< March 13	March 15 >

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

The result was keep. Joyous! Noise! 02:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Point (film)[edit]

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

One review, no SIGCOV. Other issues noted in maintenance tags. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 critic reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you took the effort to add them to the article... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did add one when I removed your PROD, and mentioned that there were others available. Perhaps if you did a BEFORE you would have found them and we wouldn't be discussing this. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per User:Donaldd23, WP:NEXIST. BD2412 T 00:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clamp works#Short works. Joyous! Noise! 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murikuri[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article only relies on one source, an entry from Manga Sanctuary, but there is no even a review whatsoever, just a simple rating. Xexerss (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clamp (manga artists)#Works or List of Clamp works#Short works. There is mention of the work at both target destinations, plausible search term given the artist's notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Clamp works#Short works; fails WP:NBOOK. Link20XX (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Pinto[edit]

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

Despite playing 5 minutes of professional football, doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG based on results from a Portuguese source search and other searches. Best I can find in terms of independent sources is Sapo, which is just a mention in the squad list and nothing more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1000 highest ranked universities in global rankings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/World University Rankings 2015

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

Article includes well over half of the ranked lists produced by the ranking companies, in violation of copyright (per WP:TOP100: 'A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner.'). These have been combined and re-ranked in a way that appears to be WP:OR, particularly when it comes to treatment of institutions not included in all four rankings or only given a range of rankings rather than a single rank, where the calculation of the average used to rank these institutions is not a case of simple mathematics. The combination of global ranking lists in this manner also does not appear to be something that has been discussed in WP:RS, and the selection of the four global rankings used in this calculation appears to be arbitrary. I note that this page survived a deletion discussion in 2018, with an outcome of no consensus, when it contained the top 50 from three global rankings, but it has been quite drastically expanded since then. In short, once the copyright-infringing content and the original research is removed, this article will be empty. Robminchin (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The WP:OR component is surmountable with editing, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it doesn't run afoul of WP:TOP100. Surprised the previous AfD didn't really get into that rule, as people tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to NFCC... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of copyright policy. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a list that's ill-advised at so many levels, but it's quite obviously stuck between the Scylla of being a copyright infringement if it's taken from the sources, or the Charybdis of being original research if it isn't. There is no way to remedy this. Elemimele (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- With references like that, you must've gone to a university with a Wikipedia University Rating™ of 20 or better! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are few dumber things for anyone to pay any attention to than whole-university rankings. It's utterly absurd to quantify and then combine and compare aspects of teaching and reseach across undergraduate and graduate programs and across disciplines. Not to mention the circular idiocy of heavily weighting "reputation". Truly worthless original research to then simply average the nonsense these organizations come up with. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would expect this list to actually rank 1,000 universities, but it seems to give up at #261, so it's not comprehensive, it's a copyright violation, and many of the schools have begun to refuse to do these surveys (or been removed because of some juicing a la the 1998 homerun race), so the numbers will eventually begin to exclude those schools. Nate • (chatter) 22:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was incorrectly listed at the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1000 highest ranked universities in global rankings (2nd nomination). The previous AfD in 2018 was under the title World University Rankings 2015. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's copyvio, it has to go. The list ending at 260 something seems to be OR, as it calculates an average that isn't otherwise used outside of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like List of universities considered highest-ranking in the world and reduce to perhaps the top fifty. BD2412 T 00:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its based on "reputation surveys" and other nonsense. Bias and misleading, no encyclopedic value. Dream Focus 04:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "ranking" offered is pure WP:SYNTH, derived based on a calculation of averages of selected rankings, which themselves have completely different inclusion criteria. Each of these ranking systems all have their own arbitrary and easily gamed criteria. The whole thing is a mess not worthy of retention. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; this article contains countless WP:SYNTH and WP:COPYVIO violations. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or draft per @BD2412:. It should have form and shape similar to Historical rankings of presidents of the United States but evyrithin what has copyvio issues should be delted from main space, as soon as it possible. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. A synthesis can perhaps be included in college and university rankings, but this is not worthy to keep as a separate article given WP:TOP100. Sun8908 _Talk 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Jorge[edit]

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

PROD by IP was declined as it was linked to WP:NFOOTBALL, which was never an exclusionary guideline and has been deprecated anyway. Can't find any significant coverage of the footballer of this name so does not look to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I've tried a number of searches including searching in conjunction with former clubs and not found anything decent about the footballer of this name. The best that I could find was this Blogspot page which isn't WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4, Disruptive recreation, and editing at the AfD. See also ANI. Star Mississippi 01:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of first ice hockey internationals per country[edit]

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

This list fails WP:LISTN, with no independent reliable sources to validate why a standalone list is notable. The list currently has only Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill citations to box scores, which do nothing to state why the list is notable as a whole. All content on this list was previously deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999. Note: This was a contested proposed deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

NOTE:The author of the deleted articles has cut and paste all of the deleted material from the two AFDs listed above, into this list. Flibirigit (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is first international soccer matches is deemed valid, you need IQ not sources to understand that is is valid through WP:LISTN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweisz94 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Telling anyone "you need IQ" goes against Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Ice hockey and soccer/football are two different things. No comment in the IQ quip, but please keep it civil. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999. Copying and pasting the entirety of the deleted content into a different article shows a lack of respect for the clear consensus established at those two discussions. The correct way to dispute the deletion of those articles would be to contact the deleting administrator and then, if still unsatisfied, go to WP:DRV. In any case, the restored content still does not address the reasons as to why the articles were deleted in the first place, which were the complete lack of independent sourcing showing significant coverage and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a Wikipedia policy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Users have actually not been made aware of the fact the first soccer internationals exists prior to deletion Dweisz94 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to create a separate discussion for that article if you believe that it also lacks merit. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn’t lack merit, I think it’s a great article Dweisz94 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flibirigit should be ashamed to destroy a constructive article in hopes of recording Dweisz94 as a bad Wikipedia user 64.229.87.233 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)— 64.229.87.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No comment was made about any user, nor is there any such intent. Flibirigit (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do be civil, no one is ashamed of anyone or anything here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was a redirect article until yesterday [2]. The recently added content was all merged from the two articles mentioned above, just before they were deleted by consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This has already been discussed, and my vote on the linked AFD applies here. Reywas92^Talk 22:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly disagree with reasons of it going under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, these are not umexplained statistics, notability is self explanatory 2605:8D80:643:64B3:3592:4432:F67:B31C (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)— 2605:8D80:643:64B3:3592:4432:F67:B31C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep seems decently sourced, and a somewhat useful list. Could perhaps use a rewrite of the intro, first international game between different national teams, not the first hockey game played in the country. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Speedy delete as an obvious attempt to circumvent the consensus of the other two AfDs. If you wish to contest that consensus WP:DRV is the correct forum. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Könyves Kálmán Primary School[edit]

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

Tagged for multiple issues for almost 10 years and created by what appears to be an WP:SPA. Primary schools are rarely notable and I'm not seeing how this one would be an exception. This Hungarian search yielded the school's own website then listings in databases with no significant, in-depth coverage. I also searched Google News and found a mention in Minap but it's nowhere near enough to build an article from. The school does not demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:NORG.

