not have articles that are really any better in my opinion, it would either have to be all or none. If only this article gets deleted then it might be unfair discrimination against liberal arts. However merging all of that content from the 4 articles back into the parent article would be unwieldy, so I would probably just leave them and try cleaning them up at this point. - Indefensible (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other articles that should also be nominated for deletion that they should be nominated, too. "Wikipedia editors have written a long article using sources that are about other, related subjects" is not a good reason to keep an article. It's unfortunate that volunteers spent time on an article that could or should be deleted but that isn't a reason to keep that article.

The notion of Wikipedia editors practicing "unfair discrimination against liberal arts" is silly. Other colleges tend to attract specific, focused attention in part because many programs outside of arts and sciences are programmatically accredited and that tends to attract media attention every _ years when accreditation is reviewed. Professional licensure rates - engineers, teachers, nurses, etc. - also tend to attract attention and generate focused media articles. Agricultural schools often have long histories tied to land grant acts, federal law, and state laws so they also tend to attract some focused attention (for example, at my current university, the "Master of the Grange" - the state's leading farmer - is an ex officio member of our board of trustees). ElKevbo (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should nominate the other colleges at OSU for deletion on the same grounds then in my opinion, I feel uncomfortable on principle voting to delete this when there would be a discrepancy in comparison with the other articles. Currently it seems like this article for the liberal arts has more coverage over the others, I do not see why it should be deleted and the others not. But frankly I would still just leave them, primary sources in some cases are valid and might be good enough. - Indefensible (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a reasonable split from the main article, even if not strictly required. If the split was truly done too early, propose a merge on the Oregon State University talk page so editors focused on that article can evaluate in-depth instead of in a rushed AFD. In other words, it would be disruptive for the quality of the main article for this AFD to result in a merge. There are no major NPOV violations here, and the vast majority is verifiable, so, with respect to the nom, "unnecessarily detailed" does not seem like a reason for deletion. —siro χ o 23:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it reasonable to split this information into a new article when only one source - a 3-page summary written for the subject itself - in the new article is actually about the subject? There doesn't seem to be nearly enough to meet WP:N or to write an article about the subject. That one editor has continued to expand the article by using references that are about the university or other subjects doesn't support the contention that the subject is notable. ElKevbo (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The arguments presented that the article is well-distanced from the main article or otherwise properly sourced or well-written is missing the point. The notability of the subject needs to be presented, and as it stands much of the sources don't demonstrate that. In fact, the majority of the sources in the article seem to be primary, or exclusively local and connected with the College of the Liberal Arts. GuardianH (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing plenty of independent reliable sources cited in the article; I guess the question is whether coverage of e.g. the school of visual arts counts as coverage of the College of which it is a part. This is an issue on which the GNG is silent, and which can get into some weird metaphysical territory if one thinks about it too hard. But as a practical matter I don't really see why such coverage wouldn't count. Ultimately this is a "how should we break up this large blob of content" question rather than a "should we have any content on this at all" question. The notability guidelines can furnish some guidance there but following any set of rules too rigidly is a recipe for trouble. On the whole it seems to me that we are going to have a much more manageable set of articles if we use the college as the unit of coverage rather than having articles on any individual school, program or department that can clear the GNG (and that someone feels motivated to write) -- and much more manageable than trying to smoosh all coverage of the university into a single article. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) explicitly addresses this: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable....This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not 'inherit' notability due to their membership. A corporation may be notable, but its subsidiaries do not 'inherit' notability from being owned by the corporation." ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the language of INHERITORG pretty clearly doesn't contemplate this kind of situation, and was more about the abuse of corporate and product articles. But even if we're approaching this legalistically (which we really shouldn't), then we have to consider that WP:NSCHOOL expressly bypasses NORG: All universities, colleges and schools [...] must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both (my emphasis). INHERITORG is part of NORG and is not part of the GNG, so (as long as this meets the GNG) INHERITORG does not apply. -- Visviva (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG - there is only source that is substantively focused on this subject. (It's telling that (a) that one source is closely connected to the subject and (b) another editor has been working quite hard to improve this article and they haven't been able to find another source specifically focused on this subject.) ElKevbo (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus seems to be leaning towards keep, however, the nomination is being fiercely defended by the nom and I would like to see more discussion on his points and about the keep consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick follow up nearly two weeks after this nomination was made: Ludviggy has been working quite hard to improve the article and it currently has 102 sources. However, all of those sources either (a) only mention this college in passing or (b) were written by people who work for the university or college. Therefore, this article still fails WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criteria Elkevbo is applying to this particular article is not standardized across Wikipedia. I think we all know most articles suffer from a lack of outside independent sources. There is no set number or ratio of "independent" source required by Wikipedia. Again, this is subjective. This is especially true for university college articles, which all suffer from a very high ratio of non-independent sourcing because the main sources, available online and tracking a university college history is generally the university itself. Does this really make it a bad source? No. The information I am sourcing is generally dates of events, names of programs and chairs of departments, which are not controversial or political. Major public universities aren't motivated to lie about the type of facts I use in this article. Why Elkevbo is so focused on deleting this particular university college article leads me to believe he is not an unbiased editor. What Elkevbo fails to mention is that most newspapers today are paywalled and this has a significant impact on a writer's ability to source historic information from independent sources online - especially historical information about public institutions with histories over 100 years. We writers do our very best to source a document like this with all the information that is still available online. Most of the original independent news articles for this topic are only partially available online from independent archives. Even still, I believe I have provided the necessary sources, many from a combination of independent archives and non-independent (but highly reliable university) sources, to fulfil Wikipedia's minimum criteria for notability.

50.35.127.4 (talk) 50.35.127.4 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of bad faith are growing tiresome; cut it out. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not agree with ElKevbo's position. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment following relist: I fear I am not quite following the guideline-based argument above. It seems we all agree that INHERITORG is not part of the GNG and does not apply here per NSCHOOL. That means we are back to the ordinary English-language understanding of what it means for a source to cover something. I don't think anyone would dispute that coverage of the Whoville Arts District is also coverage of Whoville, or that coverage of some building's historic cupola is also coverage of the building, etc. Of course some part-whole relationships are so attenuated or obscure that they can't reasonably be counted in this way without slipping into OR, but I don't think the straightforward relationship of a college to its component schools and buildings falls into that category.
Given the above, it seems plain that the sources already at hand meet the GNG, e.g. [9], [10], [11]. (This is not to say that I think we are obligated to cover the college as a whole rather than an assemblage of parts, but I am not persuaded that anything prohibits it, and it seems like better encyclopedic practice to me.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reference to WP:NSCHOOL. It states: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." It's not clear if it's intended to apply to colleges that are part of universities or only standalone colleges but I'll concede that it's plausible that it should apply to constituent colleges. Even if that is the case, the available sources do not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GNG says that the topic must have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." ORG says that the subject must have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The sources don't meet those criteria. this source is about a creative arts center, this source is about the university's history, and this source is about a couple of new majors at the university. In each of them - and all of the other sources in the article - the subject of the article, the college, is only mentioned in passing.

I understand that it seems weird that a college at an accredited research university has not been the subject of significant documentation. But it's reality - some colleges simply have not had cohesive identities and missions such that they have lent themselves to scholarly study, internal navel gazing, media attention, and other forms of meaningful, focused documentation. Some colleges exist primarily or exclusively as a way to organize a bunch of academic units. There are several of those kinds of colleges at my university. They're not bad or dysfunctional organizations and nor is this college. But they don't meet our notability criteria. And frankly we'd have to really contort ourselves to piece together an article about them - just as editors are doing now for this college.

