< October 04	October 06 >

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article with the claim that the individual meets GNG coverage even if they haven't acquired notability through WP:NPOL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Oliver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete and replace with a redirect either to 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia or 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries.

Article was re-created despite the subject having obtained no new claims to notability since its previous deletion. Article was previously deleted in May 2023.

This is a minor political figure that fails WP:NPOL and WP:NPOL notability criteria. SecretName101 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). SecretName101 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Coverage he has got was trivial and/or routine coverage of an election candidate who happened to play a spoiler role to force a run-off but that doesn't transfer notability. Due to prior recreation it should be salted to prevent another re-creation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough has changed yet to justify recreation. So it should have remained a redirect, but recreation would be justified if he won the Libertarian Party nomination for President at their national convention. For that reason I respectfully disagree with the hard-deletion you suggest. Disclosure: I consider myself to be a Libertarian and went to some of their events in Michigan a few years ago. I don't see that as a COI here. Libertyguy (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
obviously, I indeed agree that he is not yet notable enough. Maybe one day, but we do not create articles on spec. “Well he might be notable if such and such future event hypothetically happens…” is not a rationale to retain or create an article in advance. We’ll cross that bridge if we get to that juncture. I also agree a hard delete might not be wise. But there always is the ability even then to request undeletion. SecretName101 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO based on articles already within article.. He is a leading candidate for President for the nomination of the third largest political party in the United States so salting is a ridiculous suggestion.--User:Namiba 19:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba "leading candidate" (very little to reenforce that claim) for a third-party nomination many months out from the party's nomination (and at a time where no significant political figures are in the race) is not really notable. There is already a page dedicated to their primaries. The primaries are notable, he is not. SecretName101 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, Jacob Hornberger (the top finisher in the 2020 primaries) is not notable enough to have his own article. Someone who is supposedly a "leading candidate" in the Libertarian party way before a single vote is cast in the primary, or the nominating convention is held, certainly doesn't garner inherent notability. SecretName101 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you from below from 4 minutes earlier: WP:Otherstuff is not a rationale that justifies the creation or retention of an article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC) What's the standard here? Double? Djflem (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that there is a clear understanding on Wikipedia that inherent notability is not gained by being a leading contender in a libertarian primary. No double standard in that. I was not saying “this similar thing blah blah blah”, but rather pointing that there are past top-tier libertarian candidates still fail to be notable enough, which illustrates that there indeed is not an inherent notability to be gained from being a leading candidate. It’s not just Hornberger, many others who received sizable vote shares in the past have been judged to fall below notability (2008 top-finisher Christine Smith is another prime example). Oliver hasn’t even received a single vote, so has immensely less claim to being a top contender even if there were inherent notability. SecretName101 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He doesn't pass ANYBIO/POLITICIAN because he's never been elected to anything. And he fails GNG. WP is not a crystal ball and with the history of re-creation it WP:SALT is a valid additional step. Note that salting does not prevent an article being recreated, it simply requires that it not be recreated without a convincing creation request including a draft. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being elected to office is not a prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia. Jo Jorgensen, for example, has never been elected to office. Being a political activist and candidate is a claim to notability. Are there multiple sources which discuss the subject in an in-depth manner? There are definitely those sources. That's the standard per WP:GNG and that's why it is an obvious keep.--User:Namiba 19:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Being elected to office is not a prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia." True. I'm not referring to GNG though, I'm referring to WP:SNG, in particular WP:ANYBIO/WP:POLITICIAN. So in addition to failing GNG because the sources are all trivial/routine/insignificant/non-independent coverage of a failed election candidate and his policies, he also specifically fails WP:POLITICIAN, making this a slam dunk delete & salt. Jo Jorgensen has the same issues with her sources being trivial/routine coverage of a failed politician during failed election campaigns, but she's not up for AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNG supersedes the other mentioned guideline. That he doesn't get a free pass via NPOL has already been established, end of story, period, done. No further discussion citing NPOL is needed. How exactly are the sources non-independent? Interesting a back up for that claim (for staters). Djflem (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO based on references in article. Djflem (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem Can you be more specific as to what his notability would be at the virtue of? SecretName101 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By virtue of the fact that he has received significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Djflem (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no significant attention beyond routine campaign coverage. SecretName101 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No significant attention? Chase has campaigned across Iowa, became the FIRST party candidate to be invited to the Des Moines Political Soapbox, caused the Georgia 2022 senate run-off, and has gotten plenty of media coverage in BOTH his senate and Presidential campaigns. If some nobody like Ryan Binkley is being allowed to have a wiki page, then by god someone who’s had way more influence in elections like Chase should have one too, it is only right! TheGuardianOfTheWiki (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"became the FIRST party candidate to be invited to the Des Moines Political Soapbox" WP:NotNews that's a news factoid without longterm significance. Wikipedia is not a collection of fun-facts. Ryan Binkley having a page is questionable as well, but WP:Otherstuff is not a rationale that justifies the creation or retention of an article.

Again, routine campaign coverage does not confer greater notability outside of the election itself. The event (election) is notable, not Oliver. SecretName101 (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGuardianOfTheWiki: So that's a keep ivote? Djflem (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is! Keep it! I 100% support keeping Chase Oliver's Wikipedia page, and I cannot stress it enough, I am a KEEP vote! TheGuardianOfTheWiki (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note Wikipedia:HEY: and significant difference in versions not addressed by nominator: April 28, 2023 <>September 27, 2023

Nothing has changed since the previous deletion that would grant the subject greater/sufficient notability. SecretName101 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HEY is an essay, it means nothing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What means nothing is the absurd opinion that the HEY process isn't relevant in AFDs.Djflem (talk) Djflem (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can write an essay saying "what I say has to be done" and called it WP:MYOPINIONISRIGHT. Doesn't mean anyone has to care or read it or take it into account. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, nobody would care about your essay, whereas HEY addresses Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources,Wikipedia:Deletion process and any of a number of guidelines that influence AfD outcomes in a simple common sense that anyone with the vaguest notion of how Wikipedia works would understand and respect. Djflem (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got your point, it might be time for you to disengage from this discussion and let it run it's course. This isn't a courtroom, there's no need for such aggressive defence. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Georgia#Libertarian primary. Sourcing still does not seem sufficient to pass WP:GNG and this was the result of the prior AFD. --Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The following comment was copied from the AFD talk page: Sal2100 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why a third-party candidate with international press attention, who is the first such candidate to qualify to speak at the Iowa State Fair Political Soapbox - one of the most important events of the early Presidential primary season - is under consider for having his Wiki article deleted. The stated purpose of Wikipedia is to act as a compendium of all branches of knowledge, not to decide which candidate is relevant. Tarnellbrown (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Chase Oliver is not an ordinary candidate, and if the criteria for inclusion in WP is “has won an election”, then there are quite a few politically active non-office-holders who should be up for deletion.

Deletion — particularly at this juncture in the current US political climate — simply looks like an attempt to shut down ideas or people from outside the power structure. 73.60.218.98 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@73.60.218.98 Wikpedia is not Ballotpedia. Non-notable subjects do not get articles just by declaring candidacies. SecretName101 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate passage of some other notability criterion that would already have gotten them an article independently of the candidacy (e.g. prior established notability in another context, such as Cynthia Nixon), or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy can be seen as such a special case of such uniquely greater significance than everybody else's candidacies that it would pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
No, the existence of the merely expected run of the mill campaign coverage does not confer an automatic WP:GNG-based exemption from WP:NPOL either, as every candidate in every election can always show enough coverage to take a stab at that argument — meaning that if that were how it worked, then every candidate would always get exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would be meaningless. So the test isn't "is his name present in the news cycle today?" — it's "if he loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again for the rest of his life, so that the candidacy itself represents his peak notability claim for all time, then will people still be looking for information about it in 2033 and 2043 and 2053?", and nothing here demonstrably passes that test. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL doesn't work that way. NPOL only confers presumed notability (in US terms) for state level or higher elected or appointed officials. That's the only thing that NPOL does. There is no such thing as an 'exemption' for NPOL. One fulfills the criteria or doesn't. Period. End of story. Move on. Totally misconstrued presentation of that guideline and elaborate useless explanation since no one in this AFD is claiming that Oliver is granted that presumed notability, and subsequent free pass to have an article. Djflem (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL does work exactly the way I said: its job encompasses both who in politics qualifies for an article and who in politics does not qualify for an article. So nothing I said was incorrect at all: we have seen articles which attempted to claim that people had held NPOL-passing offices they had not actually held, so even an NPOL-passing politician still has to have their holding of a role properly verified in reliable sources — and the argument being attempted in this discussion is that the existence of campaign coverage means that this subject doesn't have to be measured against NPOL, and "exemption from NPOL" is just another way of saying that same thing.
And it's established consensus that the existence of campaign coverage is not sufficient to bypass NPOL in and of itself — every candidate in every election always receives enough campaign coverage to argue that they don't have to satisfy NPOL by virtue of GNG, so if that were how it worked then NPOL itself would be entirely meaningless because nobody would ever have to be measured against it at all anymore. That is not some random standard I made up myself to be ornery — it's the established consensus of thousands of AFD discussions on unelected candidates, the majority of which I didn't even participate in at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take NOTE of this addition to above cited essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, (made without discusion at its talk page), which was written the above author who appears to be referencing themself. Djflem (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is YOU who does not get Wikipedia. Wikiepdia is meant to be a place where anyone in the world is able to find information on a subject. Chase Oliver isn't just "standing as a candidate", Chase is traveling across America, campaigning, and is getting coverage from it. Before that, Chase didn't just stand in as a candidate in the Georgia Senate Race, he caused a run-off which earned him INTERNATIONAL media attention. As far as I can tell, he is plenty deserving of a Wikipedia page so people who are interested in him have a place to easily learn about him. That is the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? To give people a place to learn about stuff that they wanna learn? TheGuardianOfTheWiki (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The runoff was of international note. And there is an article about the election.

Chase, however, did not obtain international note. SecretName101 (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if people want to learn about the senate election, Wikipedia has an article on it. It’s notable. Oliver is not, however. Those who wish to learn more can go to ballotpedia or some other site that covers him. SecretName101 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be extremely aggressively defending this article. Do you have a COI in regards to the candidate or the Libertarian Party? Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we should suspect a COI. People can get very fierce in arguing their viewpoint in a deletion discussion without a COI. SecretName101 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily of course that is the case, I think when a user has made 13 comments on a page with only 8 actual 'votes', and has repeatedly returned to aggressively attack other users viewpoints that simply asking the question "@Djflem do you have any interest in the Libertarian Party or this candidate" is not out of line. If he has not, then so be it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get Wikipedia perfectly. It isn't our job to have information about "everything" — our job is to retain information about topics that pass our notability criteria, and to not retain information about topics that don't pass our notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The first AfD determined that, although Oliver had received significant coverage in national and international sources, the coverage was mainly for one particular event and thus was a case of WP:BLP1E. Which was a fair assessement, and the resulting redirect was justified. Since that time, he has received additional major media coverage for his campaign in multiple outlets. This coverage would justifiably be considered mere routine reporting for a major party candidate, particularly one having some degree of pre-established notability. For a third-party candidate without clear pre-existing notability, however, the amount of in-depth coverage he has received at this stage in the election cycle is far from typical. Indeed, outside of Cornel West, one would be hard-pressed to find another officially-declared third party presidential candidate who has drawn more coverage at this point. Add to this the fact that much of this coverage stems from him achieving a political "first", and it seems fair to say that it goes beyond the typical run-of-the-mill campaign coverage. At least enough to cross the WP:BASIC threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the one event rule isn’t a rule that states “however, connection with a second event completely changes whether someone is notable”. You still need to measure whether they are individually notable, or whether the events with which they are tied are the only things of note. Otherwise, we’d be seeing countless perennial candidates get articles once they launch their second non-significant candidacies.

contrary to your characterization, there really is not much if any in-depth coverage, it’s all cursory. There are some local/regional curiosity pieces. But these fail to assign genuine note to him or his candidacy. Articles do not treat him or his candidacy as a major factor in the election either.
he has achieved no “first” that would garner him note. If you are referring to the Iowa state fair speech, that’s a mere fun-fact: a mere one-sentence mention on an article about the state fair soapbox itself would be the maximum coverage justified. SecretName101 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the confusion about NPOL, which above attempts to make the make argument that it is an exclusionary SNG (it's not, it's an inclusionary guideline), also often misconstrued and mentioned, Wikipedia:ROUTINE and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill speak to items and events, not persons. And now comes the claim, despite the facts, that "there really is not much if any in-depth coverage, it’s all cursory. There are some local/regional curiosity pieces". Nationwide significant in-depth newspaper articles & an interview in Rolling Stone are not "ordinary coverage" about a campaign/election at all, but about the person and his effect, thus satisfying above mentioned Wikipedia:BASIC.
Boehm, Eric (November 18, 2022) "What's Next for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Who Forced a Runoff in the Georgia Senate Race?", Reason.com.

Fausset, Richard (November 9, 2022). "The Libertarian Who Helped Push the Georgia Senate Race Into a Runoff". The New York Times.

"LGBTQ Agenda: Gay Libertarian presidential candidate says he's running 'confident, aspirational' campaign". Bay Area Reporter. Retrieved August 23, 2023.

Stuart, Tessa (November 12, 2022). "He Won 2 Percent of the Vote – and Could Decide Who Wins a Senate Seat". Rolling Stone. Retrieved November 30, 2022.
Djflem (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason.com is a libertarian magazine, of course they would profile a libertarian candidate. The NYT, Reason.com, and Rolling Stone article do not demonstrate any actual notability outside of the election itself. Bay Area Reporter is a curiosity piece that does not have any "meat" to establish notability. And, as I said, articles like the Bay Area Reporter article do not establish him as a major factor in the 2024 election. SecretName101 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A curiosity piece is not significant coverage.

PWhat is discussed in an article needs to be weighed. Profile pieces that do not actually assign importance within their prose/ do not outline anything of note the subject has actually done are simply not enough to satisfy notability standards. SecretName101 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are setting the bar for articles on political candidates so far and above what is outlined in WP:GNG that I don't think most elected officials would meet it. It is highly unusual for a candidate in one state to be profiled in national publications, especially as often as Oliver has been.--User:Namiba 19:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The libertarian-leaning publication disqualification and the convoluted "curiosity piece" criteria are defined nowhere in Wikipedia (except above) and not supported by it guidelines. Despite the disingenuous description the full length articles in major national publications that are about and fully feature Oliver are reliable sources that determine that he garners enough attention that goes way beyond ordinary election coverage and satisfy the policy guiding notability. Their dismissal is simply an expression of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Djflem (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are trivial/routine coverage of an election candidate (and a pro-libertarian Party website is not reliable/independent when discussing a Libertarian Party candidate), not "significant" coverage. They might provide some color/fluff to the page of the election, but don't do anything to establish notability for a non-notable individual. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proof of your claim that Reason (magazine) is not independent of the subject and other sources in the article.
Please see Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is meant by significant and trivial at Wikipedia and back up your claim that full length articles on the subject are the latter.