I am not keen on redirecting to Miskolc, firstly, because the school is not mentioned in that article so a redirect would only be confusing for the reader. Secondly, Miskolc is a large city with dozens of schools and I see no reason to start listing all of its schools in that article to facilitate a redirect, mostly because WP:NOTDIR is a policy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar#Palm Towers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Towers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD resulted in soft deletion, and then the page creator recreated the page without improvement. Jfire (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the nomination: merge List of tallest skyscrapers in Qatar (which has no inbound links) with List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar as previously discussed. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find this kind of behaviour frustrating to say the least. Thanks to Jfire for tagging this and some of their other articles for AfD. Kazamzam (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar#Palm Towers. Or "merge" some small amount of info. Note The 2 Palm Towers are #6 and #7 tallest in Qatar. For these and other tall building AFDs, enforce redirecting and merging to existing list-articles. "Delete" decisions are almost always inappropriate IMHO, as it would be here, because wp:ATD is obvious, available. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note in recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JW Marriott Tower Hotel, it was noted that List of tallest skyscrapers in Qatar and List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar both exist, and overlap, and should be merged. Make that decision part of closure of this AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO "Delete" judgement on separate building AFDs may seem attractive so that AFD editors/closer can act emphatic/harsh, but may contribute to frustration on the part of the outsider editors who create and re-create these. Let them see their material in edit history of the redirect. As part of closing AFDs on tall buildings, advice the creators that some more detail, with sourcing, can be included in the row(s) of the table in list-article. Channel their energy rather than inflaming. Obviously past practices have not cut off the churn, so how about try to help these editors make a small impact in the list-articles, instead? Or would that be appeasement, and Wikipedia should be punitive instead? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing this meeting GNG with wider coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable or worthy of a being redirected. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no notability indicated in any way, shape or form, be it through WP:GNG or WP:SGN. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD closed as "delete". However this has been challenged by someone concerned that those advocating deletion did not appear to view an opinion on a redirect. I am therefore relisting this for a week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect. Not really seeing notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with redirect as suggested. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with, in fact prefer, redirect. I disagree with some pre-relisting comments such as one suggesting this is "not worthy" of being redirected. Of course it is fine to have a redirect to the appropriate row in the list-article of tall buildings, especially because readers will arrive looking for an article on this topic. IMHO this stuff matters, including for sake of preventing re-creations of the same articles, because outsider-type editors can't see a redirect, or any edit history, and they will just create it again and again. It's true they might start to try replacing a redirect with a new stub article, at first, but these height-challenged types should find their way to (or can be directed to) the Talk page which will mention this AFD and its decision (not to have a separate article, but rather to redirect to the list-article row). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Turner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed candidate, only RS relate to campaign and do not provide sigcov. No sources in article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much reference to support the articcle . nothing showing up in google search too Christopheronthemove (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo and unsourced. Nothing found for this businessman and not meeting POL or even GNG. Is likely OR as you can't possibly get this much info from one source, unless it's a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a native New Mexican who has worked at the highest levels of state government, U.S. military, business and higher education. I am aware of Mr. Turner’s prolific work in politics, policy, public affairs, communications, and national security. He is an entrepreneur, strategist, and high-level thinker who has advised at the highest levels of state government, national and international politics, and international and national security for entities such as NATO. His page doesn’t scratch the surface of his work and engagement. I suggest that his page needs serious updating with links to articles, commentary, and public recognition rather than be deleted. 2601:8C0:D01:3AC0:FCD1:E8D8:FC98:6DD2 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New here, and full transparency as my current job is as this mans executive assistant. Forgive me if there are parts of this process I don't understand fully.
I have found plenty of articles on Doug relating to his republican campaign, but more so to Agenda. I think the article needs editing, seems the tags
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
,
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "2023 March 14" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)
and would be appropriate to work on. There are good edits to be made to make the article less a promotion and more informational. How long does the deletion process take if I take steps to make edits? NoSirNoceur (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process for info about timelines, however you did just admit you have a huge COI in writing this article. Do you have sources that meet WP:GNG? Please share if you do. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to keep everything above board, as I do not want my COI to, well, conflict. Here are articles I found on Doug Turner, though I am having trouble understanding which of these would be primary or secondary sources.

https://www.bizjournals.com/profile/company/org_ch_6cbb147c80de37e100354ab4c170d316

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/fashion/weddings/mala-htun-and-douglas-turner.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/26254/one-on-one-with-doug-turner.html

https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/14410-beep-beep-strategic-communications-firm-dw-turner-thwarts-hunger-in-partnership-with-roadrunner-food-bank

https://www.krqe.com/news/business/city-projects-aim-to-fix-up-historic-neighborhood/

https://intpolicydigest.org/author/doug-turner/

https://www.pr.com/press-release/841504 NoSirNoceur (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet inclusion criteria as a businessman. As politician, he did not make it past the primary so far from elected to office. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Floppa[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV; most of the sources are primary and social media which are... less than desirable. WP:BEFORE gets a grab-bag of transient, internet-meme/factoid sites, nothing that'd show this subject qualifies for an article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as being a non-notable, GNG failing internet meme.

No reliable source covers the topic significantly. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 15:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I cannot find any reliable sources covering the cat known as Big Floppa. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unable to find RS. Likely merge to the species article. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (wasn't this up for deletion a year ago or so? Apparently not) A pile of Instagram "refs" and a minimal scattering of other unreliable sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of cycling in Syracuse, New York[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, cycling is no more prevalent in Syracuse than any other major city, hence WP:N and WP:UNDUE concerns. Alternate proposal is to merge this article with the "History of sports in Syracuse, New York". LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sports, and Cycling. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete History of the cycling industry in Syracuse could perhaps be an article. This is basically a list of companies and bicyclists, given without any sort of context. I don't see anything worth saving. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The number of companies making Bicycles, might suggest that this was a centre from their manufacture (a commercial cluster). If so there may be material to merge to Syracuse, New York or a wider article on its history. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't a history of cycling, it's a list of cycling shops, which isn't notable or needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I don't think the nom statement that cycling is no more prevalent in Syracuse (it seems there were a number of cycling companies based there) is correct, I would agree that the article (especially as written) is not notable Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Iacullo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability. Those sources that are abou him are flimsy at best; the remaining two mention him but are merely using him as an example. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Fashion, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person again? Same sources as last time, local Toronto businessman. There is an upcoming election for mayor here, I wonder if this is some sort of pre-promo (I have no proof that he's running, but just an fyi in case we see more Toronto people pop up on wiki all of a sudden). Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, businesspeople are not "inherently" notable, or "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles, just because they exist — the notability test isn't in what the article says, but in how well the article can reference the things it says to WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in reliable sources independent of his own self-promotion. But three of the four sources here aren't reliable or GNG-worthy publications at all, and the only one that is a reliable, GNG-worthy publication just glancingly namechecks his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than himself, which still isn't the kind of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air Tetiaroa[edit]

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

Private transportation company with three planes and one route. Fails GNG and NCORP, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent RS. Sources in article are promotional and to the subject's website. // Timothy :: talk 09:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added independent sources.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? // Timothy :: talk 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four articles from Tahiti Infos, one of French Polynesia's largest news sites.--IdiotSavant (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional or at best ROUTINE. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. eg: "If visitors spend only a few minutes, they will be entitled to all the comforts: refreshments, Wi-Fi, television or anything else they need" // Timothy :: talk 09:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an in-depth article (in French of course) from Radio1.--IdiotSavant (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources, including the new ones, are promotional. Web-search gave me a lot of pages like this, too, but I found no independent RS. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete however, the airlines are notable in general, and there are many not much better sourced airlines, this particular page looks not-notable. --Rodgers V (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Perth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable web short. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Got a blip of local mentions, hey look at this viral video, but nothing significant, nothing of substance. No full reviews, no major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV due insufficient reliable sources. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hess (guitarist) ‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Hess (guitarist)

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has been a member of multiple bands but only one is notable and he was only a temporary hired member, not good enough for nmusic. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia Library search yields several guitar-related articles written by Tom Hess himself for Muse's News, a songwriting newsletter. A Google search turns up lots of discussion about him as a guitar teacher, but mostly in online forums and blogs. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources demonstrating notability per WP:BASIC or WP:NMUSIC, let alone WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Esmonde[edit]

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

Non notable author. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No notable works. Single vendor lists do not make one notable. (restored prod deletion) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding reviews and I'm not even finding the books anywhere but Amazon. That is undoubtedly because they seem to use Amazon's ebook self-publishing platform. Most of the books are listed as from "AM to PM" publishers, and at least one is CreateSpace (a known self-publisher). I cannot find any info about this AM to PM publisher so it COULD be a legit publisher, but I'm doubtful. Unfortunately whoever did the article linked to dynamic Amazon best-seller pages, so those do not help. At least one link went to the page for free ebooks - being among the best of "free" at some perhaps fleeting moment in time isn't saying much. Lamona (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bogor. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Bogor[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Previously merged and redirected to the city of Bogor; absolutely no need to fragment this content. Reverted, so we are here. The material has already been merged, so no need to merge. No objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 11:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article just isn't necessary - all the article text and most of the content of the infobox is copied from Bogor. The only thing not present in that article is the Blazon (formal description) of the coat of arms but that's less that fifty words long and could be added to the city's article if it was thought necessary. Neiltonks (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Mccapra (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Not notable as it's own article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amelia Peabody characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nefret Emerson[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. No reason to think that a character in a series of novels is somehow notable, I can't find any independent RS at all JMWt (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. JMWt (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources found from my search. Fails WP:GNG. Carpimaps (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amelia Peabody series. No indication of individual notability, but there was one Publisher's Weekly that verified this is a real character. Very small GNews footprint, nothing in GScholar. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing to merge given no sources present in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Amelia Peabody characters, though there seems to be a lot of unsourced articles around this series. PamD 08:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Amelia Peabody characters, where there is already a brief mention. Joyous! Noise! 19:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Pourarab Farahanipour[edit]

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

Pastry chef, fails WP:GNG. Local newspaper coverage of a Persian restaurant, PR newswire and national cheesecake day recipes are not that stuff of notability. There's little more out there in the great wide world than is cited in the article - and that's scant enough. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Iran, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I only see very brief mentions and PR guff. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage and no real claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also could not find much on this aside from the PR in this article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial evidence of notability. Appearance of sockpuppet editing by User:Geraldhenni and User:Westwood_resident, could be WP:COI. Oblivy (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Adeyipo[edit]