If someone wants to propose that WP:ORG be amended to make colleges and equivalent constituent units of legitimate universities automatically notable, please do so. But until there is a change along those lines this college - and many others - don't meet our notability guidelines. (And if someone wants to just WP:IAR this, please do so explicitly - it's not an unreasonable position.) ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a college affiliated with a major public university. How much more obviously notable can you get? Steven Walling • talk 06:47, 26 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 Malta women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Buttigieg[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Malta women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malta women's international footballers - this seems like the best WP:ATD as those searching her name would likely still expect to find out about a footballer. I can't remember if this had better sources when I wrote the article but the best I can find now are things like Times of Malta, some award announcement on Facebook and Independent which don't cut it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malta women's international footballers as per Spiderone. Can't keep up with the mass AfDing of footballers but WP:ATD should hold for all of them whenever possible. -Socccc (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 19:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per Spiderone. Jogurney (talk) 14:07, 27 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!} 23:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American National Business Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Not notable, relies entirely upon primary sources. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and United States of America. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WIU Libraries are managing these 2 sites starting July 2023......we have been busy making it accurate.... 71.194.113.131 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Found no refs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I failed to find proper sources or references. Charsaddian (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Like others above, I failed to locate any reliable secondary sources on the subject whatsoever. Sal2100 (talk) 20:14, 25 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 Ghana women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philicity Asuako[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Ghana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the Ghana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ghana. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this subject was an English or Australian international, I don’t think we will be having this conversation because their pages would not be nominated in the first place. I think you should stop picking on articles on African subjects because they are east targets for deletion. You don’t expect African articles to have as much citations as their western counterparts. Amaekuma (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Amaekuma: The majority of articles I nominate for deletion have not been African. I even nominated a European player in my very next nomination. Not to mention I have created dozens of articles on African athletes and politicians. I certainly hope you've created more than me if that's the road you want to take. Thankfully, that's not too much of an indicator of anything, so I'd appreciate if you stopped the accusations. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have high quality sources for BLPs, that's non-negotiable. I have no problem with JT's nominations as it's clear that they are made based on lack of evidence of meeting our notability guidelines rather than any other characteristics. Banning people from nominating African subjects would be an absurd rule to put in place and not something I've ever seen on Wikipedia before (I've heard of topic bans but not anything like that). If sources showing WP:GNG can be found then simply present these in the relevant discussion and/or add them to the article and the article will be kept. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not finding a ton of coverage; most of what's out there is less substantial stuff like these links [12] [13] [14]. There might be other coverage out there that's just not online, but as the article creator, I'm okay with a redirect until/unless someone finds that coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:TOOSOON; still active Ghana's top-flight league and missed a 2022 WAFCON qualifiers callup on account of malaria. Also note that finding coverage may be complicated by variant spellings of her name used in some official sources, such as Phylicity Asuako. -Socccc (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect In the current shape, the article should be redirected as per nomination. Charsaddian (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per suggestions above. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:27, 30 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!} 23:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold (Doctor Who)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While a decently big antagonistic group in Doctor Who, they hardly seem noteworthy, as literally no online sources exist discussing them in detail. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Some behind the scenes information may exist in physical sources, but I doubt that would be enough to justify the existence of this article. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:27, 23 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 Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 00:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced text slab for totally non-notable entity. Dronebogus (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and none have been found to prove notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage can be found to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 29 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!} 23:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shayde[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While a semi notable character in spin-off material, I can't find any SIGCOV for Shayde. While some behind the scenes info may exist in physical media, I don't believe that would be enough to justify this article's existence separately. Not sure whether there would be a good target to merge with or redirect to, though list of doctor who supporting characters does list him, so that might be a decent place. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:25, 23 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 Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first result is a beauty company, which seems far more likely to be notable than an obscure non-TV doctor who character. Dronebogus (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in the article, and no good sources have been found on the internet. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:02, 28 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 Emily Ryerson. I think this is the first time I've Merged an article about a man to his wife's article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ryerson[edit]

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

Not notable beyond that he died on the Titanic.( Per WP:SINGLEEVENT). Page has been deleted before due to non-notability in 2006 and 2013. One alternative would be to redirect to his wife's page, and merge much of this content there. Mason (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is his wife any more notable on her own than he is? Joyous! Noise! 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think so; She won a Croix de Guerre award for her wartime service^[1] and seems to have toured with Herbert Hoover. ^[2] Mason (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Emily Ryerson. Arthur fails WP:SINGLEEVENT, however his wife does not because of the events mentioned in Mason's comment above. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emily Ryerson per nom. It's fortunate in this case that his wife has an article that the relevant content can be sent to. Otherwise, the less-than-optimal choice would have been "Redirect to Passengers of the Titanic#Passenger list", where there is only a listing. StonyBrook _babble 03:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emily Ryerson per the above. That might entail a rename to Arthur and Emily Ryerson but then again it might not. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]

Merge to Emily Ryerson.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:19, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasandra Joseph[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Trinidad and Tobago women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryana Pizarro[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Puerto Rico women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Puerto Rico, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:TOOSOON; hasn't even started at Washington State yet. Most notable coverage is high-school success in Newsday (1, 2, 3). Non-IS video content from Concacaf and Oregon State. Next year or two might establish notability, it might not. -Socccc (talk) 01:04, 25 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!} 23:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown panellists[edit]

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

Fails WP:LSC/WP:IINFO: no sources are presented to show the significance of this as a topic or a reason why this list is of historical importance (e.g. did appearing on Catsdown lead many of these people's careers to take off?). Even if completed, the page would contain no information not already covered at List of 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown episodes. The programme is notable but, I would say, not so notable that we need a separate article listing all panellists. — Bilorv (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. — Bilorv (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it into the episodes article if it's not WP:OR and can be sourced, Delete it otherwise. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: it's not original research because it's easily verifiable from the primary source of the episodes themselves. I would recommend against merging as this would either mean an incomplete list (which this list is at present) or take up an enormous amount of article space. — Bilorv (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be original in the sense that this chart has never been compiled everywhere else. Just because it can be easily verified back to the primary source of each episode doesn't mean it's not still WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see the need for the list without any sort of sourcing or discussion about the panelists themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in List of 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown episodes and this unsourced and badly formatted spin-off article adds no additional value to the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 23 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!} 23:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Altamirano[edit]

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

Footballer with brief professional career and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as far as I can see. A Chilean source search yields mostly social media and an empty ESPN profile page. He has a few namesakes in sports, who don't seem notable either, but may confuse you if searching. The man described in Uno Entre Ríós is a PE teacher from Argentina born in 1988, so cannot be the same person as this Chilean goalkeeper. Likewise, the man described in El Esquiú was a vice president of a federation back in 1980, so it's impossible for him to be the same person as this Altamirano. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brief career, not notable enough . --Bedivere (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:18, 28 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 James Clavell. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Clavell[edit]

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

Actress with two bit-part roles that was redirected in 2018 to her father, James Clavell, where she is not mentioned. The last revision before the redirect included a blacklisted external link to filmreference.com. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 25 seconds of screentime is a bit part. She's not notable, I don't even need to look at the sources. I did, don't find anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR, and the article text notes that neither role is significant. Regarding GNG, there's some coverage of her in this ScreenRant article ([15]) which talks about how her character in Octopussy was intended to be more significant. There's also a decent amount of coverage on the upcoming TV series Shōgun, which she's an executive producer on (e.g. [16], [17], [18]), though all of the articles I perused had her as a passing mention in relation to her father (who wrote the work being adapted). Ultimately this strikes me as falling short of the multiple sources with significant coverage needed for GNG. I also agree with nom that a redirect to her father is an inappropriate ATD here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Clavell. Lacks significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:58, 28 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!} 23:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trương Anh Ngọc[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Sourcing found is only confirmation of existence. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Vietnam. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below. Looks to be a notable TV figure in Vietnam. Giant Snowman 17:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Oaktree b:, literally when u search up Trương Anh Ngọc, you get a comprehensive Vietnamese Wikipedia page that cites many archived sources about him... Clearly significant figure in Vietnamese football, article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks Das osmnezz (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does he play sports or is he a reporter? I'm confused. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a well written Wikipedia article is not indicative of notability. Giant Snowman 19:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, What I'm trying to say is that the sources cited in that article are... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, @Oaktree b:, I found [19], [20], [21],[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], among many many more Vietnamese sources... Clearly significant figure in Vietnamese football... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:17, 28 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!} 23:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pal-Kal[edit]