Djflem (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is a libertarian mouthpiece interviewing a libertarian party candidate. "An independent source is one that has no vested interest in the subject". It's quite obvious that a libertarian party mouthpiece has a vested interest in the success of libertarian candidate, raising both independence and reliability issues. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What proof do you have that Reason.com is directly linked to the Libertarian Party? There is nothing on the page's Wikipedia entry about it. It seems that you're exaggerating without evidence to try to win an argument.--User:Namiba 18:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s small “l” libertarian. SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pure conjecture. Djflem (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity pieces indeed do not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability standards for an obvious reason: the content of the article fails to verify/establish anything that is actually notable about the individual being profiled.

“Joe Shmo has three dogs and four kids. He is a lawyer who has done little of note in that field. He is on the board of his local YMCA, and was elected to the Pleasentview, Illinois school board”. Five articles like that could be published: still would not establish notability for the hypothetical Joe Shmo, because nothing in the profile is of particular note. SecretName101 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a candidate in one state. He is running for president in multiple states. SecretName101 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus, just a divide between editors arguing that SIGCOV exists so Keep and editors insisting on Deletion. Just a note that I'm uncomfortable disallowing coverage because of a perceived bias as just about any mainstream newspaper and many magazines could be seen to have a perceived bias. That doesn't mean that they are not independent, secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable about allowing a precedent that routine coverage of an election & it's candidates can be blown up into passing notability for people who are utterly irrelevant outside of their failed election campaigns. Wikipedia would be swamped by hundreds of thousands of junk pages for Perennial candidates. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject fails WP:NPOL as a failed political candidate but passes WP:GNG with the profiles and articles already included in the article, which were written over an extended period of time. User:Let'srun 02:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when did “being written over an extended period of time” become a claim to notability?

If routine campaign coverage published over an “extended period of time” were all it took, all perennial candidates would meet that criteria. SecretName101 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING is not the only guideline to consider, so "all perennial candidates" would not necessarily pass. // Timothy :: talk 23:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG [1], [2], [3], [4] (per above). // Timothy :: talk 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jess No Limit[edit]

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

GNews returns one hit for him, which is an unreliable society page about his marriage. Otherwise all provided sources are to Youtube, social media and Socialblade. Notability is not established. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP social media promo article. Fails GNG and NBIO, fails WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Jun School[edit]

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, notability of schools is based on WP:ORG and WP:N, which this fails. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "小玲玲傷殘奧運奪金特殊學校出英才" [Xiao Lingling wins gold medal in Paralympic Games and special schools produce talents]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2001-03-05. p. C5.
  The article notes: "黎惠玲因被评定为轻度弱智，不适合在普通小学接受　育，早在小一已给转介到特殊学校──才俊学校就读。但发掘玲玲别具打乒乓球天份的，就正正是才俊学校的体育老师。... 梁校长相信，要学生有心求学，他们必先要有好的体魄，才有条件发展别的项目，因此也就格外重视学生的适体能训练。于是，才俊亦特别　意发掘个别学生的运动才能，由此，才俊组成了不少校队，例如：田径队、足球队、榄球队、泳队、乒乓球队等。老师会挑选小四或以上学生，按其个别兴趣及长处安排入队。"
  From Google Translate: "Because Lai Wai Ling [zh] was judged to be mildly mentally handicapped and not suitable for education in an ordinary primary school, she had been referred to a special school, Caijun School, as early as Primary 1. But it was the physical education teacher at Caijun School who discovered Lingling's unique talent for playing table tennis. ... Principal Liang believes that if students want to be determined to study, they must first have good physical fitness before they can develop other sports. Therefore, he pays special attention to students' physical fitness training. Therefore, Caijun also pays special attention to exploring the sports talents of individual students. As a result, Caijun has formed many school teams, such as track and field teams, football teams, rugby teams, swimming teams, table tennis teams, etc. Teachers will select primary four or above students and place them into the team based on their individual interests and strengths."
2. "讀特殊學校成轉轉折點金牌飛魚鄧韋樂水中尋獲人生目標" [Studying in a special school became a turning point. Gold Medal Flying Fish Tang Wai-lok found his life goal in the water.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2018-09-25. pp. 4–6.
  The article notes: "鄧韋樂今年21 歲，2012 年首次代表香港，出戰倫敦殘障奧運會，... 當時他仍在才俊學校求學，畢業後轉為全職運動員。 ... 分享喜悅韋樂今年在才俊學校畢業，順利完成了中學學業，他在畢業典禮時跟媽媽分享喜悅。 ... 轉讀才俊學校游泳天份被發掘 ... 不再勉強適應主流教育，反造就了韋樂的人生轉折點：他的游泳生涯正是從才俊學校展開。著重體藝的才俊學校，有林林總的課外活動，如游泳、羽球、樂器等，讓學生的才華有機會顯露出來。韋樂過去曾參加暑期游泳班，教師得知他懂遊水，便叫他參加校內水運會選拔，"
  From Google Translate: "Tang Wai-lok is 21 years old. He represented Hong Kong for the first time in 2012 at the London Paralympic Games. At that time, he was still studying at Choi Jun School and turned into a full-time athlete after graduation. ... Sharing the joy Wei Le graduated from Choi Jun School this year and successfully completed his secondary school studies. He shared the joy with his mother at the graduation ceremony. ... Transferred to Choi Jun School and his swimming talent was discovered... No longer reluctantly adapting to mainstream education, this was a turning point in Wei Le's life: his swimming career started at Choi Jun School. Choi Jun School focuses on physical education and offers a wide range of extracurricular activities, such as swimming, badminton, musical instruments, etc., giving students the opportunity to show off their talents. Wei Le attended a summer swimming class in the past. When the teacher learned that he knew how to swim, he asked him to participate in the school water sports competition."
3. "唐英年访戒毒宿舍" [Henry Tang visits drug rehabilitation dormitory]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2009-09-22. p. A28.
  The article notes: "政務司司長唐英年昨天到訪沙田一間為輕度智障學生提供教學的才俊學校，跟師生交談近況，並視察學生上烹飪課，其間有學生向他送上自製曲奇、月餅及一幅畫。他鼓勵學生要努力學習，積極面對人生的挑戰。"
  From Google Translate: "Chief Secretary for Administration Henry Tang yesterday visited a talented school in Sha Tin that provides teaching for students with mild intellectual disabilities. He talked with teachers and students about the current situation and inspected the students’ cooking class. During this period, some students presented him with homemade music. Qi, moon cakes and a painting. He encouraged students to study hard and face challenges in life positively."
4. "扶輪社助學生拓展技能" [Rotary helps students develop skills]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2009-05-15. p. A28.
  The article notes: "才俊學校○七年開始與扶輪社合作並開展各種計劃，舉辦特長培訓班，如普及游泳計劃和曲奇製作培訓班。該校校長李啟光錶示，該校已有六成學生學會游泳，由於是特殊學校，所以學生透過遊水鍛鍊了肌肉，重拾了自信，教學生做曲奇餅也是讓學生踏入社會後可有一技之長。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2007, Caijun School began to cooperate with the Rotary Club and carry out various programs and hold specialty training classes, such as popular swimming programs and cookie making training classes. Li Qiguang, the principal of the school, said that 60% of the students in the school have learned to swim. Since it is a special school, the students have exercised their muscles and regained their confidence through swimming. Teaching students to make cookies also allows students to have good skills when they enter the society. A skill."
5. "８弱智學生做DJ" [8 mentally handicapped students become DJs]. Hong Kong Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 2005-06-11. p. A7.
  The article notes: "八名來自才俊學校的學生昨日走入錄音室，首次做小DJ，初嘗“開咪”經驗，親身訪問偶像方力申，表演非洲鼓，在大氣電波中展現藝術才能。當中有曾兩度打破女子四乘一百接力泳賽世界紀錄的智障運動員週沅凝，她更用電子琴彈奏大長今主題曲“希望”，送給偶像。八位輕度弱智的學生接受為期兩個月的「校園小DJ訓練計劃」，昨日出席港台節目「無火主席–呢分鐘我話事」，首次「開咪」做節目。"
  From Google Translate: "Eight students from Talent School walked into the recording studio yesterday to be small DJs for the first time, have their first experience of "opening microphones", personally visited idol Alex Fong, performed African drums, and showed off their artistic talents in the atmospheric airwaves. Among them was Zhou Yunying, an mentally retarded athlete who twice broke the world record in the women's 4x100 relay. She even played Dae Jang Geum's theme song "Hope" on her electronic keyboard as a gift to her idol. Eight students with mild mental retardation received a two-month "Campus DJ Training Program" and yesterday attended RTHK's program "Chairman Without Fire - I'll Talk About This Minute" for the first time."
6. "AXA國衛帶智障兒童參觀電視城" [AXA National Guard takes children with intellectual disabilities to visit TV City]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2002-03-04. p. B14.
  The article notes: "AXA國衛日前為才俊學校的同學安排課外活動，並提供志工服務，與二十多位師生一同參觀清水灣電視城。當日參觀了 TVB多個外景拍攝場地如民初街、大型錄影廠及兒童節目錄影場地。其間 AXA Phoenix的多位營業員提供義工服務，沿途照顧學童和維持秩序，令活動得以順利進行。"
  From Google Translate: "AXA National Health Service recently arranged extracurricular activities and provided volunteer services for students of Cai Chun School. They visited Clear Water Bay TV City with more than 20 teachers and students. On that day, they visited multiple TVB location shooting locations such as Minchu Street, a large video studio and a children's program recording venue. During this period, many salespersons from AXA Phoenix provided volunteer services to take care of the children and maintain order along the way, making the event go smoothly."
7. "乒乓師徒為智障童打開美麗天空" [Table tennis masters and apprentices open up the beautiful sky for mentally handicapped children]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2000-11-22. p. E3.
  The article notes: "黎惠玲和林志強是才俊學校的乒乓球隊主將。前者剛奪雪梨奧運智障女子組乒乓球金牌﹐後者世界排名名列廿四。兩人皆異口同聲謂奪獎全賴校內主任賴Ｓｉｒ的啟蒙教導。"
  From Google Translate: "Lai Wai Ling [zh] and Lin Zhiqiang are the captains of the table tennis team of Caijun School. The former just won the table tennis gold medal in the mentally retarded women's group at the Sydney Olympics, and the latter is ranked 24th in the world. Both of them said in unison that winning the award was entirely due to the enlightenment and guidance of the school director Lai Sir."
8. "傷殘人士奧運女子乒乓球賽中獲得冠軍才俊學校賀黎惠玲奪金" [The disabled women's table tennis competition won the championship, Caijun School Lai Wai Ling won the gold medal]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2000-11-20. p. A12.
  The article notes: "才俊學校日前假尖沙咀東部富豪酒店為該校學生黎惠玲勇奪悉尼二○○○年傷殘人士奧運金牌舉行祝捷會。"
  From Google Translate: "Cai Chun School recently held a celebration party at the Regal Hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui East for its student Lai Wai Ling for winning the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games gold medal."
9. "包容自閉兒《黃金花》寫實版伴自閉兒闖關堅毅媽：最困難已捱過" [Tolerance for autistic children, a realistic version of "Golden Flower", accompanying autistic children to overcome difficulties, a determined mother: the most difficult difficulty has been overcome]. Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2018-06-15. p. 66.
  The article notes: "下午三點四十五分，許美霞在沙田才俊學校門前，迎接快將十六歲的瑋瑋放學，母子徒步回家，十分鐘的路程，瑋瑋不用媽媽牽著，也能安份地走路。很難想像患有輕度智障及自閉症的瑋瑋，以往上街例必大喊大叫，甚至打途人，坐上陌生人的大腿。... 直到她帶著當時快將六歲的瑋瑋來到才俊學校，她看到一線曙光：「我見到這裡的小朋友情緒穩定又開心，當時的校長跟我說，只要有耐性，逐樣慢慢教，瑋瑋可以教好的。」校長教她，瑋瑋每個偏差行為皆必有因，找出根源，就可以教導他正確做法。 "
  From Google Translate: "At 3:45 in the afternoon, Xu Meixia greeted Weiwei, who was about to turn 16, after school in front of Shatin Caijun School. Mother and son walked home. It was a ten-minute journey. Weiwei could be content without being held by her mother. It’s hard to imagine that Weiwei, who has mild mental retardation and autism, used to yell when going out on the street, even hit passers-by and sit on strangers’ laps... Until she brought her then fast When the six-year-old Weiwei came to Caijun School, she saw a glimmer of hope: "I saw that the children here were emotionally stable and happy. The principal at the time told me that as long as we have patience and teach things slowly, Weiwei can Teach him well." The principal taught her that every deviant behavior of Weiwei must have a reason. If you find the root cause, you can teach him the correct way."
10. "「輸」在起跑線﹕發展體藝才助SEN學生建自信" ["Losing" at the starting line: Developing physical and artistic talents to help SEN students build self-confidence]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2018-09-25.
  The article notes: "曾經被視為問題多多的學生，轉校為鄧韋樂帶來極大改變，才俊學校校長彭章球說，原因很簡單， ... 除了學業能力外，SEN學童大多有情緒問題，引伸至衝動行為，「最常見的是固執，一面對改變有很大情緒反應」。因此，有別於主流學校，才俊學校每班有兩名班主任，每2至3年才換一次，而且只會換其中一名，另一名班主任會跟隨學生，升上較高年級，“ 要幫他們適應變化，不能所有事物都不變，但又要有限度，令他們感到安全」。 "
  From Google Translate: "Once regarded as a student with many problems, changing schools has brought about great changes for Deng Weile. Peng Zhangqiu, the principal of Caijun School, said that the reason is very simple... In addition to academic ability, most SEN students have emotional problems, which extend to impulsive behavior. " The most common one is stubbornness, with a strong emotional reaction to changes." Therefore, unlike mainstream schools, each class in Caijun School has two head teachers, who only change once every 2 to 3 years, and only one of them will be replaced. The other head teacher will follow the students to a higher grade, " We need to help them adapt to changes. Everything cannot remain the same, but there must be limits to make them feel safe.”"
11. Chiu, Wing-tak 趙榮德 (2020-04-02). "【升學信箱】根德園幼稚園重五育發展" [[Enrollment Mailbox] Gende Garden Kindergarten focuses on the development of five educations]. Headline Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "匡智獅子會晨崗學校及才俊學校適合輕度智障的學生，而天保民學校則適宜輕至中度。匡智會服務焦點放在智障人士的能力上，而非着眼於先天的缺陷；才俊學校則為輕度智障兒童提供優質特殊教育服務，辦學團體為慈雲山街坊福利會，故重視發揚街坊會四大信條的精神，你可視乎兒子的需要作出選擇。"
  From Google Translate: "Hong Chi Lions Club Morning Hill School and Talent School are suitable for students with mild intellectual disabilities, while Tin Po Man School is suitable for students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. The focus of Hong Chi Club's services is on the abilities of people with intellectual disabilities, rather than focusing on congenital defects; Choi Jun School provides high-quality special education services for children with mild intellectual disabilities. The school is run by the Tsz Wan Shan Neighborhood Welfare Association, so it attaches great importance to carrying forward the spirit of the four tenets of the neighborhood association. You can make a choice based on your son's needs."
12. English-language sources about Choi Jun School's students including the Paralympian ping pong gold medalist Lai Wai Ling [zh] and the Paralympian swimming gold medalist Tang Wai-lok:
  1. Chow, Aries (2000-10-18). "Little Wai-ling born to take best seat at table". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 2212386678. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
    The article notes: "Lai Wai-ling was born to be a world-class table tennis player. ... said coach Lam Chi-bang, explaining how he recruited Lai to the national squad from Sha Tin's Choi Jun School."
  2. Yow, Sophia (2003-05-01). "Sporting chances". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
    The article notes: "At the 2000 Paralympics, Lai Wai-ling, a student at Choi Jun School, snapped up a gold medal in table tennis."
  3. Kung, Kelvin (2012-08-12). "Now for the Paralympics. Kelvin Tang, 15, is Hong Kong's youngest athlete at the London Games for the disabled". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
    The article notes: "It is only two months since up-and-coming swimmer Kelvin Tang Wai-lok secured a place as Hong Kong's youngest representative at the London Paralympics. The 15-year-old, who has won many medals in international competitions this year, is unfazed by having so little time in which to prepare. "I'm going to do my best," says the mildly mentally handicapped teenager, who studies at Choi Jun School, in Tai Wai."
  4. Cheng, Jennifer (2012-08-26). "Mentally impaired teen aims for pool glory". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  5. Powell, Jonathan (2004-02-19). "Paddler scoops 4 awards". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
    The article notes: "Wai-ling, a Form Five student at Choi Jun School in Sha Tin, is the world's No 1 mentally handicapped table-tennis player and is accustomed to winning such accolades."
  6. Tsang, Sam (2009-09-22). "Roller grade". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
    The caption notes: "A pupil enjoys a sports therapy class at Choi Jun School in Sha Tin during a visit yesterday by Chief Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen (third, right). The 120 primary and secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities receive extra training in life skills, and counselling."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Choi Jun School (traditional Chinese: 才俊學校; simplified Chinese: 才俊学校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Hyok-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. ContributorMix (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yong Lee-ja[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are database entries. BEFORE showed nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for a BLP. // Timothy :: talk 00:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagoya Civic Assembly Hall[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is a good article Evangp (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have the status of Tangible Cultural Property (see the Japanese Wikipedia article), so meets WP:GEOFEAT. Failure of WP:BEFORE B7. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a major concert venue and for being one of few buildings in the city of Nagoya to survive WWII bombing per this snippet [5] plus the cultural structure listing satisfies presumption of notability under GEOFEAT. Rupples (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and historic per Necrothesp.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Song-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kwang-ik[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duh… 50+ international appearances for the North Korea national team and a stint abroad at Lekhwiya SC. Where can we look for North Korean media? Robby.is.on (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, where he made a grand total of 0 appearances. The article has hardly been updated in 6 years. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me - unlikely given he is North Korean, but given the number of appearances it's possible. Giant Snowman 18:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG as stated above, I'd like to see more than just passing mentions like this and this, and stats. No significant coverage of the subject. Tails Wx 19:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Ung-chon[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find a significant amount of GNG level coverage here to warrant an article about this subject. User:Let'srun 14:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of You're Under Arrest characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miyuki Kobayakawa[edit]