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

Non-notable Nigerian executive fails WP:GNG, coverage is routine company announcements, directory staff listings. Promotional, to boot: WP:NOTCV! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, you get the same photo six times in Gnews, with the same PR fluff piece attached. Good at marketing himself, non-notable otherwise. Head of sales and various other fancy titles. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on pr and self promotion. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable individual. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the CEO of this company he's notable. He has featured in CNBC, [3], [4], and the [5].105.112.112.76 (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above subject is notable and shouldn't be considered for deletion, having satisfied the Wikipedia notability criteria and have good references from Wikipedia independent reliable sources.Zangoaviation (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SO we have an IP with three edits in 2021/22 who then pops into this AfD in March 2023 to vote keep and then Zangoaviation who has three edits in December 2022 who then pops into this AfD in March 2023 and you can't help wondering about the essentially fractal nature of patterns... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and salt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malti Chahar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We've been here twice before (and speedy, and drafts) and the subject remains non-notable, failing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Persistent attempts to create/recreate this page with just as little notability, recommend SALT this time around if only to save everyone's time. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not notable. I did enjoy seeing Wikipedia articles in the reflist, though. 10/10 whoever did that. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. What is this? Non-notable individual, we aren't here to promote you. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This was highly promotional and self-published article. The references added are mostly paid PRs and non-reliable sources. Surprisingly, it also had wikipedia articles and imdb profile links as a reference. Clear fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT.Khorang 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States flash flood emergencies[edit]

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

A list of twitter posts, with a few other primary sources thrown in. The floods may be notable in some cases, but the "flash flood emergencies" aren't. Fram (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these extreme weather events or "emergencies" are not notable themselves, and certainly not for a list as a whole. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Duplicate to tornado emergency. The alert itself doesn’t actually exist, yet it used and gathers much media attention as well as meteorological attention. If you see Flash flood warning#Emergency, notice that the actual warning is a “Flash Flood Warning”, not “Flash Flood Emergency”. Look at tornado emergency’s warning box (visible in the article). It is a “Tornado warning”, not “Tornado emergency”. Both of the emergencies are not actual products of the National Weather Service, and are just the wording form them. That said, Google “Flash Flood Emergency” or “Tornado Emergency” and you will literally see thousands of articles mention those terminologies. I can 100% tell you, if these do not pass WP:LISTN, then like half the lists on Wikipedia cannot pass list notability. Both a TOR-E and FFE are the most extreme warning types used in the world, and each time one is used, it gathers media attention.

On a 100% other side note, the nominator appears to claim the National Weather Service’s twitter accounts aren’t primary sources. I plan to spam links (not breaking WP:REFSPAM) to help show notability. Get ready for hundreds of refs. :D Elijahandskip (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The flash floods are noteworthy, the warnings though (as a general topicn yes, but as a list)? Never mind the hourly updates to them (e.g. your 8 entries for 28 July, Kentucky, some of then just minutes apart). And I don't claim that the Twitter account isn't a primary source, I claim it is a primary source, as they are the ones issuing the warnings. Fram (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was honestly planning to ask for formatting help for the list. The way it is now for sure isn’t the best way to format it. So, you or other editors are more than welcome to reformat it into a better method. That said, this would be a notable list of unofficial (and official in it’s weird way), yet attention gathering, emergencies that are issued only in the worst of the worst (basically THE notable) situations. Again, if these lists don’t pass the notability requirements for lists, then half the lists on Wikipedia don’t either. I will note, this should be seen as the topic as a whole as the list is incomplete. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want a list of the emergencies issued by the NSW, instead of, say, a list of the actual floods? The emergencies are a symptom, the floods are the real issue. According to our article (and what I can see elsewhere), these emergencies aren't even issued consistently across the US, but by some local NSW offices only. So you have a list of some warnings for some (potential) US floods, that's it. Fram (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2022 floods in the United States exists. Most of them are part of other events like Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Fiona, July–August 2022 United States floods, Tornadoes of 2022#May 4–6 (Central and Eastern United States) (That one doesn’t mention it, but it occurred as a result of the tornado outbreak system). A list of the floods that caused Flash Flood Emergencies would be redundant and probably best for a navigation template. What distinguishes those “catastrophic” floods from a general flood though? It is the flash flood emergency. Generally, any flash flood emergency is going to be catastrophic for whatever community is impacted, hence the emergency being declared in the first place. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Even the solo Flash Flood Emergencies (example August 3, 2022 in California) where only a single one was issued for a fairly small population, it gathered media attention (KCRA, Yahoo, KRNV-DT, KOLO-TV). The larger ones (example St. Louis or Kentucky in 2022) have literally hundreds of articles. Both floods were notable enough for July–August 2022 United States floods. Almost any time a “Flash Flood Emergency” or “Tornado Emergency” is issued, it WILL have media attention. For sake of WP:REFSPAM, I was citing the primary sources, but since it appears that people do not see the notability, I have begun doing borderline WP:REFSPAM, citing all these news articles mentioning stuff. No idea why a chart needs to borderline refspam, but I guess it is what it is. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Events are notable, warnings are not. Plain and simple. Same reason we don't have articles detailing warnings associated with a specific hurricane. Noah^Talk 17:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Most of these individual warnings didn't result in notable events. It is not Wikipedia's place to document and keep stats on every aspect of the NWS. United States Man (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a few news articles doesn't establish enough notability for mention on Wikipedia. If that was so, nearly every instance of flooding in the United States would be on here since most events, even minor, will attract some media attention the day of. United States Man (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weather warnings do not guarantee damage, let alone severe. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of non-events which strongly veers toward WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Alalch E. 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm the one trying to fix up the List of United States tornado emergencies, so I can see why a listing of Flash Flood Emergencies can be useful. However, there are WAY more Flash Flood Emergencies than Tornado Emergencies, so a listing of ALL of them is probably not feasible. Instead, an external link that list them (i.e. IEM's listing of all of them) may be better. I can't lean one way or the other though because my reasoning for the deletion of this list article would conflict with the stance I take for the tornado emergency list I'm currently working to improve. ChessEric 18:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vincible and invincible ignorance. There is no consensus for a merge here either and none of those who voted to first delete the article and then redirect it have articulated any reason why the history of the article should be hidden. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible error[edit]