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

Non-notable construction method. The sourcing is from a patent and an article about the inventor going to jail. I can only find confirmation of the inventor's legal issues. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Israel. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say trim down greatly and Merge with Versailles wedding hall disaster, since that seems to be the one point of notability for this construction method. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Striking my previous Merge and changing to Keep per sources listed below. Not all of those are necessarily significant coverage, but at least one of the English-language sources was, and I'm guessing many of the Hebrew sources are as well (I don't read Hebrew, so I missed those). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out the abundance of sources that support keep by WP:GNG. Both in Hebrew and English! gidonb (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy pass of the WP:GNG per [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]][45][46][47][48][49] This is just some of the coverage. The WP:SIGCOV is WP:LASTING. Structures had to be strengthened through all of Israel drawing tons of attention and a national effort exists to replace all PalKal structures. The inventor was sent to prison for 4 years. gidonb (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb. I went through his references, some of which were published decades after Versailles, and discuss the ramification's of Pal-Kal's continued use in buildings. Particularly strong are #3, 13, 19 (Ynet) 5 (Calcalist) 6, 7, 10 (Globes) 8, 17, 18 (Haaretz) 9 (Israel Hayom) 12, 21 (Arutz Sheva) 14 (Walla! News) 16 (The Jerusalem Post) and 20 (Hamodia). The many details in these sources about the hows, whys and legacy issues with the Pal-Kal method, which is still an issue in hundreds of buildings across Israel, are simply [[WP:OFFTOPIC--Geewhiz (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)]] in the Versailles article. Havradim leaf a message 23:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the refs provided above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a different source search, looking for academic articles on the construction type, and found it to be easily notable just on academic articles alone. SportingFlyer T·C 14:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Good to know! gidonb (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable construction method that had poor outcomes, no reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gidonb.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:06, 28 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'Kar[edit]

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

Not notable. Only one decent source about him in the page, and a BEFORE check found no others. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate in-depth coverage in multiple dead tree books in my possession:
Bassom, David, and J. Michael Straczynski. Creating Babylon 5: Behind the Scenes of Warner Bros. Revolutionary Deep Space TV Drama. New York: Ballantine Books, 1997.

———. The A-Z of Babylon 5: The Complete Reference Guide to the Groundbreaking Sci-Fi Series Created by J. Michael Straczynski. New York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1997.

Guffey, Ensley F., and K. Dale Koontz. A Dream given Form: The Unofficial Guide to the Universe of Babylon 5. Toronto, ON: ECW Press, 2017.

Johnson-Smith, Jan. American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and Beyond. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 2005.

Lancaster, Kurt. Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan Performance in a Media Universe. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.

Lane, Andy. The Babylon File: The Definitive Unauthorised Guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV Series Babylon 5. Vol. 2. London: Virgin, 1999.

———. The Babylon File: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV Series, Babylon 5. London: Virgin, 1997.

If there's an ABF that none of these contain sufficient non-trivial independent commentary on G'Kar, I simply don't know what to say. Babylon 5 was from the era of Genie, Compu$erve, and AOL. It was discussed on BBSes before there were such things as pop culture websites, so it doesn't entirely surprise me that not much was found in a standard BEFORE. Adding Katsulas (the actor's last name) or Mollari (his opposing character's surname) will get you better results. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, while this does help establish notability and SIGCOV, I would like to know what these sources in question say about G'Kar before making a vote, as these are physical books I don't happen to have access to. I'd also like to see how they can be used to improve the current state of the article. Pokelego999 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not organized to provide a single character sketch. For example, roughly half of them go through the series episode by episode, so there are G'Kar commentaries on multiple relevant episodes. Dream Given Form has (p. 480) a full page bio/obit of Katsulas, since it was published after his death that notes, in part, "G'Kar's transformation, especially when read in conjunction with Londo's, is truly one of the great character arcs in television history." There's more like that scattered around these books. The card representing G'Kar in the B5 collectable card game gets a multi-page treatment (interspersed with commentaries on the other ambassadors' cards) in Interacting with Babylon 5. Bottom line? If I had the time to improve the character article with the sources present, that would be a better use of my time than expounding on them here. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Still, given how you've described them to me, I'm going to have to say Keep on this one. Combined with some of the sources other commenters have found, there's way more than enough to establish G'Kar here. Thank you for taking the deep dive through your books for this one. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More secondary sources: Science Fiction Television Series, 1990-2004 has a lot of content on G'Kar from comments by the actor and fellow actor. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough secondary sources have been provided. Many more where G'Kar is at least mentioned appear in the usual Google Books and Google Scholar searches. If the nominator believes that none of them amount to anything, I think at least a few words of explanation would be in order. Daranios (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Right now the article is clearly in an unencyclopedic state. Assuming it is true that sources do exist on this character, it still requires a rewrite. Draftification would give time for the article to be improved and submitted via AfC. If the article cannot be improved within the time the draft is there, then one would have to call the claims of sufficient sourcing into question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of WP:DEL-REASON apply to this article? If you're going to argue that it should 1) be removed from mainspace, with 2) a ticking timer to deletion under G13... why should it be deleted? Plenty of articles suck; articles sucking is not a valid reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Jclemens on this one. It's been established more than enough sources exist, and thus there's no reason to suddenly go about removing this article and putting a time limit on it. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appear to be sufficient sources for an independent article. Otherwise a redirect to a character list would still be preferable to deletion. The article as it stands could probably be trimmed to include less plot summary and more "real world" context but no need for deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Few years ago when I was doing a B5 article pass for notabilty, I've started the analysis section. Granted, it is still bare-bones, but the source cited is reliable and is a two-page long book chapter treatment of the character, at an academic level (author is a professor, book is published by Rowman & Littlefield). I think that's meets WP:SIGCOV, and per comments above, I am sure we can find another source or several that helps with the GNG requirement of multiple sources (which I understand as "at least two"). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ is right the article is mostly fancruft now, but the topic is notable and the article just needs to be expanded with non-plot summary information and with footnotes added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! – There are sources that prove its notability and literary analysis. It could have some "expand" tags on it to improve it but regardless I think it is definitely notable and should not be deleted! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:46, 29 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 Sandhurst Road railway station. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mazagaon Railway Station[edit]

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

Non-notable former rail structure, no sourcing found beyond confirmation of existence. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sandhurst Road railway station. Mazagaon Railway Station was replaced by Sandhrust Road station so marks the beginning of the Sandhurst Road railway station history. Both source and target are short. 20:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonb (talk • contribs)
Keep or merge. Wikipedia absolutely should have coverage of one of the original key stations of a major city and I'd be astonished if there were not coverage in books (not all in English). Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. Deletion benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sandhurst Road railway station, if the coordinates is accurate the station is around the corner of the current station, so it would be better suited there as the predecessor station. Jumpytoo Talk 02:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sandhurst Road railway station.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Although sources were added imho there's still no evidence of any notability, Makes more sense to merge and doing so means the content is preserved. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 29 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 15:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Okon[edit]

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

PR-based coverage, likely non-notable, and fails WP:GNG. Mercenf (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had previously removed most of the known PR dumps, some of which were directly attributed to SEO spammers or "digital growth companies focused on performance". None of the rest seems particularly notable: "The Source" seems like it used to be a good RS, but there's a million ads for paid placement and SEO on the site, so not sure; it's certainly written like PR. "AllHipHop" seems like another blog, no author indicated. "Loading Magazine" just looks like a PR blog. "GenZHipHop" is absolutely a paid placement/PR post. "jamsphere" again is straight nonsensical PR, and looks like a ChatGPT dump. Was not able to find anything in independent searches, other than known fake SEO sites - there's been extensive paid placement in very low quality sources. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, also per Sam Kuru — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comb back in 10 yrs kid. Charting on Itunes isn't notable, the rest of the sourcing is problematic. Nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
second page I'm reviewing today, just thought I should reply to your comment. It's kind of harsh of you to say man and it's untrue. Charting on itunes itself may not be notable but being the youngest instrumental artist in America to do it is quite impressive. I have read up on Dom Okon and find his career quite interesting in a positive way. He has been featured on thisis50 owned by 50 cents himself. Hype mag which to some extent is notable and allhiphop and the source which I saw have their own pages on this site. All Hip Hop, Thisis50 and The Source are all verified on social media platforms. This leads me to believe that he has some unproblematic sources to use, and this page does meets wikipedia guidelines. Xodovoo (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I was expecting this article to be a shameless promotion by himself or managers, but the kid has actually been noticed by a few professional rap publications. But those sources are still in softball introductory mode and don't get too far from basic PR announcements. For all the other sources available, the folks above are correct about SEO scams and paid promo shenanigans. I will be charitable with WP:TOOSOON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi, i'm new but after reviewing this kid and doing some research I see he has a doll, stickers, candles and other products on Etsy made by individuals who are fans of him. He definitely has garnered some attention so I think the most appropriate action would be to allow for edits to this page if that's possible. He's clearly somewhat notable, the only problem with his page are his sources. If we can replace the sources on this page than I don't see why not it wouldn't be up to Wikipedia standards, then? Once again, I'm new so maybe I'm wrong but I see that being a possible solution for this issue anyway. Dexvnn (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He may have some enthusiastic fans, but in an encyclopedia we need coverage resulting in readable facts that can be verified, and that is not the same as attention. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i see what your saying in some capacity but it looks like to me at least all hip hop and the source are pretty notable. Both have wikipedia pages on here anyway. lastly, this singer is on famous birthdays and cameo. he couldn't have paid for that. it looks like he is a notable person, with two notable websites discussing him. in my professional opinion, this page should be saved. Dexvnn (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:29, 30 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 14:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia M. McCarthy[edit]