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

Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natsumi Tsujimoto, nearly identical case - plot summary failing WP:GNG. Reception is limited to the single sentence that "Miyuki was among the Top 10 Most Popular Female Characters in the August 2001 issue of Newtype magazine.". No ja wiki article. My BEFORE shows next to nothing (one or two possible plot summaries on GBooks, in very limited view). Suggest merger and redirect to List of You're Under Arrest characters per WP:ATD. As with Natsumi, there's a tiny chance something exists in non-digitized, Japanese sources, but first, we have to find them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Anime and manga, Police, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of You're Under Arrest characters as ATD —siro χ o 01:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. - Indefensible (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of You're Under Arrest characters.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. Character doesn't have enough reliable reception to write a proper article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant Logic[edit]

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

Not confident it meets notability standards. There are news articles about the company, but they're mostly inflated by ultimately meaningless corporate jargon. Removing the advertising content from the current article, the entire article becomes "Radiant Logic is a US-based computer software company that develops software for enterprise information integration, information security, and data management." -- Primium (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Primium (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything that wasn't a press release (e.g., Businesswire), a routine database entry (e.g. Crunchbase), or affiliated with the company. No reliable secondary independent sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable third party sources fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Not suitable for Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 21:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of current WSOF-Global fighters[edit]

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

Page with minimal citations for a now defunct promotion that hasn't held events in almost a decade HeinzMaster (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Martial arts. HeinzMaster (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WSOF was never considered a top tier MMA organization so it's hard to see why a list of their fighters is notable. Note that few of the fighters listed have WP pages and it's likely, though I haven't checked, that even those listed wouldn't meet the existing notability criteria at WP:NMMA. There also seems to be no independent coverage of this topic. Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks third party indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and those listed do not meet WP:NMMA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Lists of mostly non-notable people aren't needed here, this isn't Fandom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Lethweimaster (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YChange[edit]

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

I initially created this as a redirect to Little Mix The Search, a show they competed in, and it has since been expanded. A WP:BEFORE finds that they don't meet WP:NBAND as they have no WP:SIGCOV, mainly primary sources that do not establish notability outside of the series. – Meena • 11:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. – Meena • 11:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as No consensus after two relistings with no further editor participation. Possible ATDs can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Britannica Industries[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and corporate-specific notability requirements. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are adequate. Perhaps Cancer cluster at Pan Britannica Industries would be a more appropriate title. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I would have included WP:1E in my filing, but that's for people only. But your comment on renaming speaks to the single event that is potentially notable. I would accept a ATD move. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company doesn't appear to be notable which I realized when I tried to clean it up, but I can see the logic in Eastmain's argument. I don't know if the CLuster is notable enough, but it's more neutral than the company so could be a good stopgap. Star Mississippi 01:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home High School, Rahara[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Schools aren't automatically notable. Subject fails NCORP and GNG. The sister article in bn-wiki is similarly poorly written and sourced. From my BEFORE search in Bengala, I found little that was independent and reliable. I am not sure about Samay updates. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All we have are primary sources, such as this self-lauding piece, links to the school's website, which the anti-virus software marks as shifty so beware, directory listings such as this, an Indian Express article about a former student, and a government-grant decision. Beyond those not much, really. The school exists but schools are not notable per se. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Disclosing COI. From neutral point of view, this school is highly notable and respected. It got the best school award twice from the WB-Govt. Very old school with thousands of students. Recently, one alumnus got the Bhatnagar Award, 2023. The students of the school are wide spread not only in Bengal or India, but in the West with their reputed posts.

Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an Indian equivalent to Newspapers.com, e.g. a database that has archives of Indian newspapers? Or is there an archive for whatever the local newspaper of record is for the high school's city/region? As I mentioned when I declined the PROD, a 79-year-old high school with 1,300 students very likely has some notability-qualifying coverage out there, but it doesn't appear easily findable, and without it this discussion will likely find consensus to delete. That sort of database is where such coverage would likely show up. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing WP:COI - As a beginner I have tried my best regarding editing of this article. Just now I edited the name of the Headmaster. Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say - I edited the proper name of the Headmaster, but it cannot publish, may be due to some reason. His original name is Swami Muralidharananda not Swami Murgidharananda. Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, finally published the original name. Clearly said, Muralidharananda is a Sanskrit word which he got after his Sannyasa vow, meaning, get happiness to think about, who is holding the flute which refers to KRISHNA. Compare to this, the other name (Sorry, I don't want to write the name again) which I saw yesterday and really shocked, as I respect Wikipedia, was a bengali word, meaning I don't want to share because that word itself showed disrespect to the Headmaster of the School. Thank you. Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- 79-year-old high school with 1,300 students, we have access to very little online sources, we could try asking people from the indian wikipedia. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is Some Coverage I Have Found: https://indianexpress.com/article/education/rahara-rkm-student-tops-wbjee-99-5-candidates-secure-ranks-7442428/, https://www.getbengal.com/details/75-years-of-ramakrishna-mission-rahara PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete--it's all very thin, but I don't mind us keeping this. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- I agree with @Drmies here, the sourcing is extremely thin, there is some MILL coverage of results (https://indianexpress.com/article/education/rahara-rkm-student-tops-wbjee-99-5-candidates-secure-ranks-7442428/) and alumni wrt to the school itself and a lot of coverage of the associated orphanage where the article goes "hey there is a school btw as well" (https://www.anandabazar.com/west-bengal/75th-year-anniversary-of-rahara-ramakrishna-mission-1.857235). Most of the other lofty claims don't appear to be backed by secondary sourcing. -- Sohom (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Drmies lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well. It's lacking in-depth coverage as is pretty thin, even in the sources mentioned above. Schools in practice tend to often have a little bit lower bar for notability, but sources like this just don't have any WP:ORGDEPTH or even focus on the school itself really. Wikipedia:Schools#Notability has more guidance on this, but I really don't see anything that's hinting at notability floating around out there from the geographic or org notability guidelines. KoA (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mordialloc Secondary College[edit]

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

Sources do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE shows news articles for a single event about dyed hair, but nothing that would warrant a standalone article for the college - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the oldest state secondary school in the city of Kingston. The school is now known as Mordialloc College. Consider changing the title? Maula63 (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- This School is Mentioned in the News Quite A Few Times:

Multiple News Articles About A Student Getting Kicked Out For Dying Their Hair.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Mordialloc College alumni unearthing documents and thousands of photos, preserving past.^[4]

Heartbroken friends remember rising AFL star who tragically drowned.^[5] PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also pointing out that this article is rated Start-Class according to the Wikipedia Content Assessment Scale PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a single event which does not make the whole school notable.

We don't reference the Daily FMail

The second one isn't bad tho - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aspendale, Victoria as clear and appropriate alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some RS. Apologies there are not urls for the EBSCOHOST articles, but I don't have time (or frankly, the inclination, I'm too old) to figure out how to deal with the proxy url issues preventing inclusion of the EBSCO urls. Nevertheless, this article meets WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ "High school student booted from class for dyed hair". The Herald Sun.
^ "Students give schools a spray over restricted hair colour and uniforms". KidsNews. 2023-06-18. Retrieved 2023-09-29.
^ "High school student booted from classroom because of the colour of his hair". 7NEWS. 2023-06-16. Retrieved 2023-09-29.
^ "Mordialloc College alumni unearthing documents and thousands of photos, preserving past". The Herald Sun.
^ "Heartbroken friends remember rising AFL star who tragically drowned". Daily Mail.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monirul Mondal[edit]

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

Painfully brief career as a professional and no evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources found were Telegraph India, a squad list mention, CPD Football, a passing mention in a blog (not WP:RS), and India Footy, a single passing mention. I could not find any RS addressing Monirul Mondal directly and in detail, which is not surprising considering how short and uneventful his career was. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022/2023 China Futsal Super League[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability for the league itself, much less for a single season. The only in-line citation takes me to an error code on the Chinese Football Association website. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and China. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is no links on social media, because they dont use. I will post 2024 soon, when they announce list on new clubs which will particiapte at league, https://weibo.com/u/6330100850 , here you can find more details about their league, but it on chinese. 178.223.186.184 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is no links on ussual social media, because they dont use. I will post league 2024 soon, when they announce list on new clubs which will particiapte at league, https://weibo.com/u/6330100850 , here you can find more details about their league, but it on chinese. Tsaroceanaugyst (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if they did use social media, it would be irrelevant as WP:GNG requires significant coverage from independent sources. The Weibo links don't work for me but, again, they have no relevance as Weibo is microblogging/social media and so not WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Saeed[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMMA, as his highest quarterly ranking by Fight Matrix, was #362nd. Appears to fail WP:GNG as well, being his main coverage (outside of standard MMA media reporting) is through interviews, or passing mentions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and England. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability or coverage Nswix (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and WP:GNG criteria. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting any WP notability criteria. Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bimal Minj[edit]

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

Played one season as a pro and then disappeared. I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, even when searching in Hindi (बिमल मिंज). GCS Stars mentions him twice, as Bimal Minz, and it's a blog so clearly not WP:RS and doesn't help with GNG. Deccan Herald mentions him once, as Bimal Minz, and LatestLY mentions him once. None of these mentioned sources provide significant coverage of Minz/Minj. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Major Crime Unit[edit]

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

Completely non-notable unit, does not deserve its own article Elshad (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there aren't many pages in the category [6] so probably not worth this article to stay public as well as this having just one external link and two sentences. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London International Awards[edit]