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

The merge discussion here pertains[6] which closed with "Participants provided compelling evidence that Invincible error should not exist as a standalone article, but there is not a clearly established consensus for either merging or deletion. AfD would be a very reasonable next step." The term "invincible error" is only found in very limited cases, and two months of discussion revealed just two sources, most notably in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but even in that volume it is not treated as a subject in itself, but is merely a type of error. The limited information in the stub more properly belongs in other articles. The discussion of Vincible and invincible ignorance is covered in an article already. Beyond that, this article has no substantive information, and does not meet WP:SIGCOV for such an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact of the existence of Vincible and invincible ignorance already renders this article invincibly redundant, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not a notable topic (and "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"). I'd also be ok with deleting followed by creating a redirect to Vincible and invincible ignorance on which this is a not specially clever play. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect Un-cited—or mis-cited—more accurately. No hint of notability or standalone qualities. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Vincible and invincible ignorance. The page history need not be deleted in this process. BD2412 T 00:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Vincible and invincible ignorance as that is a more comprehensive article and there is not enough coverage for this standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rokusei Senjutsu[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't read Japanese but this appears to be something fairly recently invented by Kazuko Hosoki a famous TV astrologer see 1 and [7]. I don't think this is notable even on Kazuko Hosoki but if there is anything to be kept it should be merged there. JMWt (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Japan. JMWt (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find independent significant coverage from RS to meet WP:GNG. The little I found seems to be written by its author. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing out there beyond citogenesis. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own in depth search reveals no significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources that would establish notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some coverage, some notability, some people saying this is enough for GNG, others saying it is not. AfD has been open for more than a month and I just don't see where a genuine consensus is going to come from here, at least this time around Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Robbins (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and [20], among many more British sources. Clearly significant figure in English non league football who has played and scored for his national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources above do not demonstrate notability. 1 is a quote-heavy routine match recap with barely 2 sentences on the subject, N. 2 is a WordPress blog, N. 3 is a non-independent (NPL) routine transaction announcement, N. 4 is routine news with zero independent sentences on Robbins, N. 5 is quote-heavy routine transactional news, N. 6 is a routine match summary on what appears to be a UGS, N. 7 is quote-heavy routine transaction buzz, N. 8 is quote-heavy routine transaction buzz, N. 9 is has essentially zero independent coverage of Robbins, N. 10 is routine transaction coverage, N. 11 is more routine transaction news, N. 12, ditto, N. 13, ditto, N. Stop ref-bombing garbage sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with significant sources, disagree with the analysis of references above from biased user.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep there is enough from Das osmnezz to show a clear pass of WP:GNG. Particularly the sources which JoelleJay incorrectly dismisses as "routine" transaction news actually contain several paragraphs of accomplishments (7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13) Y. Further, 7 is ~~and 8 are~~ incorrectly dismissed as being "quote-heavy" despite only having quotes in parts of (#7) 3 of 7 paragraphs ~~and (#8) 6 of 14 paragraphs.~~ Frank Anchor 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling single sentences "paragraphs" is blatant misrepresentation of the amount of coverage. I miscategorized #8 as transactional, but it is still most certainly quote-heavy and not significant. Routine transaction coverage is the formulaic "player has signed a contract with team, these are the teams he played with before, these are some accomplishments, here are some quotes from player/coach about how excited they are, info on the club's schedule/history" that is produced for every transactional change. It does not contribute to GNG.
- 7, from Eastern Daily Press, has 3 sentences of primary transaction buzz containing barely any info on Robbins:
  Gary Setchell is backing electric frontman Ryan Robbins to become a fans' favourite at King's Lynn Town.
  ...convincing the 25-year-old to leave Coalville Town...
  Rumours have been rife for weeks that Robbins was heading to Norfolk, despite his run-ins with Linnets supporters – especially online...
Followed by 7 sentences of direct quotes from Setchell, then a final brief sentence of routine transaction material (listing some of Robbins' history). That is exactly what routine transaction news looks like. Absolutely not SIGCOV.
- 8, from Stamford Mercury, starts with 3 sentences announcing his contract with Evo-Stik and some stats from his past season at Stamford. Then it's a 3-sentence quote from Robbins, a 3-sentence quote from the Stamford manager, then 2.5 sentences mentioning his playing for Stamford and St K&N and his upcoming schedule of WC qualifiers. Then 5 more sentences of quotes from Robbins followed by one sentence telling us he's flying out to training camp "next Sunday". This is a small-town interview of a local footballer that amounts to <6 sentences of coverage, several of them not even of encyclopedic material (like his flights and future matches).
- 10, from Northamptonshire Telegraph, begins with 3 sentences of routine transaction material announcing Robbin's signing, plugging an upcoming local game, mentioning Robbins had played with Corby before, and listing his former teams. The next 4 sentences have nothing to do with Robbins, then there's the sentence Robbins joins other recent arrivals Alistair Worby and Robbie Parsons at Steel Park, then 2 more sentences unrelated to Robbins. Not SIGCOV.
- 11, from Eastern Daily Press, announces the King's Lynn contract fell through and contains 9 sentences describing/quoting the coach's reaction. It has 1 sentence stating where Robbins is now likely to play and 1 sentence repeating that he scored 34 goals the previous season. Nowhere close to SIGCOV.
- 12, from Hinckley Times, is another announcement that Robbins isn't joining the Linnets. Sentence 1 is a bird pun, 2 states Robbins fell out with King's Lynn and joined Barwell instead, 3 & 4 mention this was because of cyberbullying from Lynn fans, the last 3 are basically quotes.
- 13, from Lincolnshire World, announces Robbins has signed with Boston United. It starts with straight primary reporting of what Robbins/the club had said, a plug about the match he might play in "tomorrow", more repeating of what Robbins/Stamford "felt", 5 sentences of other Stamford club news, and 5 sentences of the usual transaction stats (when he joined Stamford, how he did in the prior 2 seasons, and his capping during St K&N WC qualifiers). This piece also appears to be plagiarized from a Stamford Mercury article so should not be considered reliable anyway.[21] JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modified per JoelleJay’s comments below. Frank Anchor 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have read through the given references and they are not SIGCOV. They do not provide enough information to write an entire biography about the subject. Carpimaps (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just finished about two hours of going through the additional references provided above and I conclude that they demonstrate sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. If the subject wasn’t notable, then deletion could be considered. However, as other editors and I myself have explained, the subject is notable and thus the article shouldn’t be considered eligible for deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shawn Teller, which sources do you think are SIGCOV and do not fall under routine sports news? JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After spending more time than I planned going through the sources mentioned above, I conclude that there isn't significant coverage available. Essentially all of the sources above are routine coverage (typically from a small newspaper located in the town where he played club football) announcing his signing, his manager's/club's plans for his future, but very rarely describing his accomplishments or what might make him notable. Although he may have scored a goal for his national team, I don't think that's a claim to notability unless media sources acknowledge it as one (particularly beyond his own club's hometown paper). Jogurney (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's near impossible for players from smaller countries to get on here due to St. Kitts having 2 whole newspapers and nobody else who is willing to cover them. He played for the national team and played in other countries as well.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so if he "played for other countries as well", why isn't there substantial coverage? Supposedly those other countries would have more than 2 newspapers... --Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that that country is England as well which has no shortage in football coverage at all levels. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just spent an hour and a half doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article expansion is 100% irrelevant if no GNG sources have been identified. That just means you've filled the article with trivial routine details that do not belong in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have said before, other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the 13+ sources do not provide IRS SIGCOV, as shown in the keep votes above (which outnumber the delete votes). Also, WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". It's fine, we can agree to disagree. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd say we should keep this partially per WP:BIAS (St. Kitts and the Nevis barely has anybody with articles), partially as a pass of NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), and because as shown by the expansion, we clearly have enough material to write a biography on this player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BIAS is applicable here. Other footballers who represent St. Kitts and play semi-pro club football in England have more comprehensive coverage (look at Harry Panayiotou who has received much more coverage than Robbins, such as [22] or [23]). If Robbins had a higher profile (or played at least a bit of fully-pro club football), I'm sure we would see more significant online coverage. I don't believe Das osmnezz's article expansion demonstrates that the GNG is met either. Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are not the required multiple pieces of SIGCOV to meet GNG. The sources are routine match recaps or transactional announcements, which do not contribute to NBASIC. This shows in the article based on them that is filled with minutiae around signings, penalty card counting, and goal (re)counting. 2A02:8308:30D:5000:10CD:DAF0:2B6F:FA85 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) — 2A02:8308:30D:5000:10CD:DAF0:2B6F:FA85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I find it very odd and convenient that the only Wikipedia contribution by your IP address account is just specifically for this deletion discussion... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second @Das osmnezz:

The circumstances of this vote (IP, first edit) should be taken into account when determining consensus in this discussion. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : as per others above Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC) ~~— Christopheronthemove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]
I don’t think the SPA tag is appropriate for this vote. The editor has made many other edits outside of this deletion discussion. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're a 1-day-old account that has made edits almost exclusively to deletion discussions/AfD'd articles. JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don’t find this SPA tag appropriate as the user has commented on a wide array of AFDs, so I am striking it. I do find jumping into AFDs as a new account to be unusual (but not in the scope of WP:SPA), but it is possible the user created a new account for legitimate purposes (e.g. forgot password). Frank Anchor 13:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn Teller and JoelleJay; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. Akevsharma (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added SPA tags to the two above accounts, although I'll note the IP is dynamic so might have contributed elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has demonstrated how the coverage here, which stems exclusively from reporting on transaction announcements, actually goes beyond the routine material from local outlets expected for players at this level. Transactional coverage falls under NOTNEWS: routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage and is additionally described in ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.

Sports orgs distribute announcements of transfers, injuries, etc. to the media (via press releases containing player stats and history, press conferences, and interviews) with the express purpose of promoting their players/clubs. If such material was acceptable for establishing GNG/BASIC, players with signings, transfers, and injuries in non-FPL leagues would always have warranted a page (potentially without ever even playing a match!) under NFOOTY, which was supposed to be calibrated to (a very weak version of) GNG. And yet some of the same editors advocating to keep here regularly !voted to delete such players under that regime. NSPORT2022 didn't change GNG, so why are the routine transactional announcements dismissed[24] for so long by NFOOTY now suddenly evidence of GNG?