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

Failed judicial nominee that lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - judicial nominees are not necessarily notable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources listed are either namedrops or primary. No evidence the subject passes the GNG beyond routine coverage. Ravenswing 00:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability shown. Failes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:31, 30 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 14:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne E. Davidson[edit]

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

Non-notable failed judicial nominee. Lacks the secondary sources needed to meet WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 30 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 14:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyan Chattopadhyay[edit]

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

Another case of WP:TOOSOON. This article lacks quality in-depth references. Mercenf (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 23 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 14:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Pang[edit]

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

Lacks the needed coverage to pass WP:GNG. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pageant winners could be notable, but she isn't discussed in anything we can use for sourcing; this is all I find [50]. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 23 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 14:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Spellman[edit]

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

Doesn't quite meet WP:GNG nor pass WP:NBEAUTY. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E Let'srun (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Hampshire. Let'srun (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination statement, this is a case of WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 28 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 14:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword Tool[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article likely fails to meet the WP:PRODUCT criteria as it lacks quality, in-depth references. I found a few such as those in TNW ([51]) and TechRadar ([52]), but it appears that they were either written by guest post writers/bloggers, thus being opinion pieces, or not written by staff.

The TechRadar Pro version of TechRadar appears similar to Wirecutter, so I'm uncertain whether it contributes to notability. Mercenf (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The TNW source and both sources in the article only mention the tool or company in a list, with little actual content on either. The TechRadar review looks like a good source though and I see no reason to doubt its independence. As is, that one source doesn't bring it to WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, or WP:NPRODUCT and I couldn't find anything else that appeared reliable (just a couple of blog posts). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The last AfD discussed possible paid editing - this is also likely paid editing to get this on here (one user with five edits made this page) and it doesn't otherwise pass notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 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 as a probable hoax. ^Complex/_Rational 13:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Zagorskaya[edit]

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

"Famous singer Elena Zagorskaya" is a hoax. First discovered mention [53], added by puppet of globally locked vandal.
There are no mentions of Elena Zagorskaya in 'Музыкальная энциклопедия. Гл. ред. Ю. В. Келдыш. Т. 3. Корто — Октоль. 1104 стб. с илл. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1976' and 'German, Anna; Герман, Анна (2013). Ėkho liu͡bvi. I. M. Ilʹichev, И. М. Ильичев. Moskva. ISBN 978-5-4438-0293-0. OCLC 858424377' books according to discussion on Russian Wikipedia [54].
'Svoboda, Martin. "Елена Иосифовна Загорская цитаты Цитаты известных личностей". Ru.citaty.net' — user-generated website.
'"Путин поздравил Елену Загорскую с днём рождения". ФСН' and '"В Италии сообщили о скандале в семье Елены Загорской". dzen.ru' — blogs.
See also that sockpuppet investigation [55], discussion on Russian Wikipedia about deletion [56] and that discussion [57]. Хоббит (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocked sock Janeknichell

Not hoax. I have searched the web and looked at some sources speaking about Elena Zagorskaya. Basically all of them are well-known reliable sources, such as French Le Figaro and Chilean state radio ADN. There are many more Russian speaking ones, such as Komsomolskaya Pravda and others, so the AfD explanation by the nominator is at least implausible. I will be requesting online "Музыкальная энциклопедия. Гл. ред. Ю. В. Келдыш. Т. 3. Корто — Октоль. 1104 стб. с илл. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1976" (Soviet Encyclopedia of Music) to confirm whether Zagorskaya's career is described there. As the Merited Artist of RSFSR and the only Soviet singer to be the friend of Italian mafia, the person clearly passes WP:GNG. --Janeknichell (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[58] — edit by account from sockpuppet investigation, and so on. Хоббит (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may indeed be the edit by a sockpuppet. But this discussion is about the article's subject, not about some sockpuppet investigations. Janeknichell (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think the Figaro article helps, it's about Berlusconi. She's mentioned once, as a singer. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the nominator argues that the subject is a hoax, when it's clearly not. Name drops are not enough, but I have downloaded "Музыкальная энциклопедия. Гл. ред. Ю. В. Келдыш. Т. 3. Корто — Октоль. 1104 стб. с илл. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1976" and finally can confirm this encyclopedia has an extensive article about her biography. It confirms that Zagorskaya was blamed for association with Silician mafia in 1960s, that makes her the only Soviet singer related to Western mobsters in Soviet era, so this is the primary reason of notability in this case. In another Russian source, Komsomolskaya Pravda, the same statement is confirmed. Плейбой, геймер, крестный отец: в Италии арестован последний великий босс "Коза Ностры" - KP.RU Janeknichell (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. According to name of the book ('Корто — Октоль'), it contains only articles, whose names begin with letters К, Л, М, Н, О. Хоббит (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Janeknichell account, which is the only one here arguing for retention, is only a few hours old and has only been used to edit on the subject of Elena Zagorskaya. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sourcing. Name drops don't help establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know nothing about this subject but there has been a lot of editing on this article by recently discovered sockpuppets. Maybe rather than deleting this article, it would be okay to revert back to this version, before they starting changing content on the page. This might remove the suspected hoax content and retain what is accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping the nominator, User:Хоббит, to see what they think of this suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this article contains hoax from the begining; statement that Anna German (famous soviet singer) involved in car crash with another singer (unknown on the internet till 2020s) sounds like nonsense. The first author used 5 sources, 3 of them very unreliable (probably created by blocked vandal) and 2 of them are books in russian which don't contain any information about that person. I think, vandal created article on another site, and author of Wikipedia's article used information and sources from it. The article at Russian Wikipedia has been deleted. Хоббит (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[59]. Хоббит (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Елена_Загорскаја . Хоббит (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've notified the article creator, who I hope will turn up to comment. For the record I've no reason to believe the creator is the same as the LTA socks. It may be worth noting the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123. This LTA is long known to aim to propagate hoaxes and create external sources. I want to comment on the Daily Mirror, which is used as a reference in the original copy. No one would say the Mirror is reliable, but the mention of Elena Zagorskaya in that article seems especially non-believable after you read our article on Matteo Messina Denaro (assuming that's correct). The LTA also mentions on the talk page about how there are songs on YouTube. They seem equally fake. A hoax of this type is well within the MO of this LTA, and I'd want to see something amazing before I'd vote to keep it. Until then, consider me a delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence of notability, probable hoax. The few mentions in RS are likely lazy journalism using WP as a source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HOAX according to russian deletion discussion. -- Werter1995 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not hoax, but (currently) no proof of notability either. As the sockpuppet in question mentioned above, the subject is present on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F) and other non-RS websites, but it is still unclear how it's notable according to the article. It is not enough to be just the Merited Artist of RSFSR to have a Wikipedia article; in most cases involving Soviet singers and actors the subject must be either the People's Artist of RSFSR or the People's Artist of USSR, which are two higher and much more prestigious honorary titles. For example, Olga Voronets was the People's Artist of RSFSR and therefore has her own Wikipedia article. I honestly don't know if being only the Merited Artist of RSFSR, the lowest Soviet title for artists, is enough for Wikipedia, but in many cases it isn't. --Thundertruth (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You created a Wikipedia account just to make that comment? That youtube search does not prove or even suggest anything. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious sock, so I've taken the liberty of blocking them. As I said above, those YouTube accounts all appear fake. They were all created within the last 2 years, have a minimum amount of content, few if any subscribers, and this is all well within the MO and capacity of this LTA. If you compare the search results for Olga Voronets, you get vastly different results. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:37, 27 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 and improve. It's snowing in July. ^Complex/_Rational 13:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Neff[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO etc. a search for sources came up with a confusing mix of others with the same name and unreliable sources, what comes up for this Felix Neff is a mix of christian sites promoting this guy (with a brief paragraph not useable for any info) and mirrors which use the encyclopedia britannica entry seen as the only source on Wiki. An ED entry is not enough to satisfy notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Switzerland. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: An Encyclopedia Britannica entry is, broadly, usually enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Neff also gets an entry in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, which is generally considered reliable for biographies. Neff's memoirs and musings are considered indicative of early 19th-century Continental Protestant thought, such as in this article. Neff, interestingly, seems to have had some contemporary influence on popular imagery of the Alps (see this article), but perhaps a bit more is needed to pull on that thread. In any case, he’s notable and we have the sources needed to cover him. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Waldensian Evangelical Church seems keen on him (see this link, initially introduced by a disruptive editor). ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the source linked by Pbritti lists several dead tree books (admittedly some from the 19th century) with his name in the title. Enough for a GNG pass, and per WP:NEXIST they don't have to be referenced in the article to count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take one single look at fr:Felix Neff and you know this is an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Sam Sailor 07:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can readily believe that the article needs expanding, rather than deleting. However, it definitely needs some attention from someone familiar with sourcing and how we write - I'm guessing that it is a copy/paste from an old copyright-expired entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's written in an archaic, hagiographical style. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Encyclopædia Britannica is far more selective than Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing shown by Pbritti above 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pbritti's work - thanks for your work on this.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, but don't keep the existing text, which reads like it has been copied from the Britannica. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 28 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 13:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durgapur High School[edit]