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

Fails GNG with zero significant coverage in reliable sources. All I could find are self-referential articles or WP:PROMO & WP:ROUTINE press releases about winners or nominations. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notes. As the user who initially submitted the page, I feel responsible to help contribute to its wellbeing and it remaining on Wikipedia. London International Awards is a noteworthy and long-standing awards company in the advertising industry, in line with Cannes Lions and Clio. I will search for a variety of secondary sources and update the page accordingly. I will confirm here once I get through as much as possible. Thank you! Chilled Bean (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources need to not only be secondary, but also need to be independent of the subject. So the adage.com article you added after this deletion notice, whose very first line is "In 2009, I helped the London International Awards define..." is right out from a notability perspective, because in essence that source can be summed up as "I think company X is awesome. I also work for company X." Every company thinks they themselves are awesome, of course, so we don't care what the company or those affiliated with it say about it--we care what independent sources that have a track record of being reliable and have gone to the trouble of dedicating a substantial portion of a work to that subject directly (to prevent cherry-picking) say about it. 2603:8001:4542:28fb (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete (and thank you for nominating this). I did a search for sources yesterday and mostly came up with the same results. Of the sources currently in the article, two are unrelated to the company, one is primary, and the others are to websites such as BizCommunity and AdGully whose articles I legitimately couldn't tell if they were company-sponsored or not. (AdGully, for example, claims it will accept press releases but makes no guarantee they will be published, but that still seems rather dubious to me.) At any rate, they still all fall under the WP:ROUTINE classification Mack provided, and I certainly didn't find any sources confirming it to be the "world's leading awards show" it claims to be. 2603:8001:4542:28fb 07:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not clearly establish the notability of the awards in the broader context of the industry and cultural impact. It lacks substantial coverage from independent, third-party sources. The article resembles more of a historical record or archive of the LIA, rather than providing an encyclopedic entry. --Assirian cat (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Bouton[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. The closest thing to a notability claim here is that he was the designated substitute to a member of the French Parliament: that is, he was the guy who would have succeeded Élisabeth Pochon if she had resigned the seat or died in the middle of her term, but that isn't an "inherently" notable role in its own right. If Pochon had vacated the seat and Bouton had accordingly become an MP, then he would obviously pass WP:NPOL #1, but that didn't happen, so there's nothing "inherently" notable about being the substitute-in-waiting.
The rest of the content here is candidacies in elections he didn't win, his work for various organizations and committees, and a statement of the "first member of [underrepresented minority group] to do a non-notable thing" variety, none of which is notability-clinching stuff without proper sourcing either, and the referencing is parked almost entirely on directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him shown at all: the only citation in the entire article that technically comes from a reliable source is here solely to tangentially verify a stray fact, and completely fails to name Raphaël Bouton at all in conjunction with it, and thus does not help to boost his notability either.
In addition, it warrants note that (a) there's no article about him on the French Wikipedia, where one would obviously be expected if he actually had any genuine notability in French politics, and (b) the article was created by a WP:SPA with a direct conflict of interest.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced far, far better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: just a note to add that on further investigation, an article did once exist on the French Wikipedia, but then got deleted on the grounds that he was only a substitute and didn't have any properly sourced indication of any other valid notability claims, and then never came back. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not established by sources. Doesn't appear to have won any position that would over-come the lack of GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bogdan Belsky[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and Biography of Living Persons Policy, therefore I have nominated it for deletion. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How could this possibly run afoul of WP:BLP when he died over 600 years ago? Anyways, I think he pretty unambiguously meets WP:GNG. The article in Russian Wikipedia has several sources, including 3 quite extensive entries in various biographical dictionaries (Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary [7], Russian Biographical Dictionary [8], and [9]), among several other listed sources. I've also been able to find coverage in English-language literature, including in [10]. Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP absolutely does not apply here, and sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 21:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7@Dudhhr Oh. Yeah, forgot they had to be LIVING. Also didn't make the obvious decision to check Russian Wikipedia on a Russian person, just thought the translator would carry the sources over. That's rather embarrassing, sorry people. Will remove the tag. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 11:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 C31 Melbourne. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Kaleidoscope[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Russia. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to find any substantial coverage in secondary sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My own search came up with only 1 gnews hit. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C31 Melbourne which does have a sentence about this program. Not notable enough to have a stand alone article though. Jenks24 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like the article is no longer unreferenced although if the editors arguing to Keep this article could supply more reliable sources, I think that would prevent a return trip to AFD. A rename can be done by any interested editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jordan (Italian actor)[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Unreferenced, fails WP:NACTOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The original draftification was correct. Even with the addition of a few references which appear to be passing mentions, the article does not speak for itself. The article does not establish either acting notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist. Apart from his roles in lots of films, mostly spaghetti westerns (a forum is not a great source but this gives some idea of his work), he had another life running gambling dens, and was shot dead in a park in Rome in a gambling-related execution (that source has OCR in the PDF so you can copy the text into Google Translate). See also it:Aldo Canti and Special:WhatLinksHere/Nick Jordan (Italian actor). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed. Fairly meets the requirements for actors, as having played significant roles in multiple notable films. Lead roles in Superuomini, superdonne, superbotte, and in Napoli... serenata calibro 9, for example. Google Books refs to plenty of his roles.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the more complete filmography as well as sources presented, the subject meets WP:NACTOR. —siro χ o 23:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note if kept move to Nick Jordan (actor). No need for his nationality. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. i see a consensus to Keep this article, also it has been greatly expanded since the nomination. Moreover, I see no support for Deleting this article since it has been expanded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan B. Curtiss[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their work in reliable sources -- but this is referenced entirely to IMDb, and makes no meaningful notability claim beyond the fact of his existence.
While there are a lot of notable films in the filmography list, his credit on nearly all of them was "second unit/assistant director", which is in no way an "inherently" notable role that would constitute a "no sourcing required" freebie -- and while he later had some "associate producer" credits followed by one credit as a lead producer, that still isn't an inclusion freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing.
The article has been tagged for referencing improvement since 2016 without ever being improved -- and while the film he was a full producer on does have an article in which his name is listed in the infobox, this article gets so little attention that his name was never even wikilinked there.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just an IMDb profile for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assistant director of many notables films, verifiable contributions that make him fairly meet the criterion#3 for creative professionals:

etc. (the GoogleBooks link lists many books that mention him) (for Waterworld, Gloria, Cast Away, Master and Commander, among other films)

I understand these are passing mentions but the guideline is clear: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" The point is that his contributions to the making of very notable films is verifiable. Also a nomination for 2003 Directors Guild of America Awards-Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film: Nominated is mentioned, which is an indication.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we add the DGA award nomination and the ref links mentioned above, his notability should be clear. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried to improve the article based on this discussion. Hope this helps. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until and unless better sources which focus on him (i.e. not just name checks in articles about films he's worked on) can be found there isn't enough to support an article here. The DGA award nomination is probably the best claim to automatic notability, but the media consistently covers that award as being presented to the primary director and not their team. Also, I am not really comfortable allowing a BLP through on inferred notability in the absence of more coverage in reliable sources than I could find here. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about three DGA nominations, two Variety articles spotlighting the team award, four terms as an associate member of DGA's national board, and recognition for his long mentorship activities in the industry? I just added these to the article, too. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I've substantially improved the content and sourcing to satisfy WP:NBIO, after you originally posted the article here on AfD to highlight the problems. Would you like to provide an updated rationale for deletion, or would you agree that the updates have resolved the issues that you helpfully identified? —173.56.111.206 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC) = 98.113.83.5 from another location (no intention to sockpuppet)[reply]

That's not how the AFD process works. Once I've listed it for discussion, I don't have to come back and evaluate whether any changes are "good enough for me" or not — the only thing that matters at all is where consensus of the participants in the discussion lands. I could withdraw the nomination if there were total unanimity that I was in error, by virtue of there being only keeps in the discussion with no deletes at all — but if there are any other delete votes I cannot close the discussion myself, and have to leave it for another administrator to evaluate the final consensus. So, since this was relisted today, the discussion has to remain open for at least another week, and there's absolutely nothing I can do to shorten that. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to shorten or close the discussion. I was asking if you agreed that your original rationale for deletion has been addressed. Of course you don't need to spend time answering or participating further, but your experienced viewpoint would have been helpful in a discussion with low participation. No problem either way. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple major award nominations, named and verified by Variety as including AD. —siroχo 22:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The current version of the article is greatly expanded, addresses all the concerns raised above, and satisfies all the cited standards -- WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and its specific WP:FILMMAKER section. I would posit that a rough consensus now exists, since no comments (including the nominator's) have argued for deleting the expanded version of the article, only the much weaker previous versions that are no longer relevant. On the merits, I hope the improved content & sourcing can be acknowledged by the next closer and finally closed as a Keep, instead of endlessly relisting for the slim chance of broader discussion. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epesi[edit]

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

Severe promotional language and primarily edited and created by User:Jtylek and User:Ktylek, who appear to be the developers of Epesi. Only sources are reviews and the installer. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jtylek has admitted to being Janusz Tylek, and thinks that because he donated to Wikipedia, we should keep the article. Also, here is the coincinding discussion on WP:COIN. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jtylek has started to edit the article again. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 00:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtylek

"Speedy deletion of Epesi BIM

A tag has been placed on Epesi BIM, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Twinzor (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)"

Note the part: "but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"

I am not a wikipedia editor and do not follow changes in policies and guidelines. I am confused simply and start to feel like a victim of a scam. Jtylek (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that because i made monetary contributions to Wikipedia the article should not be deleted. Here is my full response:

Please do not delete the article.

I am the founder of the Epesi project working on it since 2006 as a way to pay back open source community and especially developers who gave birth to Linux, PHP, MySQL and countless other great software.

I will update it and ask for review to conform to community guidelines. If you can help me with that I will appreciate it very much.

Apparently: "Parts of this article reads like an advertisement..."

I will remove any parts that seem to be an ad with your guidance.

Epesi is free and open source software used by hundreds of organizations worldwide. We barely survive and struggle to provide updates to users for over 15 years now. Please note that approx. 80 percent of open source projects fail within a year. Lack of time and funding for the project, which is so common in FOSS world, is also a reason why the article has not been updated or better written. I see a conflict of interest in one public service project like Wikipedia not supporting other public service projects like Epesi released under MIT license, one of a very few applications running on LAMP stack that does not require a licensing module, monthly subscriptions etc. We have users with installations over 10 and 15 years old serving practically every business sector.

Maybe a prove of it's worthiness will be a fact that University of Engineering and Technology in Hanoi, Vietnam, is using Epesi CRM apparently as SIS (Student Information System), however without providing a required credit, thus illegally

[1]https://student.uet.vnu.edu.vn/

To compare reload the page and compare the source code for Epesi CRM demo:

[2]https://en.demo.epesicrm.com/

Many developers used Epesi CRM as a kickstarter for very elaborate ERP applications like:

[3]https://xsystems.io/

which was created by Georgi Hristov, Epesi contributor on Github.

I will remove all references and phrases that seem like a promotion or advertising. But please do not delete the article as Epesi is referenced in some scientific literature regarding FOSS ERP - here are two examples:

[Open_Source_Enterprise_Software][4]

[Open_Source_ERP_Systeme][5]

Removal of the page will be a great disfavor to potential users who can benefit from the software, who are predominantly small business owners and startups trying to come up with their own, home grown solutions. Our mission at Epesi is what I am doing professionally for over 30 years - making it easy for them.

With Regards,

Janusz Tylek

Epesi CRM project maintainer

P.S. I supported financially Wikipedia multiple times with donations in hundreds of dollars. I was under impression that Wikipedia's mission and goals and Epesi's are aligned and on the same supportive course. Jtylek (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

--

Best Regards,

Janusz Tylek Jtylek (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, consensus on Wikipedia is generally that specific missions are not privileged with regards to inclusion guidelines, whether or not we find them a noble cause. However @Jtylek, while I am not familiar with the guidelines there or the expected style, so would not be much help transferring things there, the FSF's Free Software Directory would at first glance be a suitable project, though I would counsel discussing it with them before fully getting hopes up. The import function (again, at first glance) appears to be not available, so if intending to keep same content migration would be manual, but I can't see any single licenced text in the current article so there shouldn't be any copyright issues. If it meets their criteria, even if it ends in a delete here, which from the available sources it likely will, the content can at least find a new home. Best of luck. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about money but about supporting Open Source projects @Asparagusus

Why do Wikipedia editors find an article about the 17-year-old Free and Open Source project Epesi written in an inappropriate tone, not just edit it?

At the same time, we receive an offer of $1499 USD to write a new article about Epesi from Shawn Harrison of https://thewikiinc.com/. He wrote he is a Senior Wikipedia Editor. Why does he think the article about Epesi should be placed on Wikipedia?

How do you explain this familiar scenario?

https://www.quora.com/I-got-an-email-from-a-company-offering-to-start-a-Wikipedia-page-for-me-if-I-were-to-pay-them-1000-1500-dollars-What-kind-of-scam-is-this-or-is-this-a-genuine-service-that-Wikipedia-has-now-started-offering Ktylek (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the article promotional, your product is probably not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Do not pay that person. The article will just get deleted and their account might be blocked. See WP:PAID. Also, that could just be a scam and the article might not be created. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 20:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also made a post on WP:COIN about the users. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find in Google is SourceForge and Episi's website. NO mentions of the software in Gnews. I can't find reviews of it either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They also submitted Episi BIM or CIM and it's been removed as a copyvio. All kinds of red flags here folks. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janusz,

Thanks for your response.

Let me explain to you as you can also see the tag on the top of your page, which states, "Tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia," which comes Sep 2014. They have given you a warning to improve your article by excluding the promotional tone. The conclusion would be that your page will get deleted at any time soon.

Your page was also created by you or someone else in your company, which violates Wikipedia guidelines. It has to be done by a third party. A renowned Wikipedia editor, Oaktree b, put a comment on your page for deletion. You can view his editor account as well as the Barnstar that he has received from the Wikipedia community. Hence, your page is under the observation section by the Wiki moderators and admin.

Whatever we do, your page will get deleted. Another mistake that you have made is you recently attempted an edit on your page as your page is under surveillance. Again you're violating the COI policy of Wikipedia. This thing can lead to your entry being banned on Wikipedia and once they do, you can never make an entry under the name of Epesi.

What we are going to do over here is create your entry from scratch following Wikipedia standards.

Looking forward to hearing back from you.

--

Shawn Harrison

Snr. Wikipedia Consultant

https://thewikiinc.com/ Jtylek (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was something that User:Jtylek copied from a scam website addressed to them. User:Jtylek’s name is Janusz. I understand the confusion. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly an advertisement. Reads like the "about" page of a software project's website, not an encyclopedia article. SPA⁵CE! ^{(talk about it, talk about it, talk about it!)} 16:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trafiła kosa na kamień... Jtylek (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly promotional article about non-notable software. Jfire (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScamsEtc/comments/127ilte/wikipedia_consultancy_scam/ Jtylek (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janusz,

Thanks for your response.

Well, as you are already aware of the situation and you have already noticed, your Wikipedia entry was already nominated for a speedy deletion process, and another editor has also voted against your entry, which is actually now making your case more critical and concerning if the immediate aren't taken at the right time. This new delete vote has also highlighted the concern of COI, which again is raising indications related to the violation of the neutrality guidelines of Wikipedia.

Now, the actions that can be taken in order to preserve and secure your entry is that your page requires voting from different Wikipedia editors/ bureaucrats in your favor in order to balance out the situation. Also, what we can do to save your entry further is that your entry requires additional editing in a proper, neutral manner. Also, the tone of the page needs to be improvised, and that thing must be eliminated, which is making your page promotional. Moreover, it also needs to be cited properly through the references that are currently available for which detailed research needs to be conducted.

These were some immediate actions that need to be taken as early as possible in order to save your entry. However, if you want us to assist you with your case, we can certainly guide you on the services that we provide. In addition, we can also assure you one more thing in case your entry gets deleted/ removed during the process, so we can also assist you with recreating your page from scratch in line with Wikipedia standards and protocols. Our main motive would be to protect and secure your initial entry first so the changes that we plan out can be implemented accordingly.

Lastly, if you wish to move forward I can get you started with the plan I have mentioned above, and our complete services will cost you $1,499 only.

Kindly confirm so I may get you started accordingly.

--

Shawn Harrison

Sr. Wikipedia Consultant

https://thewikiinc.com/ Jtylek (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you can delete the page as I am not ready to pay $1,499 only!

What a scam! Jtylek (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a Wikipedia employee. That is somebody from an external website trying to take advantage of you in this situation. Please ignore them. Even if you did pay them, they likely would not be able to help keep the article. miranda ^:3 19:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Maybeitsmir this is what I figured.

Trafiła kosa na kamień... Jtylek (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A simple article describing the product, per normal practice for software product showing it was still under active development would have been ideal. Instead the originating WP:COI editor thought, why not try and promote it. I have no time for it. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of racketeering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering

Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the persons set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit.

Originally and often still specifically, racketeering may refer to an organized criminal act in which the perpetrators offer a service that will not be put into effect, offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem, or offer a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket. However, racketeers may offer an ostensibly effectual service to solve an existing problem. The traditional and historically most common example of such a racket is the "protection racket", in which racketeers offer to protect a business from robbery or vandalism; however, the racketeers will themselves coerce or threaten the business into accepting this service, often with the threat (implicit or otherwise) that failure to acquire the offered services will lead to the racketeers themselves contributing to the existing problem. In many cases, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, but that fact may be concealed, with the intent to engender continual patronage. The protection racket is thus often a method of extortion, at least in practice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ScamsEtc/comments/127ilte/wikipedia_consultancy_scam/

So here's an interesting scam that seems to be making the rounds.

This scam is very subtle, because some sites do seem to offer a legitimate variant.