As an aside, all the non-quoted content in #8 is actually identical to the routine contract announcement published in the same small-town paper by their dedicated Stamford AFC reporter 9 days earlier (itself derived from whichever statement released by delighted Daniels official prompted this announcement from Evo-Stik), so it actually does fall under transactional news. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up, as it makes me reconsider my assertions above. Frank Anchor 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This BLP is exclusively a list of routine sporting transactions, cited exclusively with routine sporting news. The only information we get about the person comes in a single interview. For whatever reason, users may cast wild and unfortunate aspersions against User:JoelleJay and her source analysis, but nobody in this process has successfully challenged her assertions. BusterD (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "The only information we get about the person comes in a single interview"... clearly based on the page there is a decent amount of information about the person that comes from a variety of different sources (after I literally spent an couple hours doing WP:HEY and vastly expanding this article), many of which are not just routine sporting transactions. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant there is a large quantity of routine sporting news, but no quality sources. It's just "Robbins starts", "Robbins leaves", "Robbins plays", "Robbins says". Nowhere applied do we find out anything about this living person subject except sports but for the interviews. Nobody has directly detailed this subject, so it still fails the new SNG, which requires at least one SIGCOV, and I'm not seeing it applied. I'm quite unhappy about folks disparaging User:JoelleJay and their assertions here, which seem to my eyes totally correct assessments. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the posted sources above establish notability. I disagree with JoelleJay’s analysis of the sources no matter how much WP:BLUDGEONing this user does to try to get their point across. I agree with Frank Anchor’s above analysis of the sources presented by Das osmnezz in that there is enough significant coverage to slightly pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Users should focus their attention on the subject under discussion, not those discussing. As of this datestamp, JoelleJay has made seven edits to this process, two to point out clear SPAs, three to give source analyses. I know using the word "bludgeoning" has become trendy in these procedures, but JoelleJay is not guilty of bludgeoning anything. I regard such unsupported characterizations without evidence as personal attack. The other two leading contributors are User:Das osmnezz with nine edits (mostly presenting and discussing new sources), and User:Frank Anchor with 8 (who has softened their keep after paying attention to JoelleJay's assertions). Let's discuss the footballer, and not the good faith edits of our fellows. Nobody in this discussion is out of line, yet. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The linked essay above defines bludgeoning as “ where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.” which is exactly what JoelleJay has done based on the repetitive WP:WALLSOFTEXT this user has added after any user disagrees with them. I apologize if other people find that term to have a more negative connotation than I believe it does. I also find it quite odd that BusterD wants to go back to discussing the topic of the AFD rather than the participants in the discussion and then goes on to, without evidence, accuse myself and other users of “disparaging” JoelleJay and making “personal attacks.” So which way do you want it to go, Buster? Carson Wentz (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also read your comment as undue. A gentle reminder to WP:AGF of discussion participants. Suriname0 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes notability per sources. Shotgun pete (talk) 24:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay's source analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources are routine transactional news or run-of-the-mill details and do not count towards GNG. Avilich (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the 13+ sources are all "routine transactional news or run-of-the-mill details", as shown in the keep votes above (which outnumber the delete votes). Many of the sources go into his background. Also, WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". It's fine, we can agree to disagree. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it odd how people work to each source and not the overall picture of sources, combined they do build a picture for WP:BASIC. No one has done a complete source breakdown either, there are currently over 30 sources in the article which does form the basis of what is needed, there are a lot worse articles out there which are kept with just three sources. If the deletionists are going with source analysis, then they need to do a proper job, because what I see above isn't good enough. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper Publishers[edit]

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Right now there is no WP:ATD unless a section is added to list companies at Predatory publishing HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known and well-criticized in multiple independent reliable sources predatory publishing group. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While several sources are blogs, they nevertheless are reliable sources as they are published by well-known experts. Sources mentioned in the article make this pass WP:GNG. Listing publishers like this in an article on predatory publishing or even a category "predatory publishers" has been discussed in the past and was rejected. --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Telangana and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH, unreliable and primary sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Headbomb and Randykitty. As I said on a related AfD: I can follow the WP:NCORP concerns, but that guideline is fundamentally about preventing Wikipedia from being used as an advertising platform, whereas documenting shady publishers is anti-advertising. Making the evidence that a publisher is shady harder to find would be doing a public disservice. WP:NCORP warns against using routine coverage, but documenting that a publisher is predatory or disreputable is not routine in the sense of annual earnings reports, participation in trade shows, etc. Moreover, WP:NCORP has an explicit note about duplicitous conduct: it observes that an organization might have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct, fail to qualify as notable by NCORP specifically, and yet be notable by other guidelines. The conduct here is not alleged to be illegal, but it is alleged to be bad behavior, and the same ethos applies. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. My analysis of the sources is below (based on source numbering in the article as of this diff):

1 - Primary source.

2 - Not WP:SIGCOV.

3 - Just appears on a list of potential predatory publishers. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

4 - Personal blog written by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian known for coining the concept of predatory publishers. There's some decent analysis and discussion of Juniper here so, although it is a personal blog, this appears to be a reliable source.

5 - Primary.

6 - Primary.

7 - Just lists of editors for various journals. Not WP:SIGCOV, and primary.

8 - No mention of Juniper.

9 - Primary.

10 - Juniper appears once in a table of results. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

11 - Personal blog written by DH Kaye. Juniper is discussed in some detail here, although I do not think that Kaye's self-published blog post on this topic counts as a reliable source (see below).

12 - Personal blog written by Jerry Coyne. Juniper is mentioned only once (in an email address) and then a few times in the comments. The tone of the blog is more 'what the hell is this?' than an analysis of Juniper, which limits its use as a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. Also, I doubt that Coyne's personal blog counts as a reliable source on the topic of predatory publishers (see below).

13 - Personal blog written by Elisabeth Bik, based on an earlier Twitter thread. Although this post is discussing various papers published in Juniper journals - and Juniper thus gets some passing mentions - Juniper itself gets very little direct attention. I am also not convinced that Bik's personal blog on this topic is a reliable source (see below).

14 - Juniper mentioned in passing as the publisher of the journal being discussed. Not WP:SIGCOV.

15 - Verifying someone's position; nothing to do with Juniper.

16 - Discusses one of Juniper's journals in depth, but Juniper itself only gets a passing mention.

17 - A lengthy discussion of predatory journals and academic hoaxes, but no mention of Juniper - the only passing relevance is that some of Juniper's journals are discussed.

18 - Part 2 of the previous source; same as above.

In all, I make that one independent reliable source (#4) giving significant coverage to Juniper, which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. I should make a comment on some of the other blog posts, since Randykitty argues that they nevertheless are reliable sources as they are published by well-known experts. This applies specifically to sources #11, #12, and #13. WP:RSSELF says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Kaye, Coyne and Bik are certainly experts in their respective fields but I do not think that this means they have expertise in the field of predatory publishing (which Beall, by contrast, does have). As a result, I do not think we should count these personal blogs as reliable sources for the purposes of WP:GNG. If there were additional reliable and independent sources, then we could perhaps use these blog posts to evidence how academics in various disciplines have responded to Juniper (and in this sense they'd become more like primary sources) but I do not think we can use them to determine notability. WJ94 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are plenty reliable sources, those you dismiss as blogs are all valid as expert blogs (particularly those of Beall, Bik and Kaye, all three specialize in predatory journals). Also not all sources are there for purposes of WP:N, many are there simply for WP:V. Likewise, discussion one/several of their journals, as in 14/16/17 is a de-facto discussion of the publisher as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headbomb, thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the Beall blog is a reliable source; to pass WP:GNG we'd then need at least one further reliable source.

You suggest that Bik and Kaye specialise in predatory journals. If they are established experts in this area then I'd be happy to accept that their blogs are reliable sources. According to WP:RSSELF, the way to determine whether a the author of a self-published source is an expert in a field is to look at whether they have also published on the topic on independent reliable publications. Have Bik and Kaye done this on the topic of predatory journals? If they have and I've missed this then I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote, so could you point me to anything which would establish their expertise?

With regards to sources 14/16/17, I disagree that discussion of one of Juniper's journals is de facto discussion of Juniper themselves. Notability is not inherited, so just because something associated with Juniper (such as one of their journals) is notable it does not mean that Juniper itself is notable.

Finally, with regards to your comment about sources being used for WP:V rather than WP:N - that's fine but not what is at issue here. I'm not necessarily advocating for the removal of any of these sources, I just wanted to go through them to work out which ones would meet WP:GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