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

AFD as PROD is contested. The school does not show any notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Searches showed that the school existed, but no notability is shown. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 12:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unreferenced 1 line article that fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Wiki notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nominaton. Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 11:34, 26 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 13:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash or Die[edit]

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

Non-notable article. Fails both WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Music, and Bands and musicians. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They've been around for a long time and some of the members' stage names are kinda funny, but they simply have not generated any reliable coverage in the music media. Even their hometown media appearances are just gig announcements, and otherwise they are only visible in the usual directories and self-upload sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:37, 23 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 13:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Sarhan[edit]

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

not notable, out of project scope. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 12:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the format of the article or character is eligible for deletion because it has been nominated for awards and all books have been published in Europe. I hope the administration is impartial in the decision. The character Alaa Sarhan owns foreign sources and an article in the French-language Wikipedia encyclopedia. Is the decision to delete it a racist decision against Arabs, or what? Preceding unsigned comment left by ساندرا بولقاش, moved to present position by Pbritti
~~There is no article in the French language wikipedia for him.~~ There is an article for him in Fr wiki, also flagged for deletion. Stop throwing around racist accusations. French arabs are a major part of the francophone world. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing find for this person. Not sure what sourcing we're using as notability, I can't find anything. The Fr wiki template searches the BnF (nothing turns up), Persee (nothing turns up) and other sites. If this person was this well-known, I'd expect something in French-African sources. Another drapeau rouge red flag. Zut alors! Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the right thing in the article that I published. I will leave the encyclopedia because I felt that it was difficult to learn. Thank you and I apologize. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by ساندرا بولقاش (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I was hoping to learn in the encyclopedia and gain skills in how to publish about famous people of note, but I get frustrated when the article is deleted, which I am tired of coordinating and bringing links and sources related to the character. I repeat my apologies for the misunderstanding that has reached you from me. Goodbye, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ساندرا بولقاش (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I was waiting for help in coordinating my article and preserving its existence, and I appreciate the enormous pressure on you as the encyclopedia administration, but I do not agree to be the reason for sabotaging an ancient encyclopedia, and for that I will withdraw, and I am sorry for my anger in the morning, and I apologize — Preceding unsigned comment added by ساندرا بولقاش (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both nom and Oaktree b. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is anyone able to analyse the sources in the article? I'm no expert on Arabic sources and reliability but, on first glance, they don't seem too bad to me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in the Fr wiki article that I can understand are IMdB and a non RS website. I've linked both articles now so we can compare sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Les sources ne montrent pas qu'il aurait reçu des prix. Notoriété à vérifier sérieusement. Canular ?" The sources do not indicate that he's won prizes. Notoriety needs serious verification. Hoax/prank? was the reason given in the Fr wiki deletion discussion. I'm going to say it's not notable here either. They tag it and if it doesn't get updated, it gets auto deleted after a year that it's been tagged, which is different than what we use here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your French article seems to indicate the sources are untruthful about the awards won and that this is a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that some editors want to verify the Arabic sources. I will ask you for help in the matter, the names of the newspapers that talk about Alaa Sarhan, I can provide links to them, and they all have articles in Wikipedia and their pages on the platforms are documented with the blue badge, and they are official printed newspapers also today. I have added the citation of some sources and newspapers such as the newspaper (غرب الاخبارية) affiliated to Saudi Arabia, as well as the Emirati Encyclopedia

(من هم).

He also owns an article in IMDB and London Magazine in Arabic and English — Preceding unsigned comment added by ساندرا بولقاش (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 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 13:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yugen (restaurant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I previously nominated this article for deletion here, and the nomination was closed as a "soft delete". The page creator proceeded to request its undeletion, and two days later they haven't edited it at all. I'll repeat my reasons for nominating it for deletion in the first place: "Non-notable restaurant whose sources are quite local (meaning they fail WP:AUD). All are written promotionally, as is the article. There's no evidence that this is notable in the long run or at the present time. The sources lack WP:SIGCOV, and they mostly focus on the food and the interior of the restaurant." The article itself is in bad condition, composed mostly of a promotional description; even if it were "improved", I don't think there's a lot to add. In addition, the restaurant opened relatively recently, near the end of 2018, so there's no historical value there. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:53, 23 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. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my previous !vote. Mainly local reviews. The Sydney Morning Herald may be more reliable but it's actually by a journalist based with the Age in Melbourne. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now this is just an article cited to WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS of a local restaurant. Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL on its face and WP:NCORP as well. Restaurants can be notable, but they need more than just local reviews. SportingFlyer T·C 14:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be mostly WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS and I could not find information to pass GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons outlined by the nom. It is against the spirit of a restore request to get an article restored and then not bother to work on it. Especially in light of the editor's TBAN on AFD. I've also nominated Francoforte for the same reasons. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 28 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 13:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Works Boston[edit]

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

Based on reasonable amount of effort made WP:BEFORE effort to locate sources, I do not believe this company meets WP:NCORP. The credible sources that are cited do not pass WP:ORGDEPTH. A lot of them are about the general politics of public funding of drug usage supplies, but not much independent analysis and discussion on this specific company by name. Their site says it's not a non-profit and not eligible for tax deduction on donation, so that affirmatively rules any possibility of evaluating with the less stringent WP:NONPROFIT SNG. Graywalls (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SIGCOV is not reached; I agree that much of the sourcing is tangential and doesn't adequately cover Smoke Works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds good to me. I took a shot at this when I didn’t know how to work the website as well. I’d love to see a page for it someday but it needs more sources than are currently available Elttaruuu (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Elttaruuu: WP:AMOUNT is worth reading. More sources isn't always merrier. Listing out a bunch of sources that cover the subject trivially do not support notability. Lots of snippet references will never make up for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, "article subject Pipe Sales Company was established in Boston in 2000.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]" Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand that now, I had just only been on Wikipedia for like three weeks when I made this Elttaruuu (talk) 19:07, 25 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 Carlton Tavern. I see a rough consensus to Redirect this article. I also am concerned with WP:BLP1E brought up and other BLP issues in this almost entirely negative article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Calif[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent, significant coverage about this person exists. Every source in the article is a passing mention and well below the standards that apply to Biographies of Living Persons. The first AfD had clear consensus and nothing has changed since then. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern, for which the subject has been in the news a decent amount over several years. (with perhaps a gentle merge of relevent information). —siro χ o 07:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and a comments/questions) I don't understand the delete rationale. Developer demolishes historic London pub in Architect's Journal, for example, it entirely about his dramatic and unusual activities, which prompted all sorts of other activities and reporting. Exemplo347, are you saying that Arhitect's Journal is not reliable? Or is it because the article is about his activities rather than him? Or because he technically did the activities via a limited company which he is the sole director of? I'm confused.
Decision on illegally demolished pub myst "set a deterrent" in the Morning Advertiser (establish 1794) is also all about him.