Basically, certain websites appear to be claiming they can win anyone notoriety by offering to write Wikipedia pages for exorbitant sums of money.
Almost Definite Scam Sites
Jtylek (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Heathcote[edit]

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

A long life in service and practice of the arts and in collecting African art, nevertheless does not make the subject notable per WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. As I said when I created the initial entry though, it's work in progress! I've now added more text to explain his significance as a major collector of Hausa artifacts in the 60s and 70s. The British Museum has acquired nearly 400 Hausa objects from him, which sounds quite significant to me. If you click on the related objects tab in the BM entry for him (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG124267), you'll see them. Mackthefinger (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with the comment above and support the idea that we keep the page, as Heathcote is clearly an expert on Hausa embroideries, but if his publications, artwork or collection are judged insufficiently notable, then, at least, maybe redirect the article to Slade School of Fine Art#Notable alumni, where a minimal description with this and this as sources, for example, can be added. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support - much appreciated Mackthefinger (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the exhaustive CV items and rearranged the remaining items. Added authority control. I don't know what constituents "notable" as a collector, especially when the collection is appropriation from another country that is now out from the yoke of colonization. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I'm happy with the reduced list of exhibitions, but the list of publications was there to demonstrate a genuine knowledge of Hausa textiles in particular. It's the sort of pre-internet bibliographic info about non-Western art or craft that isn't readily available elsewhere online - at least, not for free. For info the BM objects I checked were all made in the 1960s or 1970s and some may have been bought from the makers, thus supporting their practice. I'm a curator myself and understand your concern, but I don't see this as appropriation. On the contrary, Heathcote was taking an interest in Hausa culture and encouraging others to do the same. Mackthefinger (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. A random look shows a drawing that was sold to the BM by Heathcote with no real provenance. Heathcote is described as a "vendor and collector". So, as an academic, he creates the market by writing about it. He buys up examples and then turns around and sells them to the BM where they are not on display. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to take a closer look at one of the 391 objects now in the BM. I'm not sure it's appropriate to speculate about the collector's motives here, but I doubt if Heathcote was hoping to make money when acquiring the drawing in the 1970s. I'm very happy to accept your revisions though!

With best wishes, and thanks again. Mackthefinger (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, we can't know what Heathcote's intentions were. But it is now the 21st century, and museums and their acquisition practices are facing a reckoning. The example of the Benin Bronzes shows how "baked in" the idea of buying and stealing culture was assumed to be for the good. Sure, the example of Heathcote's collection of present day Hausa objects is not the same as Lord Elgin marching off with Ancient Greek sculptures from the Parthenon, but it is the long end of the tail. Also, I have looked through a fair number of the records and still don't see any examples of the Hausa art on display.

Over time the lens of art history changes. Bernard Berenson once had a good reputation.

Best wishes to you, too. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge - I don't think this person is either famous (or infamous) to the extent that he meets the GNG. However I do think it is important to discuss Hausa art and the reality that much of it is held in Western museums. My suggestion is that this contribution is reframed as being an archive of examples of Hausa heritage collected by this guy, and that it becomes the basis of a section of Hausa people and/or hopefully eventually it's own article. JMWt (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The GV Art exhibitions source items is enough to qualify passing GNG for me. Discussion about colonisation/appropriation etc is irrelevant to that. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GV Art is the gallery representing Heathcote. The links in the article are to PDFs https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58bd99fb2994ca1d92720ca7/t/58beb2026a4963902962832b/1488892440903/David+Heathcote+catalogue.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58bd99fb2994ca1d92720ca7/t/606c1e3dd12d693a1a2aa278/1617698383723/David+Heathcote%2C+Numberless+Islands+-+catalogue.pdf of the catalogues produced for their show by them. Those references do not contribute to notability. https://www.gvart.co.uk/events/2017/6/20/david-heathcote-travels-in-arcadia-friday-5-may-until-saturday-15-may-2017 is a press release for a show. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where else would an art exhibition be hosted if not an art gallery? No change to my Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, and I completely agree with your comments.

Weird that we have similar user names too. In case anyone is wondering though, there's no connection that I'm aware of! Mackthefinger (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relisting. As I said earlier, he's a major collector of (modern) Hausa objects, nearly 400 of which are now in the British Museum and listed on their website. That still seems to be "worthy of notice" to me. I would have preferred to retain a (pre-Internet and sometimes not so easy to verify) list of his publications too, as these demonstrate his genuine knowledge of the subject. If necessary I'd be happy just to list the ones included in the British Museum's biography of him, which are thus verified. He also happens to be an artist, so some of the biographical info inevitably comes from recent catalogues of exhibitions.

I'm a curator myself and, for what it's worth, I think collectors are generally under-represented in Wikipedia. There are several others I'd like to add, including some who aren't so well known as they should be.

With best wishes Mackthefinger (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak): An entry at the British Museum [11]. This page also lists in his bibliography:

Bibliography

'A Leatherworker of Zaria City', The Nigerian Field, xxxix 1974, No.1 pp.12-16, and No.3, pp.99-117.
‘Hausa Embroidered Dress’, in ‘African Arts’, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Winter, 1972), pp. 12-19+82+84
‘A Hausa Charm Gown’, in ‘Man’, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Dec., 1974), pp. 620-624. [Apropos BM 2008,2025.23]

His collection has ended up in some notable places, I'd be surprised if there wasn't commentary about them in art journals. Agree on the idea of trimming the article. Closer should consider this is a weak keep. // Timothy :: talk 17:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I've now added a ref to a BBC African Service item about the 1976 Hausa exhibition, plus an Arts Daily report about an exhibition of his own artworks in 2011. Mackthefinger (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also trimmed the text and removed some duplication. Mackthefinger (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xahid Khan[edit]

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

Entirely relies on WP:UGC sources such as imdb and YouTube (see WP:IMDB and WP:RSPYT). Gnews search brings up nothing relevant either. [12], clearly not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per the nomination, I edited the article as per Given citations but it does not comply with Guidelines. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hello sir, The reason for deleting the article may no longer exist. I have added some new references.I think it might be a Wikipedia article now.I request you to please give the matter again.I'm not very good at English so I'm having trouble understanding these. It will be fine gradually. হানিফ আলী (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Edwardx (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwardx: I'm sorry, sir to said that. Don't mind, I want to ask you a question. What is the difference between an article name Chinmoy Barma and this article Xahid Khan? I think this one is of better quality than that one. So please look into the matter a little bit. Thank you, sir. হানিফ আলী (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indicate WP:UGC , WP:SELFSOURCE. not notable till now Worldiswide (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the self-source on it? Did you enter the links? All references are from news sites. হানিফ আলী (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lennie Briscoe[edit]

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

Many sources in the article are primary, there's a reception section but it only lists what list the character was part of. A quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's enough in the existing sources to qualify for GNG (which is a very minimal standard remember). Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macktheknifeau Would you care to clarify how it qualifies for GNG? The existing reliable secondary sources are more about the actor or are primary. Spinixster (chat!) 10:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough coverage in the sources for subject notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macktheknifeau Can you give proof? Right now, the reliable sources are so:
an interview with a producer who mentions the character as her favorite.

an obituary of the actor that briefly mentions the character.

a book which is a biography of the actor, which is arguably primary. Either way, the book only mentions the character in plot summaries.

The rest are character lists.

More sources that talk extensively about the character in a real-world perspective would be needed to meet GNG. Spinixster (chat!) 11:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily. I see plenty of avenues for sources not already included in the article. BD2412 T 23:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you added talk more about the casting rather than the character. SIGCOV needs to be about the character from a real-world perspective, not the hiring of the actor. Spinixster (chat!) 01:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is no such rule, nor would it make sense. Of course casting is an important element of a character, and content on casting is significant to the notability of the character. Secondly, I am in the middle of adding content relevant to the development of the character. BD2412 T 01:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a rule, it's listed in the SNG for fiction (WP:FICT). Having sources on casting and development does not guarantee notability, rather more sources on the reception and the significance of the character in the real world would. See also Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Spinixster (chat!) 02:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of casting and development is in no way "plot"; plot is by definition in-universe. Sources paying substantial attention to the casting and writing of a character is every bit as indicative of the notability of the character as the reception and influence of that character. BD2412 T 02:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was plot, I just said that more sources about the reception and significance of the character would be needed to prove notability. This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.B. Russell, where there is information about the casting but the character is still considered not to be notable. Spinixster (chat!) 02:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then: Paige Newman, In praise of Lennie Briscoe", Today (December 29, 2004). Of course there will be sources for the reception of longstanding characters on popular series. You just need to look for them more diligently. BD2412 T 03:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was looking for. The problem is more sources like that would be needed, but I'm sure according to what you said that's not the only one. Spinixster (chat!) 06:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A consensus is not going to emerge here to delete the article. However, there isn't a clear consensus to keep this either. What I would suggest rather than a renom, since this was so well attended, is to consider whether improvement is possible so that a firmer consensus to retain is possible, or whether there's a viable AtD. None of which require a relist, so closing. Star Mississippi 12:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skibidi Toilet[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

The last nomination for this article was not descriptive and the nominator failed to demonstrate a lack of notability. In the time since this article has been put into mainspace, there has been no indication that Skibidi Toilet is notable despite receiving coverage from sources that are ambiguous in reliability. Sources such as Lifehacker and Distractify may be acceptable for expanding on an article that has already been deemed notable, but the only sources that seem to bear weight are For The Win—a publication that is likely not held to the same standards as its parent USA Today—and Kotaku.

Game Rant — Source associated with Valnet, a dubious publishing company. See WikiProject Video games' assessment of Valnet and this discussion.
Cartoon Brew — Reliability unclear.
Lifehacker — Reliability unclear. See this discussion.
Newsweek — Associated with IBT Media and journalistic decline since 2013. See WP:NEWSWEEK.
Distractify — No consensus. See this discussion.
The Daily Dot — No consensus. See WP:DAILYDOT.
Dexerto — Unreliable. See WikiProject Video games' assessments. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many of these sources you list other than the reliable ones such the ones on Yahoo News have no consensus. That doesn't mean we should delete the article for that reason. Aside from sources, the subject is absolutely notable as noted on previous consensus, such as the YouTube channel having 11 billion views and 30 million subscribers. Note that nominator has previously nominated articles which obviously meet WP:GNG such as Linus Sebastian. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basing an article on ambiguous sources is reckless. Well-established sources determine notability, not marginally reliable or dubious ones. YouTube views and subscribers are irrelevant here, as are my previous deletion requests. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ....

etc. etc.

Nominator, your preliminary check does not seem to have been really thorough, so would you consider withdrawing? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you wisen up before resorting to personal attacks before you get more than you bargained for. I covered a selection of sources, including Newsweek. The additional sources you have found are neither reliable nor unreliable and cannot be used to assess notability. The question is not if there are sources for this topic but if they can determine notability. If The New York Times and The Washington Post were to have full articles on Skibidi Toilet, this article would be justifiably acceptable for mainspace. Sources that have not been put up to scrutiny may be reliable. The use of unheard of sources is a signal that editors are scraping the bottom of an empty barrel. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attacks"? "Wisen up"? "Before you get more than what you bargained for"?!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you sure this is the appropriate reply to my comment?... yes you did mention Newsweek in general above in your selection of sources. But if you haven't heard of the other newspapers or websites mentioned above, well, look them up, maybe. No furrher comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did take the due diligence but I cannot assess whether they're suitable here. The other sources you mention are not present at WP:RSP. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of the Newsweek article came from the Daily Mail, which we all know is not really of the greatest reliability. Newsweek sources after 2013 aren't reliable either. I suggest you actually check the reliability of the sources you use before you use them. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : Boston Globe is an editorial cartoon, the USA Today article is a question and answer segment about the meme, nothing extensive. There is no decent sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The La Gaceta is about the best sourcing there is, rest are not useable, trivial coverage of this thing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
......Have you opened the Dazed and Comercio articles by any chance? Not extensive, how? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one is a question and answer segment. Second is a half-pager with more space for photos than text. I'd give the question and answer maybe a quarter RS validity, the other one is small, so like half a source. (Meaning if I took the time to make a source table, you'd get trivial coverage for both of them, which help notability, but alone aren't enough). Together we might be able to combine them as counting for one decent source, with the yahoo news feature, it's almost at notability. I'd still like to see one more strong source before changing the !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Weak keep Business Insider published an article [13], which is fine. That's enough sources. Side note: What the heck is this thing and why? I feel like "old man yelling at cloud" from the Simpsons... Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought adding anything was necessary, especially as the last Afd had already established notability and not so long ago (!), but here we go:

And there is an article in ABC quoted in the page, not to mention other sources that are acceptable.

Do we really need more?

Sure....:

...............-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thiswastv source doesn't seem reliable at all, it just looks like a tabloid, and the author is known for making opinion pieces.

The writer from the passionfru.it source came from KnowYourMeme, which is an unreliable source.

The L'adn, Watson and Indy100 sources also seem unreliable, with Indy100 inventing a new term that has never been used by anyone else.

The Stealthoptional article is in the "Reviews" category.

Filmdaily.co and Tiny Beans should immediately be excluded since they're literally just opinion.

So basically the only source you gave that seems reliable is the HITC source. And even then you said that the last AfD established notability, which is not true because the last AfD was of a very, very low quality, which is why this even got renominated in the first place. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that these sources are reliable, but sources can't unreliable because authors are guilty by association. Indy100 is owned by The Independent and journalists write the news pieces. Skibidi Toilet Syndrome is a genuine internet meme. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link you sent to Skibidi Toilet Syndrome is under review by KnowYourMeme.