INHERITED does not enter into this. It's a publisher who determines how the general running of their journals is done (for example, how peer review is handled, so this is different from editorial policy), so if any discussion of this for a publisher's journals reflects, as Headbomb says, de facto on the publisher itself. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Randykitty. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, then. To my mind, discussion of a specific journal does not confer notability to that journal's publisher. In the same way, if a minor book publisher published a book which received a lot of coverage, the book would be notable but I wouldn't say that its publisher automatically was too, without the publisher itself being discussed in reliable sources. Or to use another example, the manufacturer of a notable product is not necessarily notable (per WP:INHERIT). The manufacturer will have a significant input into how the product is deigned, made, quality-controlled, marketed, etc (just as the publisher determines the general running of a journal) - even so, without reliable secondary sources about the manufacturer specifically, they would not be notable. WJ94 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Have Bik and Kaye done this on the topic of predatory journals?" Elisabeth Bik's most famous for dealing with shady shit in journals and won prizes for it. Kaye is an Emeritus professor specializing in ensuring scientific validity in courts and other legal contexts. If he says something is shady, it's not a random guy on Twitter. See also another source I added [25]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all of the article seems to be designed to confirm that this is a predatory publisher. As such it is worth mentioning in an article about predatory publishers, but doesn't merit an article of its own. Athel cb (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any article on any predatory publisher would be appear to be "designed to confirm that this is a predatory publisher." because that's what predatory publishers are known for. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think that one can say that "Bik and Kaye specialise in predatory journals". For Kaye, I don't know, but Elisabeth Bik's emphasis in her recent work is on detecting fakery in published papers, often in serious journals like Nature. Predatory journals are certainly relevant, but her concerns are more general than that. Athel cb (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on the balance of things. The inclusion on the Beall's List seems like a sufficient claim of notability. See also The Guardian: Another of the publishers used by Mörner, known as Juniper Publishers, was one of those to be caught in a hoax in 2017 when it accepted a “Dr Doll” on to its editorial board. Dr Doll was a fake veterinary surgeon created by Curtin University’s Prof Mike Daube with a profile based on his dog, a Staffordshire terrier. Daube told the Huffington Post he had orchestrated the hoax “to expose shams of this kind, which prey on the gullible, especially young or naive academics and those from developing countries”. Source. With a touch of WP:ITSUSEFUL, it's relevant to include an article that relate to the sources that may be used on Wikipedia, giving sufficient warning to article writers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, ORGCRIT, ORGDEPTH, nothing with Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Beall's List has over 1000 journal entries, obviously not every one of these is notable, so the position that says inclusion there is enough sourcing for notability is nonsense. None of the other sources above and in the article have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from Ind RS and the participants above have presented none. // Timothy :: talk 12:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inclusion on the list that makes it notable/meet WP:SIGCOV, it's the coverage in the blog. And not just that of Beall but those of Bik and Kaye as well, which all meet the criteria for expert blogs. Outside of expert blogs, there are several peer-reviewed journals, city newspapers, and magazines all talking about Juniper and its publications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Publishing Group[edit]

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Right now there is no WP:ATD unless a section is added to list companies at Predatory publishing HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known and well-criticized in multiple independent reliable sources predatory publishing group. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples? Anything I saw was a brief mention only. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flaky Academic Journals is a blog by David H. Kaye, an exceptionally well-regarded professor at Penn State Law and easily passes meets the criteria for expert blogs. The in-depth Beall's list information is at Beall's blog here. Likewise individually these sources might not cover Austin in depth, but collectively they paint a picture. E.g. doi:10.35122/001c.13267 details that APG violates consent, engages in plagiarism and journal hijacking, pretends to be located in the US while there are actually based in India. This is substantially more than an in-passing mention. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Good points but for me, I disagree that those mentions meet the criteria for in-depth coverage on *this* company and fails the criteria, etc. In my opinion, a list of companies accused of being a Predatory publisher belongs either their or in a separate list. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sources in the article to make this pass WP:GNG. Listing publishers like this in an article on predatory publishing or even a category "predatory publishers" has been discussed in the past and was rejected. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 12 sources in the article. Three are primary from the website. The others are as follows:

Flaky Academic Journals is a blog, fails as a WP:RS
Beall's List is just that, a list. No in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
Canadian Journal of Surgery contains in Table 1 "Summary of phishing emails" 45 companies including the topic company. No in-depth information provided, fails CORPDEPTH
American Academy of Opthalmology article "Predatory Publishing: Shedding Light on a Deceptive Industry" contains an extract from Cabell's Journal Blacklist which lists the topic company. No in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity paper entitled "Unmasking the Hunter: An Exploration of Predatory Publishing" analyses soliciting emails for journals and there are several mentions of journals related to the topic company. There is some classification on the soliciting journals but there is really no in-depth information or analysis on the company itself. Fails CORPDEPTH.
National Library of Medicine published "Not All Young Journals Are Predatory" lists, in Table 5, one of the groups journals but fails to provide any further mention of the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
Science article doesn't even mention the topic company.
Business Insider article mentions "Austin Addiction Sciences" in passing, fails CORPDEPTH

None of the sources in the article meet GNG/NCORP criteria, nor is there a quantitative criteria of "enough sources" (which are nothing more than mentions). In a previous discussion some years ago, you said that the vast majority of predatory publishers were non-notable and including a list of all publishers would likely overwhelm any article - well it appears this company is one of the non-notable ones. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH, unreliable sources, some brief mention and irrelevant sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources look reliable and on-point enough to me. I can follow the WP:NCORP concerns, but that guideline is fundamentally about preventing Wikipedia from being used as an advertising platform, whereas documenting shady publishers is anti-advertising. Making the evidence that a publisher is shady harder to find would be doing a public disservice. WP:NCORP warns against using routine coverage, but documenting that a publisher is predatory or disreputable is not routine in the sense of annual earnings reports, participation in trade shows, etc. Moreover, WP:NCORP has an explicit note about duplicitous conduct: it observes that an organization might have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct, fail to qualify as notable by NCORP specifically, and yet be notable by other guidelines. The conduct here is not alleged to be illegal, but it is alleged to be bad behavior, and the same ethos applies. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument has merit but is misplaced. I agree this type of information is useful in aggregate but a list of Predatory publishing companies rightly belongs on that page, not for each company to have their own page in circumstances where those companies aren't notable in their own right. In this case it seems to me that if a list of companies was rejected at the topic page then you should take this argument to there. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  a list of Predatory publishing companies rightly belongs on that page No it does not. There are literally thousands of such companies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well whatever the answer, creating individual articles on companies that don't meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability certainly isn't it. The statement about the guidelines being "fundamentally about preventing Wikiepdia from being used as an advertising platform" has some merit but ultimately (and also fundamentally) the guidelines aren't about that, but simply guidelines containing the criteria for establishing notability of any company or organization or product. The impression I'm getting with this article is that it is to serve a purpose, to highlight that the company is regarded as a predatory publisher, as a public service. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the information that a publisher is predatory doesn't advocate any particular course of action be taken about it. It's informing, not soapboxing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - if that company is notable to begin with. My point is that this article has been created *solely* because it is seen as some sort of "public service" to highlight predatory publishers. That's advocacy and soapboxing. We have analysis of predatory publishing in general including the techniques used, we have hundreds of companies named under various categories classified according to their activities. We have blogs containing lists of companies. All great material for the Predatory publishing topic. But none of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" about this company and the arguments being put forward to Keep the topic are simply ignoring that fact. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of in-depth coverage. You just don't want to recognize it for some reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there's plenty of in-depth coverage on predatory publishing but I don't see in-depth "Independent Content" on this company. I've read the blog posts and the other pieces. Sure, if you ignore WP:SIRS and combine them together we have something decent. But I don't see how any individual source meets GNG/NCORP criteria. Point to a specific source/section/paragraph which you believe meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a whole is a "public service". If an article here wasn't written out of ego, it was written because somebody thought the world would benefit from it. We have too much information on predatory publishing for it to all fit into one article; the sensible alternative is to organize that information by the natural unit, the publisher. XOR'easter (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and lots of advocates and editors with strong views would say the exact same thing. Not ego-driven, public good, world will benefit, etc, etc. I've no problem with an article on a particular publisher, I'm simply pointing out that the sources fail GNG/NCORP and for that reason, this topic does not appear to meet our criteria for establishing notability. After that it has become clear from this AfD that there's a different motive than "notability" at play in arguing to Keep this topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there were, so what? The question of what to include in an encyclopedia that covers all human activities and how to organize that material can't always be reduced to a set of bullet points. That said, the argument above is (a) that GNG is met and (b) the caveats and subtleties acknowledged by NCORP make room for this. For example, NCORP advises In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. Journal publishers, predatory or otherwise, are known for the journals they publish. Accordingly, coverage of specific journals should be attached to the publisher unless those individual journals have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy. NCORP supports the position that the publisher is the natural unit, and so any CORPDEPTH concerns about sources that discuss the journals rather than the publisher aren't really germane. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the article only mentions one journal, the "Austin Addiction Sciences" journal because it has a fake scientist on its board. Are you proposing that this article should be rewritten to focus and include coverage of specific journals under the umberella of the publisher instead of attempting to establish the publisher as notable based on information about the company? If so, I like it. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Many of the sources do not even mention the publisher or list specific journals. I only see two good sources that include this publisher (Bramstedt KA. 2020. Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity. 2(1). DOI: 10.35122/001c.13267) and (McKenzie M, Nickerson D, Ball CG. Predatory publishing solicitation: a review of a single surgeon's inbox and implications for information technology resources at an organizational level. Can J Surg. 2021 Jun 9;64(3):E351-E357. doi: 10.1503/cjs.003020. PMID: 34105930; PMCID: PMC8327997), but there isn't any more about the journal than is in the article here and neither are specifically about this publisher. The connection between this publisher to the Dr. Dog incident is only made in a blog post. The possibly reliable sources listed about that incident don't name the publisher or the journal.

