< July 04	July 06 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 03:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Ultra Endurance Series[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Bicycle race series with only a single independent source. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Transportation, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to lean weak keep on this. A 5-minute WP:BEFORE turned up this, and I was not comprehensive:
- Seem independent [1][2]
- Perhaps not independent [3]
- More than passing mention, borderline sigcov [4](see both pages)
- some minor coverage [5][6]

—siro χ o 20:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siroxo. In addition, my incomplete review of newspaper sources also suggests that this series is the regular recipient of nontrivial coverage, e.g. [7], [8]. [9]. That said, most of the coverage is mostly about individual races, e.g. [10]. In view of that, I wonder if there might be a reasonable way to merge this into Marathon mountain bike races, which is a bit thin at present. -- Visviva (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As shown above, sources are good enough to keep under the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 03:16, 12 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 Sigma AB#Sigma Software. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business, funding news, profiles and PR. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 20:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Sweden, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For starters the original author has admitted to WP:PAID and is now banned for advertising so this article is already off to a bad start. Not to mention this article has been deleted before already. The social impact section doesn't exactly help WP:CORPDEPTH and seems to be of a promotional thing. For the remaining relevant part, I see two references are just interviews with the CEO and nothing else so we cannot use them per WP:ORGIND. The other references are just short mentions of the company. - Imcdc Contact 05:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mostly due to the war in Ukraine there is now SIRS-coverage of the company in major Swedish news outlets. Unfortunately, I really can't spare the time to fix the article rn. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post some article links if you have time User:Draken Bowser? I can try updating the article with sources. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a revisit I'm not sure it's at GNG-levels, there ain't much on the early history of the company, but there sure is a lot of coverage: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]/[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. You'll probably need sv:Mediearkivet-access if you haven't got it already. The articles are mostly paywalled. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Might be an issue if they are paywalled but I will review. - Indefensible (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably enough to keep it, but at minimum can be merged with its parent Sigma AB if not. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Taking into account this article's history, User:scope_creep's knowledge and expertise with WP:NCORP and my own reading of the article, my inkling is this company is not notable. Acknowledge, there's plenty of references added, unfortunately unable to see many of them in detail. Opposed to keep, but there is a case for merging to the parent company Sigma AB, especially if Sigma Software is now a wholly owned or near 100% subsidiary (looks like it but haven't been able to categorically determine). Rupples (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma AB owns 60% of Sigma Software from what I could find. - Indefensible (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this looks to be the case from the company's website. Didn't find the info. yesterday but did today by searching with a more specific query. Don't think the company meets NCORP on its own, but as you say, a merge to Sigma AB might be a valid alternative. The amount of content merged would have to be significantly trimmed to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight. Not altogether convinced a merge is appropriate that's why I'm not formally recommending. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator editor has been blocked as a UPE for covert advertising. I see a whole load of their previous articles have been deleted and more will be. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect TNT this, I'll add a sentence or two at Sigma AB pending expansion. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deed is done, I think we can redirect now. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sigma AB#Sigma Software as its parent and the way the two are branded. Not ideal as its only 60% owned, but a reasonable outcome. Rupples (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sigma AB per above. There is probably a bit more which could be transferred over in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. User:Draken Bowser has pretty much got this spot on by only including in Sigma AB non-promotional content from reliable, independent sources. If promotional content is added from the Social impact section of this article, the Sigma AB article starts to look like a proxy for this one. Rupples (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it does not mention the early history of the founding of Sigma Software in 2002. If this article is combined with the parent then it should cover more details like that. - Indefensible (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma Software as a brand was launched in 2014. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to a company than its brand name. Right now the parent article covers the acquisition in 2006, the renaming in 2014, and recent activities because of the war. But not the founding. Why? That does not seem consistent. If this article is merged or redirected there, we are going to lose some content. - Indefensible (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the article subject is Sigma AB it kind of makes sense to include any information on Eclipse as a subsidiary, but I'm not sure it makes sense to relate the independent company's early history. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does and would cost very little in my opinion. Sigma AB only has 60% of Sigma Software based on the source that we have, that is enough for majority control but still leaves a good portion in outside control. If we remove this article then we should include some more in that article, it would not be promotional and is just giving more information. - Indefensible (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sigma AB#Sigma Software as ATD, topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 12 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 West Side Story#Films. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Story (1979 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, nothing found to support inlcusion except the book mention, which may not be indepth DonaldD23 talk to me 15:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Egypt. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability. But this looks like a mainstream Egyptian film that should have generated coverage at the time in local media. Would need a search by someone with working Arabic and access to Egyptian news archives to better determine notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to West Side Story § Films, where we may give mention to this Egyptian version. If you can find good sources, please ping me. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure why I've been tagged? Giant Snowman 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the one cited sentence to West Side Story § Films, without prejudice to future restoration if sources are found. The existing article is untenable under WP:V, but we should endeavor to preserve verified encyclopedic information under WP:PRESERVE. -- Visviva (talk) 23:39, 6 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 speedy keep‎ per WP:CSK R1§3 (non-admin closure) AviationFreak💬 15:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barton, Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

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

A one sentence article; I added one profile cite, but lacks WP:SIGCOV to establish notability JoeNMLC (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thankyou to all who helped improve this one. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ - Notability (geographic features). 2007 one-line article. The only source here is the travel gazetteer added by AFD nominator JoeNMLC today (see above). It shows nothing more than a little tourist map that looks like the area is non-notable. Per a decision by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee in 2016, creating editor WayneRay has been been banned indefinitely by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing all Wikimedia sites. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per added info. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - WP:RS search came up empty. Google Earth shows 10-15 homes strung out along about 1 km of highway. Google Street View shows an empty rural highway great for a car commercial about exploring wide open spaces. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Eastmain's good find below. It's just a paragraph but also a big one, authoritative and comprehensive. Notability is not temporary; there was a small community there a long time ago. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador at https://collections.mun.ca/digital/collection/cns_enl/id/1540/rec/1 is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:HEY. Nfitz (talk) 19:28, 9 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, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CW Real Estate[edit]

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

Flowery text used, winner of a non-notable award. Largely appears promo. Many of the sources used read as PR pieces. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as quite obviously promo and (less obviously, but I googled a bit) non-notable. Deckkohl (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG, which must have significant, in depth, independent coverage on the subject. There must be absolute minimum of two such sources and one of them has to be broad audience such as national or international. Needless to say, they all need to be reliable source. Graywalls (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i understand that it is a company which is likely trying to appear on wikipedia. Since there are other companies alike on wikipedia, I think it should be kept for further review by other editors who are likely to come across it.Engrdrizzy (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidently promotional sources - the newspaper articles look as though they've been written from a narrative put out by the company. Major doubt over the independence of the content WP:ORGIND. Sources in the article don't satisfy the indepth coverage required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Found nothing from searching that does either. Rupples (talk) 23:28, 10 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, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Tamagna[edit]