Also, those sources don't demonstrate notability by themselves, we need a better source from a more reputable and reliable source or ideally more of them so we know Skibidi Toilet is actually notable.

e 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was completing a source assessment when I realized many of the sources might meet the GNG requirements. Also, Dexerto is still TBD per this RfC. Some of the additional sources provided by Mushy Yank do not meet reliability standards, but there's likely enough where this meme can have its own page. Conyo14 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as per Conyo14. I think there's just enough reliable coverage for this to stay. Moonreach (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weaker Keep, the coverage is here. Unsure on article quality but we can always WP:TNT. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just think I want to delete this article. This article is a semi-popular meme, and it is not notable at all. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above and previous AfD discussion Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD discussion didn't even show how Skibidi Toilet was unreliable. This one does. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough coverage for the article to stay. Needs improvement though. Brachy08 _(Talk) 22:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What should also be focused on is if the coverage is reliable, which for now doesn’t seem like it. 2001:1C02:1C1E:100:FCEB:3F2E:D9D4:F132 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then might as well keep it. Ever heard of Proposed Deletion? Brachy08 _(Talk) 09:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not notable at all. Maybe should we delete it? 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now, keep and tag it with requiring additional sources. I would also take drafitication as an alternative. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, it has sigcov from several sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per nom. Sourcing is not adequate and the previous AfD didn't even cover anything and demonstrate its unreliability. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was also never accepted through AfC even though it used to be a draft, it was actually denied twice, first by KylieTastic then again by Hey man im josh, yet it was moved to mainspace by Ca without a review. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context: The previous two declines was because the draft had 0 independent sourcing. AfC is only meant to determine whether an article is more than 1/2 likely to survive an AfD. As a reviewer, I expanded the draft with the sources Vortex added, and decided that it is likelt to survive AfD. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an argument to delete this article. The article looks terrible and there is so many poor sources. 2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is quite a mess currently, that does not mean there aren't well established sources out there that do establish its notability. Additionally, if we're going to hold the sources without consensus on such a high pedestal for this article, we need to look back at the numerous - and I mean numerous, amounts of not even just past internet meme-related articles, but also internet culture-related articles in general, that are almost entirely reliant on those types of sources. This is a good representation of Generation Alpha's entrance into internet culture and I don't see it not worth being kept as an article. B3251 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is Generation Alpha's first foray into Internet culture is irrelevant. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, !votes in AfD should be primarily based on policies, notability, and source assessments. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that was just a personal opinion and I’m not expecting agreement. That doesn’t disregard the fact that so many internet culture-related articles with even less notability are heavily reliant on sources with no consensus. As I stated previously: if we're going to hold this article on such a high pedestal in source reliability, we must go forward with removing other articles/major content from articles such as ai_sponge, Griddy (dance), most entries on List of Generation Z slang, and a major amount of content from numerous modern-day content creators. B3251 (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a double standard. The expectation of a well-sourced article has been everpresent since the notability guideline was established. I discovered this article through repeated external discussions. The work required to find the major amount of content you refer to, for instance, would be insurmountable for someone outside of the zeitgeist. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are "well established sources", an AfD is where you prove it. Can't disprove a false negative... or whatever the phrase is. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the series is getting more popular. In a nutcheel (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not notable at all. What does this means? This is such a big catastrophic mess that I have included in my life. There are many poor sources in this article. 2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of an article is not determined by the mere existence of unreliable sources or its quality; it's determined by the lack of independent reliable sources covering it in detail. See WP:RUBBISH and the general notability guideline. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want that delete that. Despite this article is really unsourced, delete it anyway. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no offense. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Cartoon Brew is a publication with a good reputation in the animation industry (see Jpcase's arguments in this discussion); El Comercio is considered a newspaper of record of Peru; Excélsior is the second oldest newspaper of Mexico City and has been recommended by the BBC as an "established daily" newspaper; and El Español was created by a former director of a Spanish newspaper of record, El Mundo. All of them have covered it in detail, though Excelsior's coverage is a bit less satisfying. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Together with Kotaku, coverage seems enough to meet GNG, though barely. Note that, although Dexerto does not contribute to the notability requirement, it can be cited in a case-by-case basis except for BLP statements per this recent discussion, so it might be fine to cite this interview but not this article. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment agrees with mine. The one thing I worried about was independence since they all embed the video or Twitter in them. Conyo14 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Important one thing I thinking about is deletion. This article would be deleted on October 4, 2023. Or better to be kept or deleted? What's your choice? 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or at least draftify. I feel like there's enough sources here to solidify its notability, unreliable sources aside. Though, the article definitely could do with a rewrite of sorts. Jurta talk 15:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify. This video series' quick boom in popularity worldwide is an amazing feat that at least brought attention from reliable news sources as put out on above, though not much for now. But I'm good with this article being draftified as RS's should be considered because not everything that quickly became popular on worldwide Internet would gain attention from such sources, Technoblade being a great example on this. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. As a semi-popular meme, Wikipedia is not enough to load semi-popular meme pages, especially for Skibidi Toilet. Should we have another semi-popular memes like Battle for Dream Island, In the Beninging or Your Majesty, There's a Second Bus Coming? I feel so that Skibidi Toilet is not a fabulous trend today. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you explain this? Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can absolutely explain this. A YouTube video about a Half-Life 2 animation by a semi-popular Roblox YouTuber making overly dramatized videos about specific topics (Yes, I know that Parlo makes his content like that, he isn't really considered a notable YouTuber in the Roblox community) doesn't establish notability at all. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And YouTube itself doesn't establish notability either, especially Parlo or other drama YouTube channels. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not using it as a source, given the overdramaticisation Parlo does to his videos. If someone wants to bring him up as a source, I’d vote deprecate. But it is proof it is not merely semi-popular, given the fanbase. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not using YT to establish notability. However, as shown in the article, Skibidi Toilet has more non-wiki sources than say, for example, Battle for Dream Island. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your IP signature and the Geolocate link in your "User contributions" page, it seems that your account was created next to, if not in the same location as the other unregistered account I've replied above. So if you want to ammend your previous comment, then edit it (by putting the text you remove between <del> and </del>) or reply to it with clarification; please don't post new bulleted lines with bolded recommendations per WP:DISCUSSAFD: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line." ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 08:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I live in Tapaktuan, South Aceh Regency, Aceh, Indonesia. But my geolocate location is located in Jakarta, Indonesia, not Tapaktuan. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more sources:

--SteveA026 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can see why some people would think that the article is pretty weakly sourced. But Not Just Bikes, a YouTuber with way less subscribers passed WP:GNG

Jothefiredragon (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are enough to pass GNG, such as Kotaku and Cartoon Brew. Skyshifter ^talk 14:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all reasons above. This is by now proven to be not a "normal" meme, but a more influential cultural phenomenon.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes WP:GNG, and the article is nicely sourced. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:3DB0:383D:F205:3B64 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Geolocate, this IP address is located in the same exact location as 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A and 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B, who both have already given their bolded recommendations. Either this is a case of individual computers being located around the same exact proximity of a server~~, or this is a case of WP:LOUTSOCK~~. Nope. My bad, this is probably a dynamic IP. Anyhow, as ObserveOwl has already said, please amend your previous statement instead of making new ones, thanks! Jurta talk 08:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough posting, though I have too tired to reply this page. I don't want to be blocked. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:3DB0:383D:F205:3B64 (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Skibidi toilet has already met WP:GNG and has enough SIGCOV for it to not be deleted. The article does meet GNG and the previous AfD was closed as a speedy keep. Checking Google through the above links also indicates through many news sources that Skibidi Toilet is being popular. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or draftify and redirect to List of Internet phenomena per nom. None of the sources are reliable, meet WP:RS and this article has room for improvement. This AfD compared to the previous AfD is actually accurate (which changed my mind). The article does not meet WP:GNG but is messy and not ready for being an article, and also fails WP:SIGCOV. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot satisfy GNG without first satisfying SIGCOV. They go hand to hand. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena per nom. This is such a terribly sourced articles with poor statements with a messy improvements. The article is also have blatant sources without passing WP:GNG. Imagine Wikipedia have one article with terrible sources. Although this meme is very popular at all, but delete it anyway. 2001:448A:11A3:16EA:65D5:D7BB:91A9:5D03 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is definitely the same person with a dynamic IP. Closer, please disregard this any of the IP's !votes. Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. This subject in my eyes is about 50/50 on meeting GNG, but if it did meet GNG, this is where WP:SUSTAINED comes into play. I strongly believe all notability on this meme is routine coverage on the newest Internet craze and I have my doubts anything will come of it in the future. Internet memes come and go, and Skibidi Toilet is already starting to fade out. The sources here are likely what it could stay with for as long as the article exists. With that in mind, I believe that this article will not a) serve a purpose and/or b) meet SUSTAINED. NegativeMP1 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as a "sufficiently significant amount of time"? Kotaku and Vandal (El Español) made articles about it in July, and three of the Spanish-language sources I've mentioned above were released in September, so the series technically attracted attention over two months. The guideline says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability" (emphasis added), so that's another ambiguity. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "it does not need to have ongoing coverage". The news don't appear to cover Skibidi Toilet in the context of any event, other than for being popular for some months. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 08:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from fading out. Skibidi Toilet videos are still getting 30-40M views on average and the view count remains stable. I think it will be sustained for a long time(it has already been sustained for 8 months). BitByte10 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. The trend will die down in a few months, as is with most memes. Only the ones that are notable enough should have a Wikipedia article. Chicken4War (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 11:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. doesn't seem like it will have much lasting effect, but it just barely has enough sources to have SIGCOV. i'm on the fence with this one. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 12:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ungh, I hope it's not studied by future internet historians. Then again, Beavis and Butthead was looked at though the same lens... Just why people? Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trends exist my man. Whether we abide by them or choose to ignore, you cannot disagree that at some point in history it was popular. Conyo14 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2600:4040:40D8:1B00:F90D:93EA:D43A:8A2F (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC) — 2600:4040:40D8:1B00:F90D:93EA:D43A:8A2F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE Conyo14 (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep I love skibi toilet 209.160.194.170 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)~~ WP:ILIKEIT and blocked for 1 week for vandalism.[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE Conyo14 (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:JUSTAVOTE. Placing ((Not a ballot)) template. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article and discussed in this direction are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. This has already gotten sustained coverage for more than half a year, so it's more than just a truly transient meme. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a truly borderline article, but I think there is just enough to tip the scales in favor of a keep vote. As demonstrated by ObserveOwl, several of the sources covering Skibidi Toilet are reasonably reliable. Also, while I would never use the Daily Dot as a source for political content, I think it is an acceptable source for non-controversial internet phenomenon per WP: DAILYDOT/my own experience with the source. Regarding sustained coverage, I think a few months of coverage is fine for a series of YouTube shorts. I don’t find this length of coverage to be especially persuasive, but its long enough not to drop a “delete per WP:NOTNEWS.” Honestly, I think keeping this and merging the article into the List of Internet Phenomena article are both perfectly reasonable outcomes, although I’m slightly more inclined to keep for the previously listed reasons. Spirit of Eagle (talk)
Weak Keep I'll admit. I have never watched one of these videos, and I probably never will. But that's neither here nor there. The sourcing is borderline and leans towards being adequate. It's true that many of the sources the article had in it at the time it was nominated had no consensus on their reliability. I wouldn't say that's a strong enough case for deletion on its own, but it does at least put into question whether or not the article really does pass GNG. However, during the course of this discussion, multiple editors have found additional sources that give more credibility to the idea that this topic passes GNG after all. Some of the counterarguments to these additional sources were less than convincing. With respect to Jalapeño, we do not guilt-by-association sources by tracking down the previous writing gigs of the author and checking to see if they had ever worked for an unreliable outlet, deeming all future works unreliable if they have. That's not how that works. Vanilla Wizard 💙 11:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Vanilla Wizard. Also, we can always WP:BLOWITUP if anyone feels like Skibidi Toilet doesn't pass GNG.The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I genuinely think we need stricter guidelines for pages for memes. Events can carry notability, but that's often demonstrable in a long standing cultural status that affects things in the long term. As it stands, this is hardly distinguishable from a KnowYourMeme article. Paragon Deku (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t like Skibidi Toilet I think it’s grown to be pretty annoying but it’s impossible to deny that it is in fact huge and has somehow managed to reach the mainstream and is clearly receiving significant media coverage so I believe the page should be allowed to stay as it has managed to become a very popular web series. InternetEnigma (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reis Peggie[edit]

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

Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage about him. Dougal18 (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Since there isn't a consensus on a viable ATD, there is nowhere to redirect it. Should consensus emerge on one, happy to restore the history for merger. Star Mississippi 12:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReAnimator Coffee[edit]

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

I just declined a G11 nomination here on the basis that the page isn't overtly promotional, but I'm not convinced this subject is actually notable so filing this nomination instead. News coverage seems to entirely be from local media. Sam Walton (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find anything other than purely local mentions of what seems to be an entirely unremarkable and rather small chain.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Philadelphia Inquirer is a large regional daily paper; but in this case it's acting as a local paper and this is a good example of gaming the system. Los Angeles Times doing routine, local coverage of restaurants of local spots, Philadelphia Inquirer doing the same are for all intents and purposes local coverage. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that while we should consider alternative to deletion if there is a feasible alternative but third wave of coffee is not a good target. I think the gears have to mesh together reasonably well. For example, I would say organic mustard into mustard (condiment) is a reasonable merge. An org/corp/product page local non-notable mustard boutique shop is not a reasonable merge & redirect to the mustard page. Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into third wave of coffee, as an WP:ATD. Short article and perhaps not yet individually notable. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the article, adding a number of sources. These sources include Jacobin, The Infatuation, and Sprudge, all of which have a national remit. -- Mainly 18:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacobin reference is a passing mention in different context, single word in fact. The rest of the references that have been added are clickbait and PR and don't constitute WP:SECONDARY sourcing. They fail WP:SIRS, all of them. scope_creep^Talk 21:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources, including the recently added sources, meet the criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 14:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Awards Africa[edit]

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

Another commercially motivated African awards ceremony, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:RS, no backing from a reputable organisation (unless you count a "social enterprise communications firm" as reputable), with organisers selling its media reach. Even the impressive Forbes quote is, of course, from Forbes/sites. Needs to go - and so does the 2022 The Future Awards Africa article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems well-sourced, it's been around almost 20 yrs, even if it is "promotional" as the nomination seems to suggest, it's still a thing with two decades of history. Could be rewritten to remove some of the concerns about PR and Forbes contributors as RS, seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As someone who has worked for few years at a university in Nigeria, I fully disagree with the proposal to delete. It might need a bit of work, but almost all articles do. I agree also with the comments above. Bduke (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it needs cleanup but sourcing exists which which to write a policy-compliant article. Star Mississippi 12:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Amakuru. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaayu Fest[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Artificial Intelligence Competition for Youth[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Sources are a mix of primary and passing mentions, and search finds nothing better. Was already rejected at AfC, moved into main space regardless, re-draftified, published again, so next stop AfD. Fails WP:GNG and every other flavour of notability I can think of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, Computing, and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DoubleGrazing. No claim of significance, no sources satisfying WP:GNG provided. Tollens (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a lot of sources; which do you not approve of? What would you require? Figbiscuits (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them. I'd require the same thing as WP:GNG, independent sources offering significant coverage of the subject. Tollens (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Figbiscuits: if you do not understand how notability is demonstrated, you really shouldn't be moving declined/rejected drafts past AfC into the main article space. You are only creating extra work for others, including here at the (already congested) AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have trimmed some references that don't mention WAICY at all. The remaining references are mere mentions and/or primary sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would suggest punting back to draft, but as the author is pblocked from draft space for bad pagemoves from draft to mainspace (see WP:AN/I#User:Figbiscuits) this would just cause it to languish. None of the sources proffered are any good; my findings are pretty much the same as Charmer's. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Was already speedy deleted by User:Amakuru‎. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zfort Group[edit]

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

Non-notable ROTM business. Sources don't come even close to establishing notability, and search finds nothing better. Speedy request was reverted without explanation, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT by a country mile. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, Software, and Ukraine. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable; a quick search finds plenty, e.g. BBC [19] saying, "Zfort is one of thousands of Ukrainian IT companies that have flourished since 2014, creating apps and websites for clients in the US and Western Europe." Beware of nationality bias. Figbiscuits (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please revise WP:SIGCOV. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does not appear that the BBC article or any independent source in the article contains significant coverage of the company. Tollens (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Guardian (Nigeria). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Life Magazine[edit]