I agree that it would be good for Wikipedia to be a place where people can come to check if a journal is legit. I just can't think of a good way to do that. Lamona (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of the sources do not even mention the publisher or list specific journals" literally all sources (save Science, which I've now removed) mention APG or one of their journals.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, you are correct and I apologize - I missed some of the references to the Austin publications. The problem that I still see is that the only in-depth sources about Austin are their own sources and Beale's blog. The latter should not be considered a reliable source, IMO. Not only is it the un-reviewed thoughts of a single person, he was known for expressing some pretty prejudiced views. The other articles list one or more Austin publications but don't say much specifically about them. I'm still leaning delete. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beall pointed out some of the nefarious consequences of open-access publishing and for that some OA zealots claimed him to be biased/prejudiced. However, he was careful in his evaluations of publishers and if shown to be in error (like with MDPI, for example, not really predatory but bottom-of-the-barrel anyway) he changed his opinion. I find his blog reliable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, two references were added, one from the Irish Times, one from the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. This adds to the previous references, Canadian Journal of Surgery, The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity, Eynet (from the American Academy of Ophtalmology), The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, and Business Insider Australia. Kjalarr (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added one more reference, a position statement from American College of Clinical Pharmacology, published in Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development. Kjalarr (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In all of these the name of an Austin journal is given in a list of journals, but there is no further information about the Austin publisher or its journals. In the list of "Representative publishers" in the Pharmacology journal it is one of about 20 such publishers. I rather doubt that more mentions of this type will help establish notability. Lamona (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree, but also have some objections. The cited sources provide characterizations of Austin publishing group as fraudulent, predatoy, incompetent, or opportunistic. Indeed, they do not contain extensive or in-depth descriptions of that publisher, and some mention Austin publishing group only in a list. Nevertheless, the academic sources seemingly base their judgements on careful analysis, and the anecdotal evidence was published in several newspapers. Moreover, the fact that so many sources see themselves obliged to deal with Austin publishing group, might be considered as a hint to a degreee of relevance also sufficient for a WP entry. Kjalarr (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjalarr: presumably you mean to support a keep position? If so, would you mind stating it explicitely? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb:Thank you very much for your notice, but since I created the discussed article, my keep vote might be considered partisan. Kjalarr (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and, ORGCRIT, NCORP. Looking at the sources, I see brief mentions, primary, nothing that meets SIGCOV from Ind RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. The keep !vs above have words and opinions, but not sources showing notability. HighKing has responded to keeps with an eval of the sources, showing these are mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 11:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Flaky Academic Journals and Scholarly Open Access are both direct and in depth discussions of APG. These, plus the vast ammount of coverage of individual journals are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The sources you mention [26] and [27] are blog posts. A very detailed blog posts, but they still are opinion without the needed editorial oversight to meet notability guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 22:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions of qualified experts, see WP:EXPERTSPS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just linked to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable which is a redirect from WP:EXPERTSPS and provided no references to show the above blogs meet the criteria. // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Beall is the librarian that coined the term 'predatory journal's and literally every academic publications on predatory journals cites him, his blog, and his various peer-reviewed publications. Likewise DH Kaye is an Emeritus Professor at Penn State that specialized in scientific standards of proof, author of several books and chapters on the topic. His blog is routinely included in resources to help researchers find predatory journals (e.g. https://libguides.csun.edu/predatory_publishing) and is also routinely cited. These are as experty as it gets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic any publisher/journal will become "notable" if they are in their blog. No thanks. // Timothy :: talk 10:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of 1066 journals / publishers on Bealls list, [28]. Flaky has 206 articles on journals / publishers.[29]. Inclusion on their blogs does not make these journals / publishers notable. // Timothy :: talk 10:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get a lot of emails from Austin Publishing Group, which I mostly discard unread, so I'm familiar with them. It's a very similar case to that of Juniper (above). Worth mentioning in a list of predatory publishers, but not worth its own article. Athel cb (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comment - a publishing company being 'predatory' doesn't necessarily confer notability upon it - and where that company is a small and marginal one, even more so. Disintermediation is inevitable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Small an marginal" seems not easy to objectify. So maybe we consult the accepted standards? E.g. Wikipedia:Notability: "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time." Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Kjalarr (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the publishing company is not notable via the avaialbe half-reliable sources. Rodgers V (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the Irish Times, Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, Canadian Journal of Surgery, The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity, Eynet (from the American Academy of Ophtalmology), The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, and Business Insider Australia are not half-reliable. Kjalarr (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without doubt, there is reason for the present discussion. But I am a bit disappointed about the quality of the latest contributions in favour of "delete". The quality of sources is in my opinion misrepresented, and no explicit reference is made to WP's standards for notability. Kjalarr (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know that a procedural nomination was necessary here, as the subject was previously redirected due to a longstanding absence of citations, whereas my restoration of the article was accompanied by the addition of about a dozen citations, and a fleshing out of what happened with ZZ Top's end of the tour after Aerosmith bowed out. On its merits, I think this should be kept as a concert tour that is specifically notable for the well-sourced number of things that went awry. BD2412 T 02:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons cited above, including the inclusion of more citations, the addition of more information on the ZZ Top side, and the tour's notability particularly as it related to a number of flash-points that occurred on the Aerosmith side. Abog (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two years ago, I originally redirected the article for needing additional, non-primary sources for six years. Now there are enough third-party sources that the articles passes both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. Aspects (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NTOUR as BD2412, presented new sources, more coverage about the tour setbacks and cancellations on both sides and it got the reviews as it should be, so per WP:HEY, the co-headlining concert tour would pass NTOUR because it presented secondary and third-party sources. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:F491:C0B3:D180:8924 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lamin Massaquoi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found from my search. Fails GNG. Carpimaps (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I had hoped to see more support for a Merge target but the consensus here is to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leland Milling Company[edit]

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

A company that appears not to have been subject to substantial 3rd party coverage. The one source of historical information is in the form of a one-page personal reminiscence in a local paper; everything else is either primary or WP:Run-of-the-mill, and I'm not turning up anything better. Not seeing a notable subject here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Either a sentence or two into Spanish Fork, Utah on it being presumably one of the oldest established businesses in the area, or more of the article into Leland, Utah, which is a stub. My searches haven't been productive in establishing notability for the business. Rupples (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see much notability here or good sources. And the page is created by WP:SPA even using his userpage as a backup, so COI isn't off the table, too. Speaking about merging, I'd also consider Archibald Gardner. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional 3rd party reference added. Plaidchampion (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plaidchampion, do NOT mess with the AfD template or add spurious AfD messages to the talk page. An admin or uninvolved user will close this discussion and determine the outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the additional sources: you added two business directory entries. Hey ho. These do nothing to demonstrate notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The phone directory listings don't contribute to notability, but taken together the news articles from KSL radio and television and from Spanish Fork Press (posted on the Daily Herald website) seem sufficiently detailed to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response As per WP:SIRS, we don't combine sources or aggregate sources in order to establish notability, each individual source must meet all the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. Although this is an old business, I am still unable to find a single source that comes close to meeting the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the KSL radio article is very obviously a paid piece of churnalism, it is incredibly promotional. Spanish Fork, Utah is a small town of less than 50,000 people, meaning it is highly unlikely that its local newspaper is a reliable source. As a result, this company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider a possible Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a local feed mill, not unlike any hundred of other ones. It will have some mentions in the local press, but nothing that makes it stand out from any other feed mill. If the building was a registered historical site, it could perhaps have an article, but the business isn't. And a phone book listing to prove notability is about as far away from GNG as we can be. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, a feed mill. Sourcing insufficient to stand up the article let alone prove a GNG pass, which it doesn't. AFAICS the company's premises is not the original 1890s building, either, so the historical angle doesn't really play. "Leland Milling Company continues to create opportunities for their animal feed to be available" is a nice testament to the power of capitalism, but this is not a notable company per WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Buturlina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Nswix (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has 4 other pages and her photo is even available on here. Not to mention that she has a variety of sources listed. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know that having other Wikipedia pages proves nothing, and doesn't establish notability. Nswix (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage in reliable sources, even if little in English-language ones. Moonraker (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other users have pointed out. I think the page should be improved with a deep dive into Russian-language sources. It appears that the OP has not adequately explained reasoning apart from claiming it fails GNG, but not even saying why, which is unfortunate to see.Historyday01 (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note to closer, working on a source assessment table, need a couple of hours // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. It is painfully obvious the keep voters above did not read the sources or do a BEFORE. They present no sources, just make claims and attack the nom. Here is an assessment of the sources in the article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:TimothyBlue
"Анна Бутурлина" (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-07-25.			promotion	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина: "Не могу заниматься простыми вещами"". www.muzklondike.ru. Retrieved 2018-03-23.			promotion, interview	✘ No
"Блиц-интервью накануне концерта: певица Анна Бутурлина о трех котах и джазе". m24.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-03-23.			promotion, interview	✘ No
""Летний джаз для большой компании". Звёзды российского и мирового джаза" (in Russian). www.meloman.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotion, lists name.	✘ No
Анна Бутурлина: Джазовое «меньшинство» тонет в массовой культуре!			promotion interview	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина, биография, лучшие записи, ближайшие концерты, фото и видео, сайт, Вокал			promotion	✘ No
"Диксиленд" (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotion	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина - "Осторожно "". Новости шоу бизнеса и музыки NEWSmuz.com (in Russian). 2018-03-31. Retrieved 2018-06-21.	?	?	Brief promotional review of album, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	✘ No
"ДжейДи Уолтер: Цель музыканта - привлечь людей, а не отпугнуть — Пенза-пресс". www.penza-press.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			Interview with another person, they list several names, including subject, but just the name.	✘ No
"Как российская певица стала звездой мультфильмов". Дни ру. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotional interview	✘ No
McPhee, Ryan (2020-02-10). "Watch Idina Menzel and 9 Fellow Elsas Sing Frozen 2's 'Into the Unknown' at the Oscars". Playbill. Retrieved 2020-02-10.			names is listed with dozens of others, nothing about the subject.	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина: «Чем больше любви вы дарите, тем больше её становится!» - "Игры и Игрушки" №3-2018" (in Russian). www.i-igrushki.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotional interview	✘ No
"Как звезды отдохнули во время майских праздников". www.womanhit.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			Does not mention the subject.	✘ No
Принцесса джаза Анна Бутурлина			WordPress login page, nothing more.	✘ No
""Осторожно "музыка"" Анны Бутурлиной покажет совместимость джаза и русского языка". 2018-01-22. Retrieved 2018-03-02.			promotional quotes and album info.	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина прокомментировала выход своего диска на фирме "Мелодия"			promotional, written by subject.	✘ No
"Новый альбом "Ключ от королевства" Анны Бутурлиной			promotional	✘ 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)).