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

Non-notable local elected official. Reads like a resume, with no notability found in RS, simple confirmation of a person doing their job. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some promotional concerns, but the larger concern is that he is a local politician who has only received coverage in local sources, which traditionally is WP:NOT enough to qualify for a stand-alone article - otherwise every local politician everywhere would be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that sugeests notability --Devoke water 21:22, 12 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, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holidaze (comic book)[edit]

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

An article on a comic, seemingly created by the author of said comic, that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. While the Bleeding Cool review being used is decent-ish (about two paragraphs of coverage on the series), the other reference being used is a dead link, and as the error page for that is from WordPress, I suspect it would not have been considered a reliable source anyway. Searches turned up no other coverage from reliable sources that I could find. Rorshacma (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCOMIC/WP:COI. For starters, ProQuest has 3,461 hits for standalone "Holidaze" at this writing, but none mentioning writer Dave Dellecese and/or artist Andrew Cieslinski. Unless more research gives us hope, this is definitely Fandom territory. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to this failing WP:GNG. We could be extra nice and draftify this in the author's namespace, but the odds they'll come back to fix this (if this is fixable) are slim as usual. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:25, 12 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, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy Rofique[edit]

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

One appearance for the Mauritius national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Also, it appears that his first name is spelled "Clency". JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mauritius. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I checked and agree. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 6 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!} 23:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnazae Swan[edit]

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

Two appearances for the Bermuda national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is a start, but not nearly enough. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 6 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!} 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Sargent[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The gold medal she won is not truly a global competition, but a summer four-team tournament JTtheOG (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be a GNG fail. There's some coverage, but not anything to suggest significant coverage. Not seeing a suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is mentioned in the media in lists with other players. Deckkohl (talk) 11:21, 10 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!} 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Tomar[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian canoeist. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I found were passing mentions like this, this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India. JTtheOG (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I found was trivial mentions. And namesakes. Deckkohl (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Deckkohl. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:44, 10 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!} 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Moses Manerson[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this biography of a music producer and manager, and only found this reference from The Urban Buzz, which I'm not sure is reliable. The main reference in the article as it currently exists is to an offline biography from PSI North-South Partners, which appears to be a PR company. The two references to the person's company website, BluRaffe, are failing to load for me. I do not see that this person meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO. The article has been tagged with One source since 2011 (it arguably has three - the PSI biography, Blu Raffe and an article from Variety which doesn't mention Manerson) and with Notability since the same date. I did remove some unsourced content before deciding to nominate this for AfD, which you can see in the history. Tacyarg (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Massachusetts, and New York. Tacyarg (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And besides the nom's findings, this is a BLP that has several unsourced assertions, quite aside from almost all the sources being primary or unusable. Ravenswing 21:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits in Gnews tells you how notable this individual is, Gsearch is his twitter account, then some site where I can verify his ancestry, then it goes to discogs, then off to non-RS land. Smacks of PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. In recording, producers contribute to the work, executive producers do not, so this subject does not qualify for WP:NMUSIC. Also does not meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Lastly there are a lot of claims that can't be sourced outside of primary sources/PR. —siro χ o 22:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the CV per other comments. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:18, 6 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!} 23:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mudapilavu[edit]

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

The article has no citations and includes a lot of puffery. I also could not find any non-circular source on google, most that are not circular talk about an arcade. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 19:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 19:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced since 2008 and no latlon. I must disagree with nom on a lot of puffery -- the article is a total of 3 sentences. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in my mind, 2/3 sentences containing puffery is a lot. One sentence is entirely puffery and the other has just general unneeded puffery. The second sentence is just a too locally orientated, seven-worded description of where it is. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 00:45, 11 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 Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Glinton[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The subject seems to have become a successful youth coach, but this was all that I was able to find. JTtheOG (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, Caribbean, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:29, 6 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. Joyous! Noise! 18:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skamija[edit]

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

non-notable magazine published in a grammar school ~T P W 16:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find links about this magazine. Article is likely poorly translated and somewhat hard to follow, so I'm unsure where to look for clues. Oaktree b (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely to be notable. Will monitor on the off chance sources are found. Rupples (talk) 00:48, 11 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. Joyous! Noise! 18:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thekraj Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Fade258 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for 8 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing references to support notability or article quality. - Indefensible (talk) 05:03, 11 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. Joyous! Noise! 19:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singha Devi Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Fade258 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for 7 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to support on notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 05:05, 11 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!} 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Bhawani Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed with nominator on both counts, searched but cannot find any evidence of in-depth coverage or other indicators of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and Ganesha. Fade258 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to support on notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 05:06, 11 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!} 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of schools with very similar names out there. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV about this particular one in Khalanga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It lacks in-depth significant coverage with sufficient reliable, secondary and independent sources to the title. Fade258 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to support on notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 05:07, 11 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!} 23:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janajyoti Vidyamandir[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed with nominator on both counts, searched but cannot find any evidence of in-depth coverage or other indicators of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and Ganesha. Fade258 (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other Nepali schools being nominated for deletion, this subject actually seems to have references in Nepali. Some further research is needed. - Indefensible (talk) 05:14, 11 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!} 23:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khairahani Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed with nomination on both counts, cannot find any evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would be nice to preserve this info somehow, but does not seem to have any supporting references to meet notability or quality. - Indefensible (talk) 05:19, 11 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!} 23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor Atanasov (footballer)[edit]

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

Similar case to Isus Angelov. Badly sourced BLP with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Bulgarian searches yielded Top Sport, a passing mention of him, simply mentioning his injury, Varna 24, a brief transfer announcement, simply mentioning that he transferred from Germany to Cherno More, and Blitz, an image caption followed by a trivial match report mention. None of these types of sources contribute to GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total of 6 professional games back in 2008, looks more as a hobbyist. [23] --Nk (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:27, 12 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!} 23:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Baraka[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, there is no coverage of this person in RS. What's used for sourcing is simply confirmation of what they do. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, at least. He has media coverage but it is almost entirely from unreliable entertainment gossip sites that reprint management's promotional announcements or provide space for uncritical softball interviews. This is common for beginners in African music, as we've seen here hundreds of times, and the quantity of sources does not add up to quality. A blurb site that calls a beginner "Ugandan Music's Next Big Thing" is enthusiastic but untrustworthy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Oyet[edit]

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

Not meeting notability. I only find articles he's written, nothing specifically about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Sudan, and China. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was already such a ref about him on the article when you nominated it though. - Indefensible (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About him not being notable? Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles not just written by the subject but about him. - Indefensible (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you look for sources, be aware that there's another Patrick Oyet who's a whistleblower in Uganda. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - we should have an article about this man -- he's the head of the journalists association in South Sudan, a country that routinely arrests and abuses journalists. But our notability requirement is less about who merits an article than our ability to make a reliable, properly referenced article. In Mr. Oyet's case, we just don't have anything with substantial coverage from a reliable source. Google found 41 articles in various languages. Lots of good passing mentions in reliable sources but just not enough to build an article. This becomes even more important since this is a BLP. It's also a BLP that is more likely to get tampered with, so best delete it if our sourcing is incomplete.