The first AFD happened in 2016. Calif has continued to make news since then. I can't see what the article looked like then, but back then it seemed like he was notable for one thing. The Magdala was a stub and Calif's involvement wasn't known to AFD participants. At that AFD Philafrenzy noted "Meets the GNG. Has coverage in a variety of secondary sources in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and extensive coverage in 2015" but most people noted a lack of detail and everything being about one pub. Both those factors are no longer true, so I challenge robustly that "nothing has changed since then"
CT55555(talk) 11:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This is extremely straightforward. None of the articles are actually about Ori Calif at all. Have a read through WP:GNG and you'll see what I mean. None of the sources in the article, and none that I've found, meet the standards.
Exemplo347 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not extremely straightforward. Calif demolished the pub. OK, technically he did it via a limited company (that he is the sole director of). Are you suggesting that the simple creation of a limited company makes the actions not his? Probably every notable business person in the UK actually performs their activities via a limited company, but we understand it is David Beckham playing football, not David Beckham Football Company Ltd. We're not removing articles about singers because technically it was Elton John Music Limited who released the album. CLTX and Calif are the same thing, as he is the sole director. The demolition of the pub, is completely his action. CT55555(talk) 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you haven't read WP:GNG and I'm not prepared to explain it here when the link I provided explains it very coherently. A person does not inherit notability from a building they own (or one demolished by a company they're associated with). I'll step back from this discussion & let other editors respond now. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with our notability guidelines. I am not asking you to explain them. I am asking you to explain how you think they apply to this article.

Calif effectively is CLTX. The articles are about his actions.

Someone could argue that as the sole director of CLTX that the article should be about CLTX and then someone would come along and say that CLTX is WP:COMMONNAME best known by its sole director, Ori Calif. CT55555(talk) 11:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested a redirect is because the vast majority of news is about Carlton Tavern. There is indeed other coverage as well, but it's largely WP:ROUTINE coverage of a lawyer's and landowner's dealings. I you took away coverage specifically about Carlton Tavern there would be zero claim to notability, and with such slim coverage of the individual within the Carlton Tavern articles, I was concerned WP:BASIC was not met.

Do you think subject can meet WP:BASIC, and if so what sources would you use to demonstrate it? —siro χ o 11:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is indeed mostly known about Carlton Tavern. And if it wasn't for the routine coverage of other stuff, I think we'd agree to redirect there. But that routine coverage is verifiable and enough to support an article. Routine coverage alone, obviously wouldn't.

I think he passes WP:GNG. Of course that argument hinges on accepting (as clearly not everyone does) that coverage of his actions (pub demolition) is coverage of him. I say it is. We consider book reviews to justify articles about authors, we consider sports reporting about how a match went to justify articles about footballer and we should consider articles about the actions of a property developer to justify articles them. If you wanted to take a WP:BASIC approach, the first article in AJ is all about his actions. Or https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2016/05/31/Decision-on-illegally-demolished-pub-must-set-a-deterrent is also all about his actions. CT55555(talk) 11:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add this to the list https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 CT55555(talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a WP:BLP1E to me. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For completely unrelated news coverage, see https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 CT55555(talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's routine coverage of a lawsuit. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine" as per WP:ROUTINE. This does not fall into that category. It's an event that generated news. It seems necessary at this point to accept that he is notable for more than one event. CT55555(talk) 22:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern. Most of the article relates to a single event concerning the Carlton Tavern (agree with WP:BLP1E view); the subject's ownership of the Magdala is a diversion with only passing coverage in one article. Paul W (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was maybe true before we identified the Hebrew sources, see https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 for example CT55555(talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern. There was some litigation between this lawyer and his client in Israel and his name was mentioned in the financial daily newspapers also in a few other cases. He is mentioned in Hebrew as "specializing" in international tax law, rather than "specialized". Specializing refers in Hebrew to someone's professional focus (or to training) versus specialized which indicates recognition as an authority. I conclude that this lawyer is, at least for now, a professional at work with some investments. Since alive, I advise against keeping. The bar (great word for a lawyer who invests in pubs!) for a redirect is definitely met! gidonb (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to some of the articles in Hebrew please? Or say how his name appears in Hebrew? CT55555(talk) 12:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. אורי כליף. I have added this name also to the article. gidonb (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel CT55555(talk) 16:01, 25 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!} 06:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kandu Khera Incident[edit]

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

The article is likely a hoax. After cleaning up the citations, the content as it stands now depends solely on the "authorized biography" of the Captain Amarinder Singh, a far-cry from WP:INDEPENDANT. In a basic WP:BEFORE search, I was not able to find any sources that describe such an "incident" — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having read the preface of the remaining book: the author seems to be a really big fan of the subject, and the book seems like a complete hagiography. Additionally, the publisher is Hay House, which publishes authors who write on such topics as psychic reading, energy healing, meditation, tarot cards, alternative medicine, numerology, astrology, and holistic health. So yeah, the book is definitely not reliable. Some sort of inter-state incident did seem to happen in this village in 1986 ([60][61]), but I can't find much info on it and I highly doubt it occurred in the way this article suggests. If it was a notable event, then WP:TNT the article; if not, then just normal delete. Curbon7 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Curbon7 for checking on Hay House, I totally forgot to investigate that. Removing that source, the article is now unsourced — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kudos to the nom. It is too risky to include this as either a hoax or a very non-neutral perspective. I see nothing of note known by this moniker. If more sources turn up I hope an editor knows to WP:REFUND, but there's nothing else for it now. —siro χ o 07:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Curbon7. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a possible hoax. Even if it isn't, the book is so unreliable that there would be severe WP:NPOV issues that have probably significantly distorted what has happened. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax El Wikipedian (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC) ^{(sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC))}[reply]

Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above as a hoax. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is eligible for WP:G5 deletion as a creation of a sock account with minimal contributions from other editors. But since several substantive comments have been made at the AFD indicating that even its (re)creation by a non-sock account would be unmerited, I am not short-circuiting the discussion. No issues with any other admin deciding to speedy delete the article, closing the AFD early, or letting it run to completion. Abecedare (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus is leaning heavily towards delete I went ahead and tagged the artcile for speedy deletion. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A hoax and also has no sources. HarukaAmaranth (talk) 01:42, 25 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. Regarding the move suggestion, that can occur on the article talk page but also User:El Wikipedian has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rickwood Field Game[edit]

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

Non-notable future sporting event listed under a presumptive title. O.N.R. ^(talk) 06:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move it is notable, as mentioned below, but I agree the title need some work. I'd suggest "MLB Alabama Game", but I don't really care El Wikipedian (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An already scheduled event and there's that handy little 'move' button that'll let us retitle it when it has an official name, and 'first pro baseball game in Alabama' and MLB's first definitive celebration of Juneteenth with a special event game definitely clinches WP:NSPORTS without a doubt. At the very least I've removed the team managers because that can easily change at least before April (or even in-season). Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, meets WP:SPORTSEVENT. Due to its historical significance, it's almost certain that it would meet WP:PERSISTENCE even if canceled. It's already had coverage over a month. Until a better title is found, I would be ok with moving it to a descriptive title like Major League Baseball game at Rickwood Field or something. —siro χ o 08:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. User:Let'srun 13:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 14:10, 23 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 Harry Potter characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of supporting Harry Potter characters[edit]

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

I don't see how this list meets WP:LISTN, but I think a merge to List of Harry Potter characters might solve the problem? The main list is suprisingly short and contains a number of redrects here as well, so this is really a weird fork (who decides which character is supporting anyway?). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 23 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, Literature, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I do contend either article title meets NLIST, I definitely agree a merge is in order here, because this is a clear WP:CONTENTFORK. —siro χ o 08:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Clear content fork, no reason for there to be two seperate lists. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as it is an obvious subset of another article that does just fine and is frankly more useful El Wikipedian (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: No meet to have two separate lists for this subject. User:Let'srun 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge per content fork. Conyo14 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – it could potentially stay if we come up with objective criteria for defining what's a supporting character, by appearances or by whether the actor appears in the main creadits or not, etc. But we should also add real-world information and reduce plot details, which means a major overhaul of the article. —El Millo (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light Merge - As others have said, this is an odd fork that is pretty duplicative of the main character list. The only real bits of info on this list that would probably be a good idea to move over is the actors who portrayed them in the movies. All of the characters themselves seem to all already be present in the target list. Rorshacma (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively per Rorshacma. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV as a topic or as individual entries. Arguably a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main character list, which also shows a reasonable WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 24 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 DC Comics characters: R. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Devil (comics)[edit]