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

Most of the sources in this article are to articles about the people listed in the article. It's a sort of nested iterative articlefest. Outside The Guardian itself - or pieces in society magazines saying how subjects look 'hot' or other commentary regarding cover stars (likely paid/promoted content) there is no independent notability for The Guardian Life, no WP:RS, no WP:SIGCOV and no evidence it is a notable publication or business per WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Article doesn't show any signs of passing GNG. Heavy name dropping, press releases, same entertainment tabloid over and over. Remove the name-dropping paragraph and there goes 93% of the citations, leaving two remaining. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes better sense. Changing to: Merge with The Guardian (Nigeria). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge with The Guardian (Nigeria). I was waiting to see how this would evolve. Lots of superficial coverage about people in the magazine, rather than substancial coverage of the magazine itself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote to merge, per Oaktree b. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Guardian (Nigeria): Not notable by itself, could be merged into the article about the newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Guardian (Nigeria): Topic is not independently notable. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Guardian (Nigeria): Section of the newspaper which can not be a stand-alone article because it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Guardian (Nigeria) is the best solution. Bduke (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sharifi Zarchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF, I was not able to find enough to justify notability Tehonk (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- generally assistant professors are below the WP:PROF bar except when extraordinary awards/discoveries/books are involved. Student competitions generally do not confer notability. The event of firing seems to be of the 1-event type. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Eisenhuth GmbH & Co KG[edit]

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

German company. Fails WP:NCORP, no notability. Sourcing is not WP:RS, independent or WP:SIGVCOV. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable old German company with a substantial history (established in 1945). Notably, the firm has engaged in meaningful acquisitions, such as Fuel Cell Plate activities of SGL Carbon in 2007, and the firm is notable by technical capacities, such as producing graphitic bipolar plates. Additional reliable sources might be added for those who have access to local offline depositories of newspapers, books and journal in Germany as such companies usually have tons of printed sources. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject. with WP:before it has enough reliable sources to count as notable. Academia papers are also present. --Assirian cat (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several reliable sources with good enough coverage. Given the firm's quite a long history and considering the German context, the notability is not questionable (IMO). I also noticed that Eisenhuth is a part of large R&D projects across several German states and universities. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TT255. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nebtawy[edit]

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

Proposing redirect to TT255. Seems to be only notable for the relatively well-preserved tomb she was buried in. Online sources appear to just interpret the tomb paintings. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention in nomination comment. Was redirected to TT255, but was reverted without explanation by page creator. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's literally no information beyond the tomb itself, then redirect seems a good option. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TT255. Only notable for the tomb she was buried in. FatCat96 (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to TT255. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roy (Egyptian noble)[edit]

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

Proposing redirect to TT255. Seems to be only notable for the relatively well-preserved tomb he was buried in. Online sources appear to just interpret the tomb paintings. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention in nomination comment. Was redirected to TT255, but was reverted without explanation by page creator. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per suggestion above into the article about TT255. The entire article is an introduction, speculation about what Roy could have been doing based on one a travel agency's wesbite, and images that don't focus on Roy, but on TT255. Searches also only bring up of Roy in the context of this tomb.Cortador (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN 2023rve[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. It happened, with the usual announcements, but beyond that there is nothing especially noteworthy about this one of several thousand supernovae discovered so far this year. It was moderately bright, but not exceptionally so. I suggest returning to the original redirect, to the host galaxy, where it is already mentioned as one of four supernovae observed in that galaxy. Lithopsian (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the brightest one in the sky now. Also, it is seventh brightest one in 2023 (see this link: https://www.rochesterastronomy.org/sn2023/snmag.html).

If it should be deleted, then the following pages must be deleted as well, as this one is at least brighter than all those three.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1992bd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1999eu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2003B Odehjas (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest frog in the pod isn't a valid argument, and so the brightest supernova in the sky now isn't a criterion of notability, and neither is the existence of similar articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The only criterion by which the notability can be judged is the existence of significant commentary by published sources. There is very little coverage about this SN in english, as I found only an image caption, but there is some interest in arab language news sites (eg. [20][21][22]), so IMHO it is notable. C messier (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick Google search and I could find many pages are talking about it as well (eg. [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] , [34], [35]). Also, "Bright Supernova" webiste created a dedictaed page for this supernova at ([36]). 92.99.18.108 (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page [37] 92.99.18.108 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review recently located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is a very recent event, so it's possible we may see more detailed studies on this object at a later date. Praemonitus (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't say this often but we need some more "Votes" on what should happen with this article. If you think it should be Redirected, please provide the target article. Be specific and direct.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google Searcy gives us a hint that this supernova is not similar to the ordinary ones which are being discovered on a daily basis. A lot of observations, images and photometric observations are being done for this one, and some discussions and articles were written about it (such as the ones mentioned in the reply on 14:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) ). I do see it is a notable one. 185.66.18.93 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This supernova is featured now in NASA's APOD website at: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap231011.html . In the description, NASA is referring to this page as well. I vote in favor of keeping this page. 185.66.18.93 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say how awesome it is that we've found so many supernovae that they're no longer notable by default. DS (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources found since nomination. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. K. Shroff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/D. K. Shroff

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

Proposing deletion of this page due to a lack of notability. There is basically no information about this person listed and they do not seem to be notable. GraziePrego (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation here would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a one line statement. I can't find mentions of this individual in Gnews. Should be deleted for lack of sourcing, lacking any claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft[edit]

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

Not notable. Citations are all primary, self-published, or unreliable. Basic origin is crossing of two separate breeds by two separate breeders. That is all. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. New page with some useful prose and a quick before yields some possibly independent sources. —siro χ o 04:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some examples, then, because my BEFORE search turns up nothing but vanity horse websites copying breed information for content, but no actual independent or comprehensive coverage of this as a breed. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief description here [38] but that's it. It only gets less than a dozen hits in Gnews, zero in Gscholar, Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"Not notable. Citations are all primary, self-published, or unreliable. Basic origin is crossing of two separate breeds by two separate breeders. That is all."

Page writer here: Please read all of the sources and citations on the page in full before marking a page for deletion. The breed association and other breeders clearly state that the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft is not just "the crossing of two separate breeds by two separate breeders (i.e. Percheron and Appaloosa". In breeding, crossing one breed to another is considered an F1 cross, but this breed is several generations beyond F1 crosses. Also, the Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Association is not a "self-published or unreliable source". I am not affiliated with this organization in any way, and contributed the article based on its notability in reference to other horse breeds. Obversa (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently sourced to the breeder's association, so a primary source and a weblog. Neither of which is RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this: It looks like the page was vandalized by another user after I initially wrote the page. In the original page, I included this line: "Some consider it to be a type of draft cross, or a subtype of the Percheron breed, while others consider it to be its own breed." I also included this as a source: [39]https://boisvertfarms.com/americn-sugarbush-harlequin-drafts.html

However, another user came in after I made that edit and removed that line, as well as the citation. Obversa (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source that is not a breeder of this new breed or association connected to this new breed is the Horse Canada source, which is not enough to satisfy GNG. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 hits on Proquest [40] but they don't help much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources does not turn up much, mostly self published citations and fails WP:GNG. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It looks like the original page was mostly copied from the official breed registry page and they are really mad about. The best course of action is to delete this page, because there was so much misinformation added, and let the registry decide if they want a page here. The ASHDA members were sent a notice about the page and most were outraged how terribly written the article was. According to the ASHDA facebook page and their website most of their stuff, including the breed name, is copyrighted, so using it here without their permission would violate wikipedia's rules regarding copyrighted material. HistoricHoofbeats (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— HistoricHoofbeats (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you please advise how you came to create an account solely to participate in this discussion? Star Mississippi 15:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because several hundred ASHDA members were notified that someone had posted false info about our breed that can hurt our businesses. This is what happens when someone makes a page and doesn't do actual research. Aligning ASHDA with Sendera was completely wrong. The owners of Sendera had horses removed from their possession for starving the animals and were never members of ASHDA nor did they own any Sugarbush Harlequin Drafts. I'm not going to be the only one who arrives at the page because of this irresponsible creation. I'm sure if the page remains up it will be constantly edited to keep the facts straight, because the self editors that traipse through the Appaloosa, Cream Draft, Vanner and other horse breed pages all add fake information. If any of the official ASHDA logos or photos are used it will probably trigger copyright violations being reported to wikipedia, which means most of the visuals and information will be limited. I looked at the profile that created the page and they have multiple Wikipedia copyright violations for using stuff they weren't supposed to. Why was this person still allowed to create articles if all they do is steal other people's work? At some point journalistic integrity should be upheld. HistoricHoofbeats (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The registry will not be allowed to decide if they want a page here, see WP:OWN and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing (not an exact match, but much of it applies). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note HistoricHoofbeats is a confirmed sock of Apphistorian, who was blocked for making legal threats to sue people over the existence of this article - they have no business contributing to this discussion, and their arguments should be given zero weight. That said, it looks like some editors in good standing consider that there are valid reasons why the article should be deleted; their arguments should be given no less weight than they otherwise would be, merely because they are in favour of the same outcome as the block-evading sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Births in 2001[edit]

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

Not notable list per WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTCRUFT of people from "births" section in the main article that was split from the RfC discussion, also that fails WP:NLIST and WP:BLPLISTS. MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTPEOPLE which has two requirements both of which are met in this list which has only bluelinked entries and a reference for each. Meets WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list. Reading the linked RfC, the close does not recommend deletion of such a list, it merely mentioned a lack of agreement what to do overall, but a consensus to link to the list from the main year article. If we're going to start deleting these based on preference, there should probably be a discussion to follow up on the RfC which didn't result in consensus to do so. —siro χ o 06:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following split by the RfC, it changed to category link in hatnote, but there are too many lists of births from there, so they decided to split up into separate articles by hatnotes in each topic (Category:2000 births and Deaths in 2023). Hence, but some sources are WP:BLPPRIMARY. MirrorPlanet (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to the appropriate section in 2001. Far too unwieldy for a stand alone list, categories do their job quite well in these cases. Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I implemented this recently-created style guide for WP:BIRTHSECTION. MirrorPlanet (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTPEOPLE. Merging back into 2001 isn't really an option, as sitewide consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_199#RFC:_split_births_&_deaths_from_year_articles has found that this content does not belong there. As one of those who supported that position, I believe it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:SIZESPLIT. Also, any discussion to delete this would also be wise to include the various Lists of deaths by year that follow the same structure and are much more unwieldy than this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Other years that lists of births for Births in 2002, Births in 2003, Births in 2004, etc. are appropriate section redirects, which is placed under Category:2XXX births hatnote. But it is too many of them to cite, because of WP:V. I assume that it fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTATS. MirrorPlanet (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as implementation of consensus found like six months ago, and as complement to Deaths in 2001. We can't put it back, as determined by RFC, and we shouldn't delete it because all the entries have sources and are organised chronologically, which meets WP:LISTPEOPLE. Category:2001 births has no sources, and is unsuitable for navigation because it lacks descriptions or dates, so this article meets WP:PURPLIST. Someone please run a date delinker on this though. Folly Mox (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Category:Births by year. It is part of the overall category lists, and there is no justification to delete this one year, when the other individual Births by year lists date back 1000 BC are part of WP:YEARS. — Maile (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Barabanki[edit]

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

No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The only source provided is a directory listing. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please offer your opinion on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of those schools with reams of short bits of coveraage in newspapers that together will add up to GNG. e.g (all links to ProQuest) [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52], etc. That's all from page one of several pages for ProQuest search results for the search

"Saraswati Vidya Mandir" NOT Shubh

—siro χ o 04:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NORG which requires the WP:golden rule be satisfied. It isn't. UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Gin-bok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - played in one friendly match with no other info known. No realistic chance of meeting WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Hakim Jewelers[edit]

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

Lebanese jeweler, signally fails WP:NCORP. Only coverage is routine store opening and 140th anniversary celebration news release. Only possible grounds for notability is longevity, but that longevity has been spent doing nothing whatsoever remarkable, impactful or in any other way notable. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lebanon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/955756/george-hakim-140-annees-precieuses.html

https://www.arabnews.com/news/560416 Superanon78 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - There are at least two sources containing independent content showing in-depth information on the company, posted in the links above. These count towards establishing notability, as they represent sources that are completely unaffiliated to the subject. Superanon78 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are puff pieces. The first article (marking 140 years in business) is regurgitated spin with phrases like "fruit d'un atelier d'artisans minutieux au service d'une clientèle internationale" or "Aventurier, ambitieux et décidé, il n'y aura pour lui aucune frontière à sa volonté de découvrir des diamants, rubis, saphirs, émeraudes et autres." Check out other publications which contain practically the same "messaging" such as this promotional piece in "A" magazine or this Lebanese guide. The second source is regurgitated PR with phrases like ""Later in the evening, the ribbon was cut, and George Hakim was officially instated as a new, sparkling jewel in Geneva’s crown" and "The name George Hakim has become synonymous with high-end design and exquisite craftsmanship, with its qualitative, unique gems sourced from all over the world, and elegantly finished in the hands of expert craftsmen and artisans". Both sources fail to demonstrate an iota of "Independent Content" that isn't fawning regurgitated PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. With an unbolded Keep, this can't be closed as Soft Deletion. So more opinions would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've tried a general search and one limited to .lb sites, most are press releases or confirmation that they're present at Dubai Fashion Week. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kelly (photographer)[edit]