Please ping me if somebody finds something.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think draftify would be preferred over a complete delete in this case. - Indefensible (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - please save a draft copy rather than delete for incubation per above. - Indefensible (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 9 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. Joyous! Noise! 19:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abolfazl Mahdiar[edit]

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

Non-notable pilot. (Note the dates of birth and death are given using the Persian calendar(?), not the Gregorian one). BBC article is a start, but that's all I find for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep Done. both dates of birth and death were edit--Patricia (Talk) 15:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sources in English.--Patricia (Talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of anything notable, sources are not really about him (some don't even mention him?) or just a brief mention. Fram (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I Do add one sorce of bishop and cooper:Iranian F-4 PHANTOM II Units in Combat by Farzad Bishop & Tom Cooper, 2003, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1 84176 658 5.--Patricia (Talk) 12:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That book doesn't seem to even mention Mahdiar[24]? Fram (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

add another source: No.5. But iam not sure. Maybe is not useful. But maby not bad to see.--Patricia (Talk) 13:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN pilot. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:30, 10 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!} 04:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BOD (consulting firm)[edit]

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. Most of the references rely on PR or on awards won by projects the company may have contributed to. This is insufficient to meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The big interview in The Economic Times seems to be the most promising but is not independent. Overall, feels run of the mill for a company, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to be sure.—siro χ o 20:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's worth keeping and refining--DH22 Mim (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Economic Times article exhibited churnalism characteristics. Numerous "says Manocha." doesn't imply notability due to significant quotation. It implies lack of independent secondary coverage. Graywalls (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another non-notable (and a bit of promo-style) org page. Deckkohl (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK for a WP:FRINGE theory of EuroMaidan that has been promoted mainly by Russian state media. Katchanovksi himself is notable neither as an academic, nor as a writer. What content is notable about the theory itself should be rolled into Revolution of Dignity. Nangaf (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Ukraine, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m on the fence. He is also a real academic, and coauthor of the respectable Historical Dictionary of Ukraine. But I cannot confirm that he meets any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows a small number of works with a lot of citations,[25] but are there enough in peer-reviewed pubs to support notability? —Michael Z. 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the only case for notability from the article itself is his Maidan false-flag theory, and IMO that is kind of like WP:1E, which can appear in articles where it belongs and doesn’t warrant an author’s bio. I see he is currently linked in Euromaidan (EDIT: deleted)[26] but not mentioned nor cited there nor in Revolution of Dignity, nor Maidan casualties. I’m voting delete. —Michael Z. 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that WP:NAUTHOR item #2 as long as the page is expanded and includes more information other than this one theory. If it can't be done, I would merge it into an existing article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider Katchanovski a “creative professional” (when he held a seminar at his university and brought a paper to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association) and the thesis “a significant new theory,” it was originated by fringe websites (like Global Research.ca) and Russian state media (like RT (TV network)) in February–March 2014, not by Katchanovski in October. —Michael Z. 15:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the more appropriate guidelines for this line of thought are WP:PROF, criteria no. 1, 4, or 7, and I don’t think they are met. —Michael Z. 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Which "significant new concept, theory, or technique" did he pioneer? The Maidan sniper "theory"? I think the criteria uses "theory" in a different way from, say, "conspiracy theory"; it means some significant new theory in some scholarly field, for example. He definitely doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. But odd to judge him there given he is not a journalist and his books are academic. More apt guideline to check would be WP:PROF. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my nomination: going by the details of his biography, the only possible criterion of WP:PROF that Katchanovski might meet is 7 ('The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity') and that impact is essentially solely for the false flag theory of Maidan. Unless there are other grounds for notability -- and I do not consider that his written works qualify him as a notable WP:AUTHOR -- it would be better to include this this theory in the appropriate article on Maidan rather than a biographic article. Nangaf (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:NACADEMIC. As the proposer notes, the article is a mess, mainly about a conspiracy theory. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user is suggesting we keep per WP:NAUTHOR item 2, which says says 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. (emphasis added). Katchanovski fails this because the conspiracy theory is not significant. It's also unclear to me if he originated it. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1557 times, with h-index 21 and i10-index 36.[27]

"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 148 times.

"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 132 times.

"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.

"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 88 times.

"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 81 times.

"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 77 times.

Widely quoted in Google Books.[28]

Widely quoted in Google News.[29]

I would also urge colleagues to use the term 'conspiracy theorist' with care (per WP:BLP) because this academic is not widely referred to in these terms in the sources.--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Are you saying people with those numbers all automatically meet some particular notability threshold? I don’t know what those numbers mean.

I don’t know how many citations or whether those citations are “independent reliable sources” or indicate “a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources,” or “a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity” (WP:PROF). —Michael Z. 20:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, “widely quoted” in the news, with results topped by The Grayzone, editorials under his byline, an interview by the Tehran Times, and some lefty websites obsessed with “Ukrainian Nazis.” —Michael Z. 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a well-known scholar. For example, some important Western sources quoted him:

Mhorg (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These alone qualify him under NPROF #7 BhamBoi (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of these is an op ed by him. None of them are about him. One of them (La Razon) quotes him extensively; the others are a single quote. This does not demonstrate "substantial impact". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note above. While it is possible that the false flag theory of Maidan might qualify as 'substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity' based on media coverage, since Katchanovski's notability does not extend to any other topic, it would be preferable to include what is notable about the theory in the appropriate article about Maidan and delete the biographical article, since he is WP:1E and the article a WP:COATRACK. Nangaf (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to say what exactly was his "substantial impact" (in academia and outside). Is he an author of the Maidan "false flag theory"? Hardly. That has been debated and investigated by others. See this NYT investigation, for example, that does not mentioned Katchanovsky [49]. We can only say his claims on Twitter and elsewhere were briefly mentioned a number of times. They were usually trivial comments on current events. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, scholar academic with number of peer reviewed articles and publications, well-recognised, no reason to delete the page, other than personal dislike of his theories. Marcelus (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: Can you elaborate why you think IK is a notable WP:ACADEMIC? As far as I can tell he does not meet the appropriate criteria. Nangaf (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is influential and notable academic, author of several books and articles in scientific journals. Marcelus (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generating ~~dis~~misinformation [50] can add him some ~~notability~~ notoriety, but it does not help him as WP:ACADEMIC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about using 'Generating disinformation' per WP:BLP. The source you brought in does not use such terms when talking about this person. Mhorg (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that particular publication does describe the "theory" as refuted misinformation and cites him as the source of the "theory". Quickly checking, one can find this opinion by Taras Kuzio who says about two papers by K. which, according to him, "have generated controversy because they are revisionist and have little in common with academic scholarship." My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katchanovski's academic output is meagre and not by itself sufficient under WP:NPROF. What evidence is there of any influence on his field? Nangaf (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, he hardly passes WP:GNG because most cited sources only mention him or his work in passing, there is no more substantial coverage. These are really just citations of his claims. Yes, his claims are highly controversial and as such were cited in various contexts. Which boils down to the only significant argument to "keep" this page: he has a presumably high citation H index. But is it high enough to establish notability? I am not convinced. Looking at the guideline, Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), it says: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used.. Still, the current version of the page is sourced. A promotion? Yes, maybe. The involvement of someone "with close connection to the subject", the prolonged discussions, waste of time and claims about this page becoming an "attack page" [51] tips the balance toward "delete", in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be first deletion of the page, that I'm aware of, because it is "unconvinient". For real, the only thing that should be our focus is the notability, and Katchanovski as an established academic clearly is notable enough. Marcelus (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI editing, for example someone creating an article about himself or a friend/collaborator, can be an argument for deletion. Someone with a potential COI who also creates a disruption (such as the IP involved at the article talk page I think) can only make it worse. Hence my comment. Just to be clear, I am talking about a potential COI only by IP accounts (such as [52]), not by anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what it all has to do with this article? And especially this discussion? Marcelus (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD fell through the cracks somehow. Leaning towards no consensus, but hesitant to close as such without relisting at least once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes as an academic, based on the number of citations. Could be considered controversial, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations alone are not sufficient to determine academic notability. Nangaf (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What then would be satisfying? Marcelus (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 8 conditions listed under WP:NACADEMIC. Number of citations, per se, is not among them. Typically it means professors or academics of a similar rank. Katchanovski is a junior academic who does not even have a full-time appointment at his institution.Nangaf (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 13 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 SolarWinds#History. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Yonce[edit]

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

Non-notable business person, not meeting notability standards, with more sourcing about the inventions than the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Yonce co-started a SolarWinds, a multi-billion dollar company. He's been on Shark Tank. He had his own show on the Discovery Channel, America Made Inventor. The only reason the show is over is because Discovery wanted drama. Dave likes Peace ☮️. Certainly is notable businessman & celebrity entrepreneur inventor. Quite an interesting guy as well.Firnanda.Reena (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need sourcing to discuss these, that's the issue. Can you share some reliable sources to confirm this? Mentions in newspapers or stories about him? Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Forbes sources there that goes in depth Firnanda.Reena (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the link? We don't have such a source currently. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notable or not, the article needs to be rewritten because it's very close to a speedy deletion candidate as advertisement. The tone is completely inappropriate. Pichpich (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It could be argued that the subject, Dave Yonce, passes WP:GNG as there are at least some reliable sources that discuss him.[53] However, there is not an abundance of such citations that provide in-depth coverage; most discuss the companies he is associated with. Knox490 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

WP:GNG with now that is has the patent references and citations. Starlighsky (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2023

Comment those do not count towards passing GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SolarWinds#History. The article is bad to the point of deletion per WP:TNT; the original was promotional and Starlighsky's changes were not improvements. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Patent references and citations are helpful references. I just want to add that to encourage Wikipedians to look at the published references in intellectual property: Copyrights, Patents, and so on.

I saw the article on the delete list and was just trying to help. Starlighsky (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SolarWinds#History. He co-founded the company in 1999, then left in 2007 before it IPOed, per SEC documents. The one article in 2015 was due to the value of the equity he presumably still had in Solar Winds, hardly WP:SIGCOV due to his notability. Hard to find WP:RS to justify notability. Longhornsg (talk) 06:54, 12 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smith family (Sierra Leone)[edit]

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

Although members of the family may be relevant, the family itself is not notable. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An obviously very notable family, just because they are African doesn’t make them less relevant. Amaekuma (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A family that has four or more notable members is itself notable. Athel cb (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a very notable and important family in Sierra Leone. Meanderingbartender (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Education, Medicine, England, and Jamaica. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an interesting family with an interesting history. Even though they have individual articles, I think there's value in having capsule biographies in one place to see how the family evolved and spread out. It conveys additional information in this way that individual articles don't unless you read all of them.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Easmon family intermarried with the Smith family. There's a lengthy history of the Easmon dynasty in Ghana and Sierra Leone that I'm sure discusses the Smiths:

"The Brothers Easmon" by Nigel Browne-Davies, Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana, No. 16 (2014), pp. 45-110 (66 pages)

Published By: Historical Society of Ghana

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more I research, the more I see this was a remarkable family. There are probably more descendants to add at some point. I think the family as a unit is also notable: take a look at how many of the text snippets in the Google Scholar search mention the "Smith family". There is a wealth of academic material on the Smiths.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also: [54] Chamaemelum (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keeping the article about the family and keeping the articles about the individuals are not mutually exclusive. See Kennedy family or Jackson family. Bremps... 16:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fine to keep this. The members are individually notable. Agree it helps with context to present them in a single article. Navigational benefit as well. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 11 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 14:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Collins (author)[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)

Malcolm Collins is an author, business person, philanthropist and advocate of the pronatalist movement. As an author, the subject is self-published. As a business person, we have little to no evidence of notability. As a philanthropist, likewise. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" being absent, the subject fails WP:GNG. The article is promotional in tone, incidentally, and was created by a blocked sock (though others have since contributed). Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this vote is more a reflection of the beliefs of the nominator rather than any real question as to if there is enough coverage to justify a page. There coverage by almost every media source ranging from the left's Huffington Post, the Telegraph, MSNBC, Piers Morgan.. all the way to the more left NYPost. I wonder if the nominator's beliefs might not align with the Natalism or eugenics beliefs that the subject endorses? Quick look and both voters on here do substantial article creation on muslim subjects. None of their articles seem to be as well referenced and cited. If there is a question about the content, which it seems to be all well cited.. keep it published and let people work on it. They certainly get enough coverage and it will likely continue. As for publishing, at least one book is on a WSJ best sellers list.. His business press seems to be well documented over several different companies.. PCMag, VentureBeat, etc..I think he was a 500 alumni and exited. I can't imagine any objection to this being a relevant wikipedia subject doesnt have more to do with more religious objections to their use of embryo screening. A search reveals a plethora of coverage in tv, print and podcasts.. Thanks for your consideration.
~~Count Graduon (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Checkuser note: Confirmed sock of User:Kauiltan. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~If anything leave it published with a "may need clean up" notice. Count Graduon (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