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

Pure primary sourced fancruft. No secondary RS at all. No showing of SIGCOV. Doesn't meet GNG. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable and unsourced useless article El Wikipedian (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to participants: This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Blue Devil (DC Comics) – Whilst I would advocate for keeping it, it sadly does not have enough real world info, so it should be redirected to the Blue Comics page (as it's part of that), and someday someone can improve the article and add more sources and real world info 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:36, 30 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!} 06:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chołod[edit]

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

Non-notable book, being nominated for a bookstore's best-seller list isn't notable for Wikipedia. I find no critical reviews of the work either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not agree with the nominator's statement. As a Polish speaker, I would like to point out that the book received a lot of attention. In addition, it was written by an author of box office hits. It meets the stricter standards of the Polish Wikipedia, and I believe it will also meet the standards of the English Wikipedia. I completed the section on reception today, pointing out several reviews and notices by serious Polish media. Paradygmaty (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Forbes and Kultura Liberalna reviews meet the two reviews necessary for WP:NBOOK (and it looks like there are more too). Thanks Paradygmaty for adding those to the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rellisting to consider additions by User:Paradygmaty to the article and whether that helps establish notability for this book.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 16 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!} 04:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources added by Paradygmaty seem to satisfy WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk) 05:35, 23 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!} 05:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Schuler[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 11 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!} 03:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep provided a few more sources could be found to further establish his notability. Upon reflection, I hereby change my vote to Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:TH1980, I'm confused, you said you provided new sources but no editing has been done to this article since its nomination and you don't mention any sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was simply my vote at the time. I did not say I'd found any sources. Upon reflection, I'm also changing my vote to "Delete". TH1980 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I certainly wish Mr. Schuler the best, but I'm not seeing anything encyclopedic here, and in particular nothing that even gestures in the general direction of WP:NBASIC. -- Visviva (talk) 00:19, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lamin Manneh[edit]

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

I created this bio, however on reflection I don't think it makes the cut. Diplomats are not inherently notable and the routine coverage here likely fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Rwanda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 16 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!} 04:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG - diplomats are not inherently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are multiple prominent people in Gambia with this name. I suggest searching for "Lamin Manneh"+"United Nations"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:52, 24 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 Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: Part 2[edit]

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

Originally moved to draft space but was recreated in main space, fails WP:NFILM, no good results came from WP:BEFORE. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be a Keep (nominations at Metro FilmFest (or here)) but if it really seems it cannot be be improved then redirect to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie, also discussed for deletion -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same reason as I mentioned in the AFD for this movie's Part 1. --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko! franchise. It's a 41st FAMAS awardee film but there's little material to work with online. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFILM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See relisting statement for Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This film premiered in 1992. Google Newspaper archive has copies of the Manila Standard from this period. Other people have written articles such as 1993 Bataan gubernatorial recall election and the infamous (1991) UAAP Season 54 men's basketball tournament. There's no excuse for an actual article to be written about this film with this in mind. Howard the Duck (talk)
Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko! franchise. Nothing found in the Manila Standard except for the award nomination mention. DareshMohan (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested on how you did this. Searching via Google Newspaper Archive is impossible. You'd have to know what dates you'd browse into and hope a copy is there. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: I did a search for the year 1992. I can link what I found if you want. [62], [63] DareshMohan (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion of the amount of reference material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm rather favouring a keep but if this page should be redirected to and merged with another page, it would make more sense to do it with the first film (part I) (Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The_Movie) than with the original TV series (Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a merge to the first film. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per NFILM, otherwise merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie per explanations above. This seems like an appropriate situation for relying on a secondary criterion (here The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking), as most of the possible sources are either offline or difficult to access. -- Visviva (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Mushy Yank. A redirect to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie#Sequel would be suitable. DareshMohan (talk) 04:45, 27 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!} 03:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karish Rivera[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Puerto Rico women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Puerto Rico. JTtheOG (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a holdover of the "int'l cap = automatic notability" era (such as it was). My creating it was premature at best. Danish Ranger (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In light of recent discussions elsewhere I don't feel qualified to judge WP:RS, WP:IS, or WP:GNG. There's some coverage of the Rivera sisters' combined exit from the Sol in 2019 (1, 2, 3) but not enough on Karish specifically to warrant an article. If the Sol article had a more fleshed-out history section, the exit might have enough coverage to warrant a line there. Karish Rivera also appears to have started university and is no longer on the Stars' roster for the current Liga PR season, and there are no signs she's been active as a player for the Stars or PR since at least 2022. -Socccc (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:17, 28 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!} 03:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricus Nel[edit]

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

Non-notable; sources are YouTube videos and own website. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am seeing a lot of trivial mentions (live show lineup listings)[64], but nothing that could really contribute to WP:BASIC. I don't think MUSICBIO will be met either, but there is a slim chance that "Select Musiek" could qualify artist. —siro χ o 04:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see notability for this person. Perhaps someone from South Africa could comment on the importance of the Select Musiek item. Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Lefcentreright Discuss 14:20, 28 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!} 05:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Cottle[edit]