All of the sources above are promotional, if they mention the subject. BEFORE in English and Russian showed only more promotions, listings, interviews. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need reliable sourcing. This might even qualify for a speedy delete, there are not Ind RS for notability. This is basically an unsourced BLP. // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have zero sources in the table we can use, and I can't find any. Nothing notable here I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only mentions I find is when she joined the other versions of the her character from Frozen onstage at one point to sing a song. It's something, but not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to TSV 1860 Munich#Notable famous or former players. The consensus is clear that WP:GNG is not met in the absence of significant coverage. Arguing that the article should be kept based on participation, on WP:OSE or on WP:SOURCESEXIST is not persuasive, since those arguments are not supported by policy. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Oeldenberger[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the six references included, four of them are sports database entries, and the other two are passing mentions. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but was returned immediately without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in the 1931 German football championship and was on the 1940–41 Gauliga Bayern winning team. Nearly every current member of the team has an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSV_1860_Munich#Players), so it's odd that they would be relevant, yet this person wouldn't. Obviously, there's limitations on sources due to being old and in another language. Use Common Sense and Wikipedia:The rules are principles applies. This is one of 3 articles OP has tried to delete of mine today so, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole. Doesn't seem to answer Wikipedia:The one question. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As previously discussed in multiple locations, participation based notability standards were removed as part of WP:NSPORTS2022. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Definitely has offline sources having had extensive career in 1920s-40s including top flight professional football in Germany. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oeldenberger is mentioned in Legenden in Weiß und Blau. 100 Jahre Fußballgeschichte eines Münchner Traditionsvereins and it says the following on him (translated): "Otto Oeldenberger, who had just outgrown his own youth, made his debut in the first team in September 1928. He was initially seen as Sebastian Gabler's successor on the left wing, but that didn't work out and he moved to the left half-forward position in the following years. In the final match against Hertha BSC, he scored the opening goal for the Lions. He had actually already retired after the 1933/34 season, but was persuaded to continue in 1935 due to the difficult sporting situation at 1860. Although actually only in the Altherren team (seniors' team) of the Lions active, he also stood in for players in the first years of World War II again and again, if not enough players were available." BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in a top German team, multiple offline sources exist, information on German wiki, Govvy (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Some people are voting simply based off participation but the participation based criteria (WP:NFOOTY) was deprecated based on WP:NSPORTS2022. This has all the same issues as Fritz Neumayr did. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above references in Legenden in Weiß und Blau. 100 Jahre Fußballgeschichte eines Münchner Traditionsvereins.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP with no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fail GNG, NSPORT, NSPORTS2022. BLPs need completely clear and reliable sourcing: WP:SPORTBASIC Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.. // Timothy :: talk 12:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find the entry in a book dedicated to the history of his team to be substantial enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage doesn’t substantiate claims to notability and falls short of satisfying WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. I don’t see enough SIGCOV to justify an article. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TSV 1860 Munich#Notable famous or former players. I feel like there should be better coverage of a player who spent two decades in high-level German football, but there isn't, and WP:NFOOTY isn't a thing anymore. As a longtime former player, his name is a reasonable search term and he is included in this section (and other players without articles are included in this section as well, so there is no need to remove his name from that list if the article is deleted/redirected). Frank Anchor 13:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the entry in Legenden in Weiß und Blau isn't SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryNightSky11 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Bengs[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the six references included, three of them are sports database entries, one is a passing mention. The other two are books, one of which is available on Google Books, but a search of this player's last name resulted in 0 results. However, the book seems to be simple listings of teams, with no in-depth coverage of players. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played for a top division team. This is one of 3 articles OP has tried to delete of mine today, so Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole. Doesn't seem to answer Wikipedia:The one question, since deleting three articles provides less information. Use Common Sense applies towards source concerns and Wikipedia:The rules are principles KatoKungLee (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you moved the article back to mainspace with no improvements and wrote on your edit summary Please create an AfD if there's an issue. so having a pop at Onel for essentially taking your advice is quite disingenuous and doesn't paint a fair picture of the situation at this AfD. For what it's worth, I was shortly going to AfD this myself anyway for the same reasons. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 articles were marked as drafted without any outside opinions on the situation. It's better to do it publicly here where we can get multiple points of view.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Definitely has offline sources having had extensive career in 1950s-70s including top flight professional football in Germany. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia has a more decent article and lists several offline sources as references:

Deutsches Sportecho: Jahrgänge 1962–1974. ISSN 0323-8628

Hanns Leske: Enzyklopädie des DDR-Fußballs. Verlag Die Werkstatt, Göttingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-89533-556-3, S. 68.

Andreas Baingo, Michael Horn: Die Geschichte der DDR-Oberliga. 2. Auflage. Verlag Die Werkstatt, Göttingen 2004, ISBN 3-89533-428-6, S. 335.

I'd be quite shocked if a top-level player with a 20-year career didn't have sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of East German football only has strict stats for Bengs, no prose. Do we have evidence any of the other sources provide more than a laundry list of his league appearances (which is all his de.wp article is)? JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per de:Uwe Bengs another truly shocking AfD. Govvy (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV while appearing to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Participation is not enough to establish notability (per WP:NSPORTS2022 and the removal of WP:NFOOTY) and votes based on such should be ignored. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed on German Wikipedia, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The German page is exclusively a prose list of which teams he was on and how many games he played and doesn't reference a single piece of secondary independent commentary. A snippet: In the 1963/64 season, the Neubrandenburgers managed to get promoted to the East German Oberliga, in which Bengs was involved with nine appearances. For the 1964/65 premier league season, in which the BSG was converted into the Neubrandenburg sports club, Bengs was again only a replacement for Jüsgen and only played one premier league game. SC Neubrandenburg was relegated from the Oberliga after just one year, and Bengs returned to BSG Empor Neustrelitz, which had just been relegated from the DDR-Liga. A biography based solely on that material is not encyclopedic as it does not contain any secondary analysis. Absent sources identified as SIGCOV, the article does not meet any notability criteria, in particular the clear requirement of NSPORT that a definite SIGCOV source be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP with no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fail GNG, NSPORT, NSPORTS2022. Nothing in the article is SIGCOV, BEFORE showed stats, database entries, listings. As nom mentioned the book refs do not mention the subject. The sources on de wikipedia mentioned above are brief mentions. BLPs need completely clear and reliable SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 12:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG per above and nom. I must say, referring people to the German page as a keep argument is interesting as that page is in a shocking state. The usual post WP:NFOOTY confusion applies, one suspects. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've followed this discussion since the beginning and it's becoming increasingly clear that there is no evidence that this person has ever been the subject of significant coverage in any language. As with all similar cases, the deletion should be done without prejudice against restoration if someone, at a later time, does produce SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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