“Count Graduon”? That’s the most unexpected Sonichu reference I’ve seen in a while. Dronebogus (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "Sonichu" was in the filter that prohibited any such reference being made on any page on Wikipedia but apparently it is not any longer. Definitely a strange context to see it come up. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. The article has a history of WP:SOCKING, will also recommended WP:SALT for draftspace and mainspace. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does a huge amount of publicity pushes, quite a lot resulting in "who on earth is this weirdo" articles - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does it need to be cleaned up? Yes. Were socks involved? Yes. But notable? Yes. Secondary, non-passing coverage? Also yes. We should keep, then merge this with his wife's sock draft article. Wikipedia does not specify a reason for notability: it would be totally valid to be notable for being weird as long as notability is shown via secondary sources. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not the subject is notable we need to wipe this blatantly promotional garbage off the face of earth. Dronebogus (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, do not SALT at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page should be protected. Plenty of coverage for wp:nexist... weird or not and they are being targeted as an extortion scheme.[55]https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaAdminReport/comments/14szgp5/tom_a_sr_admin_is_running_undisclosed_editing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of the nominators created articles.. [56]https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Alexandermcnabb 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems hippocritical when these are allowed .. [57]https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Jamiebuba 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how you spell hypocritical Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would misspell it. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to not SALT. The editor of the page needs help. [Edit: by "needs help", I meant he was currently being scammed without understanding it was a scam.] Weirdly, the IP does not seem to be the subject. He or she is falling for a Wikipedia scam and doesn't understand. IP, please see: [58] Chamaemelum (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm personally offended, but I'd strike the comment about the editor of the page. It's generally frowned upon to cast doubt on the mental state of others, I've found. (This is meant to be helpful) best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read "needs help" as literal as in help with the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A kinder reading than mine, obviously! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alexandermcnabb--I see how it sounds when reading it again. (It wasn't a comment on his or her mental state). Chamaemelum (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm looking at sources, not an obvious delete, but I think if kept, the article should be Malcolm and Simone Collins, much of the coverage seems to be about them as a couple. And if any of the Collinses happen to be watching, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Per sources on the Collinses and their work from 2014[59][60], 2020[61] and the 2023 media-blitz including[62][63][64] I think there's a keep for a Malcolm and Simone Collins article, so I think this article should be rewritten and moved there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I revise my previous "keep" comment to concur with the above. Ideally, delete this and make an article including both of them. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Significant coverage focuses on the two of them combined. Plus the socking, possible COI editing, and spammish tone, just TNT it, but don't SALT; it can be recreated as a redirect to an article on him and his wife if the latter is created. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 for dumping a COI template on my talk, nominating two of my article creations for deletion and tagging others. That's a nice spirit you have there, my friend... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reported that IP to ANI for disruptive editing and incivility Dronebogus (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?: Don't count this vote because it comes from the subject of the article. I agree with the calls to have it merged with an article on my wife. We have a shared public image, no reason to have two articles. I came here because people on Wikipedia keep emailing me / Twitter DMing me with requests to pay for keep votes.

As for significant coverage, we have had front page articles on us in both the Telegraph and the National Post, a viral article on us in Insider, topped the WSJ non-fiction best seller list, have had a Vice documentary on us, and hit major news papers about once a month. The real reason I came here was to say we keep a lot of our press on this page (even the negative stuff) which should make it easier for whomever writes the combined article: https://pragmatistfoundation.com/ Merrymilkman1 (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the press list scroll down the page and it is the buttons near the bottom on the right hand side with the book icons next to them (or just control F things like telegraph) Merrymilkman1 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merrymilkman1: regarding people on Wikipedia keep emailing me / Twitter DMing me with requests to pay for keep votes, these are all well-known scams. See the linked page for more information about the scam and how to report it. Ljleppan (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merrymilkman1, thanks for talking to us. In a few days, probably within a week, a non-involved Wikipedian will take a look at this discussion and "close" it, as we say around here. Depending on their closing-comment, we'll see what can be done then.

Almost everybody you encounter here has WP as hobby (at times maybe also passion or obsession), and anybody who wants money for it is most likely scamming. Our admins don't charge "service fees", and they don't have any final say on what goes into an article anyway. Perhaps you'll like this story:[65] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and allow the creation of an article about the couple, Malcolm and Simone Collins. Most of the coverage is related to the couple, so creating individual biographies is unnecessary. As this was created by a blocked UPE, it is hardly salvageable and deserves deletion per WP:TNT. Mercenf (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ECP Salt. This article is too much the work of sockpuppets. Protect the title so that it can only be recreated by an extended-confirmed author such as an AFC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Even a merged article would have BLP and notability issues at this time. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment could just merge the two and create an article for the couple.. I havent ever seen it before on wikipedia and am not sure if it is within the scope.. obviously they get press since these references go back 20 years.. they will likely continue as founders of pronatalist non profit that advocates.. 135.148.233.69 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If "havent ever seen it before on wikipedia" refers to articles about a married or working couple, see for example Category:Married couples and Category:Writing duos. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while they're not using it on en.wiki, it's clear User:TeggorMindFish (the uploader of the personal photographs at Commons) is also a connected account. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 12 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 14:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChefOnline[edit]

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

Online food delivery service. Sent to draft by NPP twice, both times returned to mainspace - yet still lacks RS coverage. Despite the claim in the article that the company "gained significant media attention for organizing National Curry Week between 4th to 10th May of 2020" no coverage in RS is presented (I'm discounting the Bucks Free Press and Epping Forest Guardian here). Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP, see table below. —siro χ o 09:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Asian Voice	press announcement			✘ No
Bangla Mirror	press announcement	~		✘ No
Delish.com			passing mention does not qualify for SIRS	✘ No
Metro	CEO quote	RSP		✘ No
Sheffield Star	executive quote	?		✘ No
Sky News	executive interview		?	✘ No
caterlyst.com	executive quote	?	routine coverage not enough for SIRS	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source table above shows nothing qualifies as a RS, I can't find much else that would support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As explained in the table, WP:GNG has not been met. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:47, 12 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 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaël Adam Cissé[edit]

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

French-Canadian investment banker. WP:NOTCV. Fails WP:GNG, no RS (company press releases, paid media placements, interviews), no notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ivory Coast, and France. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN. The article itself doesn't even make a claim to notability. If someone chooses to put together a WP:THREE, ping and I will review, but 26 references for a CV that makes not claim to notability is a bridge too far. —siro χ o 09:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO. Articles used as sources are basically him tooting his own horn. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, sources are not reliable. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 17:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created by a single purpose editor. Probable self promotion and WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 11:53, 6 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!} 05:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Júlia Székely[edit]

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

NN musician and writer. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NAUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, and Hungary. UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have some familiarity with Hungarian music and the language, but via more targeted searches all I can find on Ms. Székely are basic directory entries that say little more than what is in this article. She studied with Bartók, found some work as a concert musician and piano instructor, wrote some books that appear to all be out of print. Unless an expert on both the language and classical music of Hungary can dig up some old but reliable sources, there is not much to work with here. Despite having a connection with one famous musician and getting some books published in her time, Ms. Székely seems to have been an honest but ordinary working person like everyone else, and therefore not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doomsdayer520,

Thank you for your research.