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

The article consists entirely of a plot summary for the character, with no secondary sources. I was also not able to locate any sources to show notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if it's enough to establish notability, but the character is more commonly referred to as "Doc Cottle" in various sources, including a couple of dead-tree works about BSG. Reasonable search term, merge or redirect is certainly more appropriate than deletion if notability cannot be established: no one contests this is a real character on notable TV show. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens I was able to rework the article a bit relying on a few of those dead tree sources. See below, what do you think? —siro χ o 01:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This show was a zeitgeist moment in some cultures, so it's no surprise that many of the characters have coverage with relations to the real world. While the character isn't quite Bones McCoy there's still a ton to dig through, covering themes ranging from characterization during the mid 2000s, to abortion rights, to sickness and prayer and medical ethics, to the role of a doctor. Here's a start: [65][66][67][68][69][70] —siro χ o 05:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Sources review: passing mention/plot summary, no preview, passing mention/plot summary, passing mention/plot summary, passing mention/plot summary and passing mention/plot summary again. Not seeing any WP:SIGCOV in what you listed, I am afraid. The character might warrant mention in some articles about medicine in fiction/abortion in fiction/etc., and of course in the general list of BG charactesr, but lack of SIGCOV and the WP:ALLPLOT content of the article prevents me from supporting your keep, I fear. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. I couldn't see all of the sources mentioned by Siroxo, but what I did see were passing mentions of plot points, not discussion or analysis of the character. I didn't find anything better. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Changing to weak keep following the "Doctors in space (ships)" source identification - that's one good source, with the others still marginal IMO. Another undeniably good source would make me a "keep" voter. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose The analysis is both in terms of characterization as well as in tying the character's actions (i.e. plot points) to aspects of the real world (i.e. analyzing the art through the medium of the character). Examples from references I linked:
- showing how men are frequently put in charge of reproductive science, also including comparing the character performing pregnancy terminations to women smuggled onto the ship to real world right to choose,
- pointing out more ties to the early 2000s zeitgiest including that the character is shown as a "crusty leftover" by having him smoke cigarettes
- the character's sense of medical ethics is described in contrast both to a religious zealot and an immoral doctor, and describing how the characters are also portrayed differently (for example, this character smokes cigarettes rather than occasional cigars of the zealot, etc)
- the character recommends prayer to a sick character, this action is tied to the real world explaining prayer as a comfort and a remaining option
- He's compared to a mechanic in that he can "fix humans" as part of an analysis of the show comparing humans as machines
—siro χ o 11:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you see this in the sources - which I did not - do try to add a reception/analysis section and ping me and I'll re-review and reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 16 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!} 02:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters per my comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your ping. I've taken you up on your suggestion and taken in-depth shot at this (diff). I've attributed everything to avoid SYNTH, and tried to only mention pieces of the authors conclusions that rely (in full or in part) directly on mentions of Cottle. I've represented several authors examinations to avoid UNDUE (though one author did have two essays that were both good to pull from). My prose is admittedly my weakness, but I'm pretty happy with the underlying essence. If this doesn't work for a keep, I'd appreciate help in finding a suitable way to merge the majority of this, as I think it does represent a reasonable tertiary examination of the character. Note also that I tend to avoid doing much with character articles, so feel free to point out or clean up any MOS-type things I may have missed. —siro χ o 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a proper ping for @Piotrus in case reply didn't work. —siro χ o 22:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo It didn't, but the ping did. The analysis is... ok. I don't have time to check again for SIGCOV in sources, but it reads ok - much better than some 'ranked n-th in the list of Top 10 whatevers' that we get here routinely. I'd nuke much of the content in 'Further description' as a lot if is trivia, and I am surprised this doesn't have a proper 'fictional character biography' (which could be extracted from that mess of a subsection... it was a mess before too [71]). For now I am changing my vote to weak keep based on your work. If anyone wants to challenge this, do ping me again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. The coverage is mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep character reception noted makes this sufficient for a standalone article, and inappropriate (though less inappropriate than outright deletion) for merge or redirect, as it has been improved. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just found ~470 more words of SIGCOV on ProQuest, in Henderson L, Carter S. Doctors in space (ships): biomedical uncertainties and medical authority in imagined futures. Medical Humanities 2016 12;42(4):277.. I am going to add it in the article now. —siro χ o 07:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added in that new source. I also want to let anyone else arriving at this discussion know that I've rewritten virtually the entire article. It now relies purely on secondary sources, with zero citations to the show itself. We now reference academic books of essays (one totaling a couple hundred of words of SIGCOV across authors), and we have multiple academic papers with hundreds of words of SIGCOV as well. I can confidently say WP:GNG is met. —siro χ o 11:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that changes to article since nomination can be reviewed and assessed in the context of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The improved article is not just an in-universe description of a fictional character; it is focused on reception and criticism of the character which can be traced to multiple reliable sources, and demonstrates that a high-quality verifiable encyclopedia article that isn't just fancruft can be written here. Since the significance of these sources was called into question by others, I spent some time assessing the sources linked in this discussion. Notability is definitely borderline but I'm satisfied that there's enough here to meet GNG. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 19:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dylnuge
Battlestar Galactica: Investigating Flesh, Spirit and Steel (ed. Kavneey, Stoy)	The book is an edited collection of essays published by Bloomsbury Publishing.	Cottle is mentioned in depth in at least two essays in the collection. One (Jowett) spends several pages on Cottle's actions and role in providing abortions.	✔ Yes
Cylons in America (ed. Marshall, Potter)	Another collection published by Bloomsbury Publishing.	Another essay by Jowett that covers Cottle in depth regarding the show's portrayal of science. The pages examining him begin with Other characters...serve as instructive contrasts, but Doctor Cottle, the Chief Medical Officer, is worth examining in detail (p. 68)	✔ Yes
The Theology of Battlestar Galactica (Wetmore)		? Cottle is only mentioned once, but a line from the character is used in the next few paragraphs to support a claim about the show's treatment of prayer as a source of healing. Not clearly significant on its own, but a bit more than just a passing mention.	? Unknown
Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Knowledge Here Begins Out There (ed. Eberl)	Edited collection of essays published by Wiley.	Cottle is mentioned on page 7 and page 68, but both are passing mentions	✘ No
Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Mission Accomplished Or Mission Frakked Up? (ed. Steiff, Tamplin)	Edited collection of essays published by Open Court. Note that despite the title, no apparent relation to the previous source.	A few references to Cottle and his actions, but the most significant of them is primarily focused on a plot situation (the ship running out of antibiotics) and not the character. Nothing here surpasses the passing mentions one would expect to find for any character in the show.	✘ No
Doctors in space (ships): biomedical uncertainties and medical authority in imagined futures (Henderson, Carter)	Scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal (Medical Humanities); never been examined in depth on RSN but I see no reason to doubt the reliability and it's a publication of the BMJ which is reliable	Cottle is covered extensively in the section "Universality of health care..." and mentioned by name in the article's conclusion	✔ Yes
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)).

Keep per DyInuge's above analysis and Siroxo's work. Seems to me that we indeed have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 00:13, 25 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saritha Komatireddy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Unsuccessful federal judicial nominees are not inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New York. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process and why the nomination ultimately failed. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:25, 18 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!} 02:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the target suggested by Let'srun. Hatman31 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, otherwise redirect per above. While the nom is quite right to state that Unsuccessful federal judicial nominees are not inherently notable, they are also not inherently un-notable. There's a lot of duplication among Indian wire service articles, but at least one of them should reasonably count, and we also have these bylined reports from Bloomberg and the Boston Globe. And then there's this page or so of coverage related to her AUSA work. (One gets the impression from news searches that she has a much higher than average profile as an AUSA, which doesn't bear directly on the question of notability but does explain why it's not surprising to run across such coverage occasionally.) Some coverage in Telugu press as well, although the articles I've been able to locate don't have a lot of independent content. -- Visviva (talk) 02:09, 25 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!} 02:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Graves[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Puerto Rico women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Puerto Rico. JTtheOG (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:16, 28 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!} 02:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Goyco[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Puerto Rico women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Puerto Rico. JTtheOG (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:16, 28 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 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Miniature Killer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article uses mostly primary/unreliable sources (the only reliable ones talk about the inspiration for the character). A quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove notability to the character. Spinixster (chat!) 01:21, 16 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!) 01:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The source you're talking about (The devil is in ‘CSI’s’ details) should be included in the List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters for the Miniature Killer. The rest of the article is only filler and doesn't need it's own article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. There are not enough sources for notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:28, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Stoltenberg[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. All coverage is routine, nothing of significance. Let'srun (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:03, 28 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!} 00:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Lestar[edit]

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

Puffy language, press-releases and non-notable sources. Not meeting notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sweden. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. A standard professional profile. —siro χ o 04:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional, no evidence of coverage that meets GNG, heavy reliance on primary sources. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIRS coverage in Swedish news. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:13, 24 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!} 00:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lidy Nacpil[edit]

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

Some coverage, but not enough for notability. Most are mentions of things she's involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can keep per WP:BASIC. Here's some of the sources I found via TWL

—siro χ o 01:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC - I have been reviewing coverage and have started to update the article; Nacpil appears to be nationally and internationally known as an activist, particularly for climate justice, and appears to be recognized as such by national and international press and scholarly sources. Due to the amount of coverage over time and the breadth of her activism since the 1980s/1990s, further expansion of the article seems possible based on available sources in e.g. GNews, GBooks, GScholar, and the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (but I'm leaning more into a delete. I mean...as a Filipino living in the Philippines, I'm not 100% sure about how notable she is here. Her first husband for sure is a much more well known activist (and was even the subject of a musical). There are other activists who have a much higher public profile than her. The way this article was written looks a bit more PR-ish to me than encyclopedic. But, yeah, sure, if there are sources then we can keep it, just that it's gonna be a weak one for me. -- Tito Pao (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by Siroxo. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:BASIC on the sources mentioned above. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the sources listed by Siroxo above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:06, 28 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!} 00:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Colson[edit]

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

No sourcing found for this person. Award won seems notable, but there is not sourcing that discusses him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless I am missing something, this individual has been nominated for three Grammy awards thus meeting WP:MUSICBIO#C8. (some verification from a trade publication [72]) —siro χ o 00:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much, but I was unable to locate sources that confirmed the nominations for the Grammy. To me, it seemed like a name in a list of people; I'd assume for the article to be kept, we'd need some other discussion of the person. Oaktree b (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the guidelines state notability is presumed, not guaranteed, so other discussion can help affirm that presumption, but with the SNG being met, we don't need to go so far as to meet GNG or WP:BASIC. I think that when the notability guideline is met, we would need clear consensus that the presumption is not valid in the specific case to not use the guideline in that case. I guess we'll see where the consensus lands. Either way, we do need some amount of sourcing for WP:V. —siro χ o 05:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of notability is there and it's backed by sources like this one which provide in-depth coverage about the subject, with ample additional sources available to be added to flesh out further details about the subject beyond the list of songs. With that, the notability standard has been met. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to what others have noted, the Grammy website has a page for Colson stating his nominations. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:45, 24 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.