I originally created this article 10 years ago after reading one of Székely's novels (in its French translation). I thought it odd that she didn't have an article on Wikipedia and wished to include her so that other people could be aware of her work. I had actually borrowed the book from a regular library in Paris, without looking for particularly old writers. This translation was published in 2005, which I find rather recent for an early 20th-century Hungarian writer.

That being said, I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge of Hungarian culture to argue whether this person is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Enqueror (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was unable to find anything, but the Wikilibrary is acting up. If new sources appear please ping me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging per your request based on new sources below and requests for clearer consensus. —siro χ o 08:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes: An actual ping. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3 and her her entry in the Magyar életrajzi lexikon (Hungarian Bibliographical Dictionary). I'm surprised it's so hard to find any information about this author. She's got about 50 publications listed at WorldCat, and many of them are widely held at libraries around the world, including at the British Library, the Library of Congress, Columbia University, and UCLA. This suggests (but does not prove) that her collective body of work is significant or well-known. I'm suspicious that, because she worked mainly in Hungarian and before the internet era, the necessary sources may be off-line and hard to find. pburka (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: It's not much, and I don't read Hungarian, but I think this 1978 newspaper has a brief review(?) of her biography of Beethoven. pburka (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes ANYBIO as listing in national biographical dictionary. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm willing to give it a pass, based on the Biographical Dictionary and the newspaper as above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She has a page on the Hungarian Wikipedia: Székely Júlia (zongoraművész).I don't know Hungarian, and I'm not certain I want to use Google Translate to copy information over. Also, I'm noticing a lot of the references are for an ancestry website. Can someone familiar with Hungarian help out with this? DOOMSDAYER, perhaps? Significa liberdade (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian page has a more precise history of her professional life, with a mention of first joining a symphony in 1929, some major productions that she was in, and then her transition to teaching and writing. It's not very well supported; as one example, the statement "her 1939 novel The Flying Mouse proved to be a great success" has no reliable source. Concerning the progress of this AfD, I already voted to delete but I have no dispute if things turn out otherwise. I simply don't find a dry list of someone's jobs to be very encyclopedic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adding on to all of the above, Google Scholar turns up a decent amount of citations for humanities of that era, including

—siro χ o 07:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ANYBIO is met, as explained above by User:pburka. CT55555(talk) 01:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Hendler[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Csd, prodded and as a WP:BLP, lacks coverage. scope_creep^Talk 06:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

she had main roles in Gimme a Break! (appearing in 114 episodes, 5 seasons) and A New Kind of Family (11 episodes). RZuo (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to mention, Special:WhatLinksHere/Lauri_Hendler shows she had nominations in a few Youth in Film Awards. RZuo (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost surely passes WP:NACTOR. Seems very likely to pass GNG on her own as well. Here's a paragraph of SIGCOV [66]. Other coverage adds up [67] [68] [69] —siro χ o 11:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. She has named roles in 11 episodes of A New Kind of Family and 114 episodes of Gimme a Break!. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that WP:NACTOR really applies to someone whose most prominent roles were as a child actor on relatively obscure sitcoms. Biographical coverage presented thus far falls well short of WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "Gimme A Break!" quite popular? It never made it to the UK, so nothing to compare it against. I did a pretty solid WP:BEFORE and couldn't see much at all. The gbook references is a passing mention at best, confirming she was in the series, but not much else. Refs 1 to 4 up there at best are passing mentions. Not much there at all. scope_creep^Talk 17:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, Gimme A Break! is indeed pretty popular. AFAIK it is still in syndication, and is frequently mentioned in pop culture media. It helped boost Rosie O'Donnell's career as her first casted role. It's made it onto international "Nick at Nite" lineups, which is a decent measure of it's significance (this probably could be added to the show's article). —siro χ o 19:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appears to be insufficient support for WP:NACTOR or other notability according to the guidelines and available sources. A source noted above by Siroxo, The show must go on: how the deaths of lead actors have affected television series, Douglas Snauffer, 2006, has two sentences about Hendler: [70] (at p. 124, noting she played Julie on Gimme a Break!) [71] (at p. 136, noting she continued to act in guest roles on several shows) and a quote from Hendler at p. 137 [72] about Nell Carter. Another source cited above by Siroxo is a 1986 Customs Today article [73], a magazine published by the U.S. Customs Service, with a passing mention noting Hendler's appearance as a speaker at a rally sponsored by the US government and referring to her as "an actress on the NBC-TV hit series, Gimme a Break." The other source noted by Siroxo above is Stories I only tell my friends : an autobiography by Rob Lowe, briefly mentioning Hendler's role in A New Kind of Family at p. 77 [74]. In the article, the Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010, 2d ed. includes Hendler in a cast list with a brief description of her character on Gimme a Break. A redirect could be created to Gimme a Break!, because this appears to be the only significant role she has had (according to available sources), but there do not appear to be sufficient independent, reliable, and secondary sources available to support WP:BASIC or other notability for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article could use improvement but probably enough to meet notability requirement. - Indefensible (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NACTOR. Maliner (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs improvement but passes WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.

FatCat96 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FatCat96: How do they pass WP:SIGCOV exactly? scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comment: Gimme A Break! was not a great sitcom but, in the U.S., it was indeed, quite popular.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I think Beccaynr is correct. I'm not seeing significant coverage. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like she passes WP:NACTOR for having (a) significant role(s) in a notable TV show. Kalethan (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gimme a Break! -- I'm not finding the case for NACTOR convincing if it's on the basis of childhood acting in 2 shows, only one of which clearly meets notability guidelines. This isn't the level of significant contributions to a field which guarantee the existence of coverage that the guideline is intended to cover. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daal Mein Kala[edit]

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

There no reliable independent of the subject sources; GNG problem BoraVoro (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not have significant coverage and doesn't qualify the general notability guideline of Wikipedia. It also lacks citations --Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The subject is so worthless notability-wise that the article doesn't even come with an episode list or broadcast information. Just a cast and a plot—extremely basic information you could find on sites like Google or IMDb for most shows. —theMainLogan (t•c) 03:49, 12 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!} 07:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidra Batool[edit]

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

Does not satisfy this particular guideline: WP:NACTOR (The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions) BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Added 1 archived reference and another major newspaper reference to the article and cleaned up. Now it has coverage from 2 major Pakistani newspapers and 2 entertainment magazines. Meets WP:NACTOR now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NACTOR. The subject has appeared in multiple notable TV serials and films. Insight 3 (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ngrewal. Mar4d (talk) 17:31, 7 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!} 06:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1900s (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Hatnotes are handling this fine; ((One other topic)) has been in place since March. No need to keep this DAB page. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hatnotes are sufficient for disambiguation per WP:ONEOTHER. Clearly 1900s is the primary topic and 20th century is the "one other." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous discussion.

Godtres (talk) 08:36, 10 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. Consensus among participating editors is that the sourcing in this article is sufficient for a school. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Ranch Preparatory Academy[edit]

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

No notability for this public charter preparatory school. Fails WP:NORG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America, and Florida. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage from a variety of reliable sources is already present in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to meet WP:GNG. Is there any argument that it needs to meet NORG? We generally accept GNG as the standard for public or non-profit schools, but if there's an argument that it's for-profit, I'll consider changing my vote. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note this article had been an unreviewed draft for a couple months until being moved to mainspace yesterday by its creator, whose only contributionshave been to this article. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have extensive coverage to support notability, although some WP:PRIMARY sourcing. - Indefensible (talk) 02:27, 6 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 the nominator is a confirmed sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sibling estrangement[edit]

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

Merge or redirect to Family estrangement. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a speedy keep as no deletion rationale was provided and alternatives have not yet been pursued (aside from A10 which was declined). Nom can consider opening up an appropriate discussion with use of template:merge to. —siro χ o 10:00, 5 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!} 05:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manual Gonsalus[edit]

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

No SIGCOV found and little reliable sources reliable. Remotely Possible hoax, but won't go ahead and call it that unless, and if so until, more damning evidence is found. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may or may not have existed, but coverage in reliable sources appears to be minimal. A few passing references on sites of uncertain credibility, such as the Sullivan County Historical Society. Many Wiki clones. Unless better evidence for notability is found, delete. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:09, 6 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 Sampoerna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Joseph Sampoerna[edit]

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

The page only talks about him in one sentence and does not appear to show much notability Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sampoerna —siro χ o 04:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 5 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!} 05:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalino Pescarolo[edit]

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

Was not able to find how Pescarolo is, per WP:BIO, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". No satisfactory SIGCOV found, and could be argued to be a DB person. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Christianity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Italian Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia articles about him contain alot of references not included in the English Wikipedia. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a Catholic Bishop in Italy for over 10 years, so very likely notable, just almost all the sources to demonstrate his notability will be in Italian not English, so difficult for people here to locate. For example, news article reporting on his funeral, another one, March 2003 article from La Stampa mentioning him. Actually La Stampa ran a whole series of articles on his funeral (even if brief), which is evidence that he was a person of some importance in his region of Italy (as you'd expect a Catholic bishop to be in a Catholic-majority country): [75], [76], [77], [78]. Brief news article on the 60th anniversary of his ordination in 2012. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above and in the Italian language wikipedia article about him so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view. Also Catholic Bishops are usually covered in Wikipedia, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a bishop of a major denomination per longstanding WP:CONSENSUS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 11 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 03:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Ogba[edit]

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

A contributor at Bella Naija nothing more. No available source to prove he meets the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Chamaemelum (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable journalist, although he has a number of bylines, there appears to be no coverage of him as an individual. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My web search didn't bring up anything new. He appears to me to be non-notable, too. Deckkohl (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Sekuler[edit]

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

Likely not meeting notability requirements, Gsearch goes straight to social media, nothing found in Gnews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there seem to be several relevant pages of results that come up when you search the name "zack sekuler" in google news. see the following link for results: "https://www.google.com/search?q=zack+sekuler&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS979US979&biw=1553&bih=895&tbm=nws&ei=qv6RZIHtE4TykPIPzcCNuAw&ved=0ahUKEwiB6omhy9L_AhUEOUQIHU1gA8cQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=zack+sekuler&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQAzIICAAQigUQkQIyCAgAEIoFEIYDOgUIABCiBFDgCFjgCGDRCmgAcAB4AIABXogBlwGSAQEymAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-news" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endscol (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: some of the coverage of his work is also searchable as "Zach Sekuler," such as the article in Rolling Stone Jumplike23 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets the standard for the general notability guideline and also WP:DIRECTOR (#3 significant body of work that has been reviewed). There is significant coverage and reviews of Sekuler's work, such the article in Rolling Stone about his collaboration with Elton John and Stevie Wonder (noting "The Zach Sekuler-directed visual highlights life’s big moments through a montage of stirring video footage and images.") This video was also covered by Yahoo and NY Daily News. Also, coverage for different collaborations: with Kesha and Wrabel (Billboard, Spindle), Winnetka Bowling League (Yahoo and other publications), EarthGang (Pitchfork (website), Complex, Yahoo), The Neighbourhood (Complex, Vice, and others), Jesse Rutherford (Variance (magazine)). He clearly has significant, non-trivial mention of his work by publications in the music niche as well as larger publications. The video for "Sweater Weather" has over 700m views on youtube. Before creation, his name was noted (now linked) on wikipedia on several other pages, such as Elton John videography, Sweater Weather, Koreless, Misery (Gwen Stefani song), and Unsteady (song). Jumplike23 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 5 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.‎ ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Carlson[edit]

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

Proposing at AfD per suggestion from Sdkb (talk · contribs). Subject is not notable, per WP:BIO. Could not find RS that cover the subject in a substantive context that are not created by the company he works for or an interview subject has given. Article was initially created by a user with a WP:PAID COI. The recent "ripping" event, while it earned coverage, does not make the subject any more notable. Longhornsg (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The New York Times piece is about him and an article he penned seems ok, this is Gizmodo [79] about how he's moved the newsroom to experiment with ChatGPT. Even this is about him [80] Not a slam dunk, but they are coverage of the individual's journalistic career. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely also has notability as an author, the NYT is basically a book review/discussion, and this [81] in a Canadian magazine and in the Washington Post [82]. Both reviews are by different individuals, even though the article titles are very similar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have several sources here that are actually about Insider and not Carlson. We also have some book reviews. Neither builds the case for notability here because notability is not inherited. What's left are interviews or stuff publisher by Insider, which aren't independent. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the reviews in The New York Times and the Washington Post likely means Carlson passes WP:NAUTHOR Criteria 3, in addition his anti-union activities received coverage in The Wrap here, covering any BLP1E concerns. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Devonian Wombat. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the sources in the article, I think GNG is met. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:21, 13 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!} 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Baker (rugby union)[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Ireland. JTtheOG (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be a WP:GNG fail. While there is some coverage, I'm not sure it's enough to suggest a GNG pass. May well be a case of WP:TOOSOON, however I wouldn't recommend drafting as I'm not sure she'll garner enough coverage for a GNG pass in the next 6 months. No suitable redirect either per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage just seems to be brief passing mentions rather than anyone writing about her at length Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best coverage I've found ([83]) is still too short. Deckkohl (talk) 11:13, 10 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5, created by a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6310 (2021)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. This article is a near direct copy of the section of this article. I will also note that there was a previous XFD discussion for another article by the same user, which was closed as redirect. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:48, 5 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirbaz Khan[edit]

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

Seems to fail the standards of WP:ANYBIO. A geolocation shows that they're located in Pakistan [84], so it's not unlikely that they wrote this article about themselves. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 00:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 00:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Huh? "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" is right above ANYBIO. There's clear sigcov, and it's easy to pick three sources that show it – [85], [86], [87] – and if there's doubts about reliability for any of these, Dawn has several citations in the article (I wanted to pick ones from different sources). Also notifying S0091, who accepted the article at AFC. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skarmory thanks for ping though it may be considered canvassing so will not participate other than to say I have no issue with the AGF nom. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the concern for canvassing – more just wanted to see if you had any input as to why you accepted this article at AFC. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It can be hard to distinguish SIGCOV in mountaineering sources, because so much of the information comes from the support team assisting in getting the mountaineer up the mountain and the mountaineer themself, but this individual has enough separate reports about separate/multiple summits from differing sources that I think it meets WP:GNG. —siro χ o
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Insight 3 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 05:09, 7 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tinley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources; current sourcing consists of a post he wrote himself, two interviews, a non-independent source with a trivial mention of him, and a webpage that doesn't mention him. I was unable to find any good secondary sources. Much of the information in the article is unverified (probably unverifiable) and possibly false. A few examples: he is not credited on several of the albums the article claims he worked on; the article claims he founded several nightclubs, yet there is no evidence of him founding any nightclubs; the article claims he formed the first acid house band, yet no sources about the history of acid house corroborate this; the article claims he is a founding member of the group TV Mania, yet he is not mentioned in the bio on the band's website. Also, it appears to be an autobiography (see WP:AUTOBIO); the creator of the article is called Marktinley (User:Marktinley). JMB1980 (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Sound on Sound article is listed as a reliable source by source bot. I've found this [88] in a book, seems ok. I think it's at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both interviews, which are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability. JMB1980 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems verified by Mix magazine, which should be reliable as an industry magazine [89]. Also the fact that the subject may have created the article is probably moot now as it was over 16 years ago with 70+ edits by over 40 users. —siro χ o 07:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His name appears once in the rather lengthy Mix article; this is the very definition of a trivial mention (see WP:SIGCOV). The fact that he apparently had to create this page himself is relevant because it is a testament to his lack of notability. Per WP:AUTOBIO: 'If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later, but creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged'. JMB1980 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Mix magazine reference just helps with independence/verifiability. Other sources may be able to provide SIGCOV. It's definitely a borderline case so every bit helps.

Perhaps making the decision a bit harder, but fairer, I don't think the fact that the subject likely created the page 16 years go should affect this current AfD due to the gap in time and the edit history of the article. Any number of independent editors could have created the page in the interim. —siro χ o 06:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're jumping ahead. First, notability needs to be proven, and only SIGCOV can prove notability. Without any instances of significant and independent coverage, this page doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines and should be deleted.

It's impossible to say for certain whether or not an independent editor would have created this page if given the opportunity, but it seems unlikely. Under 75 edits in almost 17 years isn't a lot of engagement compared to other articles of similar age, and many edits can be accounted for by editors making multiple edits (including Marktinley) and bots. The fact that this is an apparent autobiography is not the deciding factor in whether or not the article should be deleted, but I do think it should be taken into consideration. JMB1980 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article are poor. Book source mentioned in this AFD is a 6 page chapter about Mark Tinely, but over half of it is quotes, suggesting that the entire chapter was written based off the content of an interview, so not intellectually independent. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. No redirect target comes to mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whenever you encounter a dead link in an article, please consider visiting https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php to try to fix the link. I did, and InternetArchiveBot was able to fix the dead link that the nominator mentioned. Perhaps this should be added to WP:BEFORE Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be secondary content in sources (Sound on Sound, Mix, Musician, etc) that can be used to verify his career and support his WP:BASIC/WP:CREATIVE notability as part of Duran Duran and other groups; the book source also includes biographical information, e.g. about his career and his Asperger's diagnosis. Beccaynr (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP Library also has a 2019 Mixmag source "The Keyboard Wizards of Acid House," by Thomaas H. Green (Database: MasterFILE Complete), with brief discussion of Tinley and his brother in the context of the development of electronic dance music, e.g. "His brother Mark had co-created one of the earliest UK house tunes, ‘The Garden Of Eden’...". I think sources with secondary context that discuss Tinley decades later add support for notability and can help develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure as of my previous comment. Now, keep per WP:BIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Thanks to the mix of sources, I think we're well into that territory now. Past all that, another interesting boost to notability is that this individual was a feature of an ad campaign in magazines for Iomega Jaz drives (eg [90] lots of printings). As in, the company invoked him by name and image to help advertise their product in magazines. —siro χ o 20:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note that the nominator has been found in an SPI of improperly using multiple accounts. But they are not a sockpuppet evading a block, they are a sockmaster. So, I've unstruck their nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 12 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!} 05:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hendrix[edit]

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

Most roles are one-offs, nothing significant. No coverage in RS, most are cast lists. Not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article passes WP:NACTOR; she's had significant roles in October Baby, Virginia Minnesota and The Perfect Wave. The Film Creator (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Alabama. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I’ve added more information provided with reliable sources. Article passes WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. The Film Creator (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed that subject meets WP:NACTOR. —siro χ o 03:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage between Dothan Eagle and NiNe. magazine to meet GNG, and NACTOR also seems to be met with the first two films cited above being prominent roles. The third might not be as large of a role, hard to say, but it's moot given GNG coverage. - 2pou (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources and roles, meets NACTOR and GNG. Naomijeans (talk) 02:52, 7 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Kasowski[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails WP:Notability Pozzi.c (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like already-present sources [91][92] are sufficient for WP:GNG. There's other interviews I wouldn't apply to GNG [93][94][95] but serve as a bit of a confirmation that this is not a run-of-the-mill minor leaguer. —siro χ o 03:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG-passing references already present and references presented by Siroxo above. Frank Anchor 18:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references above. Also apparently named pitcher of the year in the Northwoods League for 2016: WT hurler named pitcher of the year which isn't enough by itself but another element contributing to his notability. Skynxnex (talk) 21:57, 11 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.