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

Non notable photographer - fails WP:N - if non encyclopedic sentences and sources were removed pretty much a nothing article LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Photography. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While, as noted, the article was mostly egregious puffery by apparent COI/SPA accounts (of a type that was appalling to the point of being embarrassing for those involved), there does appear to be coverage of the subject in several news outlets. Some of which (found in my own WP:BEFORE) I've added to the article. As some of this "coverage" is interviews and Q&As and semi-connected outlets (like regional papers of the Independent News & Media stable - with which the subject apparently previously worked), I'm not inclined to strongly argue for a keep. But there is enough to sway me from a "delete" recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage found by Guliolopez particularly some of the articles in the Irish Independent is enough to support an article in my opinion. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sean nós. as at ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean nós and sean-nós activities[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article at all. It's a mixture of repetition of the Sean nós disambiguation page, rambling and often repetitive opinion, and Irish-language lessons. This serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and is not even on an identifiable topic, but is an attempt to distinguish different meanings of a term (which is already what the disambiguation page exists for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Dance, Music, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, failing that, redirect to Sean nós DAB page). Per nom, this title/content seems to serve the exact same purpose as the Sean nós DAB page (defining and translating the term and linking to the articles/topics associated with that term). Which is already what the DAB is (and should be) doing. Don't need two such titles. Guliolopez (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Standards[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a defunct radio network. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult rock and roll, redirect this subject to Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I am nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Let'srun (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect most of these to Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats per nom (though I assume U.S. Country was not intended to be listed twice), but delete Smooth Jazz (radio network), which notes that there apparently is/was also an unrelated "Smooth Jazz Network" from Broadcast Architecture, which would make it an incomplete disambiguation (this would not be an issue if Jones offered their service as "Jones Smooth Jazz" or something like that) — and I suspect that network is just as (non-)notable as Jones' service was. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with other pages and relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I would really like to see more than two opinions on any bundled nomination where the fate of multiple articles is being considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all of the articles to Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats, none of them pass WP:GNG and they're listed in that section. Suonii180 (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats. None of these are even close to meeting GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that there are adequate sources and this article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Island: Te no Hira no Resort[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. I've tried to scour WP:VG/S for sourcing, but the only in-depth coverage I found were GameSpot and IGN both covering the announce/reveal at a trade show (added to talk page). There was no coverage afterwards, and all other hits were database entries. Note that the game is in English sourcing as "Portable Resort" rather than what the article shows. Searching the japanese title turned up a database entry on Famitsu, but no actual news/articles. It seems neither English nor Japanese reliable sources that we currently have identified took real note of the game. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was only able to find this in Archive.org, which is obviously not enough for notability. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already found 2 SIGCOV in English here and here. According to this, Dengeki Playstation gave it a "B" score in Japanese press. I'm not sure if that comes with a review or not, but the IGN and Gamespot hands-on previews seal the deal for me that this game is notable. It's likely that it just needs a more indepth search of dead-tree sources to find even more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmms. This is all still announcement coverage that appears tied to the trade show hands on to me. I'd really like to see at least one solid post-release commentary. -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think with what we have above it's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep GameSpot, IGN, and GoPlay previews are enough that this gets over the GNG line. --Mika1h (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With new advocates for Keeping this article, I see No Consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What we have from above should be enough. But here's some more coverage from 2010 in Kotaku [53]. (Note, Same author also wrote in 2006 in Bloomberg [54]) —siro χ o 07:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Discount Tire[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, routine financial coverage and trivia. WP:BEFORE search does not yield any extensive coverage ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The company used to be owned by ONCAP, part of Onex Corporation.https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/03/29/1455508/0/en/ONCAP-Completes-Sale-of-Mavis-Discount-Tire.html Here is typical coverage of a significant lawsuit against the company. Here is a discrimination case. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Canada, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising, and seemingly no other reason for it. The infobox has the company logo, a detailed listing of the services it provides, and a link to its website. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Please read my first comment below Dave's. Also, as far as logos and websites, many if not most company articles have a logo and, as for websites, at least for companies that existed post-internet, their website too. Jeanette she is crazeee, crazeee, crazeee Martin (que pasa papi?) 10:14, 4 October, 2023 (UTC)
Delete as clearly a PROMO article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a procedural keep since I originated the article and don't like to see the articles I originated to be deleted. And a comment, to those of you who say it's a promotional article: 1. you can see my history here, dating back to 2002. I do not do promos. Secondly, the infobox has a logo....many if not most brand and company articles do. That is not very unusual at "the W Pedia". Another comment I have is, I was a bit surprised to see the article nominated for deletion under the Mavis name, as from my understanding, it was made a redirect to another company which had bought Mavis? : Jeanette Buffy the Vampire Slayer Martin (queeeee?) 10:07, 2 October, 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I see that this article had previously been redirected back in 2019, but for some reason that was removed by @Stantron last month, and then further developed by @FloridaArmy after the AFD was launched. Not sure how the recent developments are good or bad (I didn't read through them yet), but I'm not a fan of outright deletion wherever a WP:ATD is available, so I suggest restore the redirect should the consensus be that this company isn't notable. S5A-0043^Talk 12:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I was trying to re-establish the redirect but I guess I can't since I'm not an administrator anymore. I wonder if anyone else can do it so we can close this voting as a redirect instead? Jeanette mental hospital patient Martin (que pasa papi?) 10:07, 4 October, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TO discuss FloridaArmy's improvements or determine whether the redirect is preferable. Also, is there sourcing or not? Advertising is an issue that can be addressed editorially if there is sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers for the moment. Maybe a merge is in order, but there's so much coverage of this company, I have a feeling we're just not quite finding enough SIRS sources yet.

Here's something that is probably SIRS in WSJ([55] or [56]) (meets ORGIND, borderline on CORPDEPTH).
Here's a SWOT analysis of a private equity firm that held a stake.[57] Since it's only one holding among many, there doesn't quote seem to be enough detail for CORPDEPTH.
Note that this company seems to be something of a case study in HR texts regarding gender discrimination eg [58][59][60] It's in enough sources that it would be DUE to include. WP:ILLCON doesn't allow these sources for CORP tho.
OSHA also cracked down on them [61], ILLCON though.
Also note, sadly, newspapers.com access has been down for a while.

—siro χ o 08:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect and take care to merge in any newly-developed sourced information. BD2412 T 01:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Generally not a satisfying outcome after this much effort has been put toward a discussion, but there remains substantial disagreement over whether there is a sufficient quantity of reference material to sustain an article on this subject, and neither side conclusively refuted the other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pesticide Action Network[edit]

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

This fringe organization fails both the Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) as well as the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Having a lot of Google hits is not going to turn the tide either. In fact, there are hardly no independent and reliable sources that actually describe the activities and achievements of this organisation. 62.183.185.10 (talk, c) 15:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — 62.183.185.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I don't even recall creating this article, it seems like a real org and has been fleshed out a bit. Sure, it's fairly obscure, with not much recent action. This deletion request by a new/semi-naive ISP seems suspicious, too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a question of socks, I'm not aware of any banned users in the topic who would be apt to show up trying to delete this article, especially out of Finland. Most of those banned would be on the same side as this group's POV. It looks more like an IP that's been watching in the background and noticed the conversation I mentioned below about a possible nomination. KoA (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just mentioning that those of us who edit the page recently discussed the potential for deletion at Talk:Pesticide_Action_Network#Notability where the idea of a nomination wasn't unreasonable at all with what we were dealing with at the time. I can work on formally summarizing things later. KoA (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess by “Those of us who edit the page” you mean just you? I don’t think anyone else agreed. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, I linked straight to the split off subsection that resulted after @Smartse first brought up the idea in the main section[62][63] KoA (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep would second @Dicklyon’s concerns. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NORG is the prevailing guideline here, not merely that an org exists. As discussed on the article talk page, independent sourcing is extremely sparse on in-depth coverage that would satisfy org notability, especially compared to other advocacy groups in this realm. In most cases, it's just a namedrop or passing mention rather than in-depth coverage focused on the group itself. That or maybe just being part of an indiscriminate database entry. If you do a google search excluding PAN websites, you get this, which largely just gives social media and other non-independent sources. You have to work pretty hard to even find sources that just namedrop the org. You will sometimes see this group mentioned internally within other advocacy groups about their denial of the scientific consensus on GMOs[64] or joining in on court cases/regulatory petitions, but that's about it. PAN doesn't get focus other than being a name listed sometimes, even in WP:PARITY sources in that realm. KoA (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that there could also be a WP:NFRINGE angle with this group, especially when it comes to GMOs. That said, I couldn't find any sufficient sources to really make the case for notability there either. You might find profiles in sources we don't even use in cases of WP:PARITY like the Genetic Literacy Project [65], but the more I look at this group, it appears to have even less independent coverage that that GLP link that lost its article status due to similar notability concerns. KoA (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA: This is a better link for excluding their websites using the site: parameter. SmartSE (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spent quite a while in June searching for sources but couldn't find anything that provides in-depth, independent coverage. I've looked again today and still not been able to find any suitable sources. Things that I have found are e.g. this_{(access this and the others via WP:TWL)} which is in-depth but published by the organisation so not independent. Other than that it is just many small mentions in reliable sources, mainly (presumably) originating from their press releases e.g. [66] or mentions the organisation in passing e.g. [67]. It is somewhat surprising that no better sources exist, but unless someone is able to come up with at least two sources providing in-depth, independent coverage, WP:ORG is not met. Neither Dicklyon or Gtoffoletto have addressed this. Who created the AFD is irrelevant (unless evading blocks). SmartSE (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember PAN is a decentralised organisation. It does not exist as a central entity but as many local "chapters". Were you searching for sources referring to PANNA or PAN Europe etc.? I do not have time to do so now but will try later if I can. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name Pesticide Action Network would still show up in in-depth sources if the group was notable regardless of being de-centralized or not. That doesn't change the search terms, it just means you'd exclude each regional PAN website to focus on independent sources using the overarching name. KoA (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have used various search terms, but as KoA points out, if it is a decent source, it is almost certainly going to mention the term "pesticide action network" somewhere within it. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Pesticide Action Network has been among the most influential and most active NGOs in the area of chemical safety and international chemicals/pesticide management. During more than a decade, it has e.g. contributed significantly to negotiations under SAICM and the Rotterdam Convention as well as to the Code of Conduct.^{[68][69][70][71]} Its European subsection (PAN Europe) is an accredited stakeholder to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).^[72][73] PAN Europe even currently holds the seat on the EFSA Stakeholder Bureau representing "NGOs and Advocacy Groups".^[74] CropLife International, PAN’s long-term opponent from industry side, lists the Pesticide Action Network in the same breath as the World Bank, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the African Union and WWF.^[75] --Leyo 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leyo: I've looked through all of these links and still none provide any in-depth independent coverage. All they do is demonstrate that it exists. If it is as important as you claim then it should have attracted much more coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The available information is more than sufficient to conclude on PAN’s influential activities in many processes within the area of chemical safety and international chemicals/pesticide management. I haven’t checked if what you claim would be available for other NGOs or CropLife International. --Leyo 05:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but that's not what WP:ORG requires, I stress again that we need in-depth coverage not trivial mentions. Let's not get started on WP:OTHERCRAP. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both criteria in WP:NGO are clearly met, as shown above. Your unsubstantiated claim of the opposite is your opinion …

I’m aware of WP:OTHERCRAP, but we should be careful not to introduce a systematic bias. --Leyo 16:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGO requires The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. (my emphasis). Let's examine the sources that you added in detail to see what they say about it:

[76] Shortly after the Code of Conduct was first issued, the International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU) and the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) developed a Citizens’ Action Guide to the Code of Conduct (Goldenman and Rengam 1987). PAN also published a consolidated guide to the chemical tools and conventions (Goldenman and Pozo Vera 2008) which provided a checklist for implementation of the Code of Conduct. A dedicated Code monitoring module has been developed to help concerned organisations to monitor compliance with the Code of Conduct by governments and industry (Pesticide Action Network Asia and Pacific and Pesticide Action Network UK 2016). In addition, PAN carries out projects that promote implementation of parts of the Code of Conduct, in particular on alternatives to more hazardous pesticides. Member organizations of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) conducted community monitoring in 13 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America between 2007 and 2009 (PAN 2010). They assessed pesticide use practices, use of personal protective equipment and self-reported symptoms of pesticide poisoning. Based on this survey, their assessment was that 25 years after initial publication of the Code of Conduct, pesticides in these regions were still exposing farmers to significant health risks. The best source of all of them, but the text is about reports that they have published rather than the organisation itself and is two small paragraphs in a 60 page document which is itself only chapter 3 of 12 of a larger report.
[77] Noting high turnover, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) called for the appointment of experts who can complete their terms. and then several mentions of them supporting various decisions. Clearly not significant coverage.
[78] Not even anything to quote, just their name in a list. Not significant coverage.
[79] Known to cause a high incidence of severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment (Pesticide Action Network, 2009). That's it - not significant coverage.
[80] As for #2 - just their name in a long list.
[81] The same again.
[82] and again.

Overall, there is only one source which gets anywhere near to being what we need for WP:NGO to be met. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having a look at most sources I provided. Except number 1, the references are not thought to show classical coverage, but as examples of PAN's significant influence and recognized notability.

BTW: PAN also provides the database pesticideinfo.org that have been financially supported by e.g. the United States Agency for International Development. In an assessment of toxicological databases, PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases. Arizona Department of Agriculture states: This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate. --Leyo 22:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the two users who voted for deletion of this article: ~~Smartse states on their user page “This editor is an exclusionist.”~~ KoA has removed valid content from this article in edit warring mode.^{e.g. [83][84]} --Leyo 21:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leyo: And the relevance of this to this discussion is what? SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
… is obvious. Deletion of the entire article is just the continuation of the previous deletions of valid content. --Leyo 05:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about whether the organisation is notable or not, not about the philosophies of editors nor a review of editor's contributions. I don't think you can have read meta:exclusionism either and so draw your attention to They would only delete an article if they felt their omissions would leave nothing substantial. SmartSE (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Leyo has been page-blocked from this AfD page as a WP:AE action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dicklyon and the detailed judgement and analysis of Leyo. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Please see my analysis of the sources Leyo provided above. Neither Dickylon or Leyo have presented sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:ORG so your !vote is not going to carry much weight unless you can expand further. SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NORG. These two sources should meet SIRS requirements.
1. Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development [85]
2. The Pesticide Encyclopedia [86].

In case we are absent consensus to keep, we also have an excellent WP:ATD with a redirect to Environmental justice § Transnational movement networks. —siro χ o 08:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked at the sourcing on the page, and the sources recommended in this discussion, and it seems to me that there is insufficient independent sourcing to establish notability. On the page, most of the current sources are non-independent, while two are not. An article from Time, [87], never mentions PAN by name, simply referring to a group of organizations of which, apparently, PAN is one. There is an article from The Washington Post, [88], that doesn't mention it in the online preview, but the article appears to be about a Food Alert program that, likewise, was founded by a group of organizations of which PAN is only one. There are a variety of books that have been mentioned, each containing entries (encyclopedia style) about PAN, but a close look indicates that these are all books published by environmental groups or as proceedings of environmental group meetings. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Different groups that work on similar topics can still be independent of each other. That would also be the case for e.g. trade associations or research groups of different universities. --Leyo 20:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but in this case these are advocacy groups advocating for the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also e.g. trade groups or other industry associations are often advocating for the same thing. --Leyo 04:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it would be similarly appropriate to evaluate whether or not they are really independent. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I lean delete, and have considered nominating before. I removed enormous numbers of primary-sourced references to them from articles over the years and don’t ever recall anyone providing a secondary source that would have established the significance of any statement. It’s a pressure group beloved of the more militant anti-sciences off-wiki, but sourcing that actually establishes any objective significance is hard to discern. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really a surprising statement bearing in mind that JzG’s only contribution to this article was deletion of content. --Leyo 04:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I often remove poorly-sourced and tendentious content. Especially self-sourced puffery. You have a problem with that? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By "poorly sourced and tendentious" are you referring to removing basic content on the structure of the organisation sourced to the Union of International Associations's profile on PAN as you did in your latest edits? That seems pretty tendentious to me.

Of note: the Union of International Associations operates under UN mandate as an independent research institute with the goal of documenting the work of current and historical international associations. It "collects, hosts and provides up-to-date, reliable information on global civil society and maintains the most comprehensive source of information on international associations"[89] and have profiles on all of the local chapters of PAN (full data only accessible with paid subscription).
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) - UIA

E-XM7320 - Pesticide Action Network Europe

E-XM7491 - Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas de América Latina (RAP-AL)

E-XM7197 - Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN Africa)

E-XM7500 - PAN Asia and the Pacific (PANAP)

This alone proves that PAN meets WP:NORG. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 19:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(from AE) Keep, meets WP:GNG based on encyclopedia entries, e.g. Toxic Chemicals in America (pp. 495-496), Sittig's Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals (p. 1015), Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice (pp. 77-78 and elsewhere throughout the book), plus the two sources pointed out above by siroχo, Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development 2002-03 (p. 304) and The Pesticide Encyclopedia (CAB International, pp. 345-346). These are all entries in academic encyclopedias (except CABI, which is an NGO not an academic publisher) that, in my view, are in depth enough to meet GNG, as well as being independent, and written by reliable sources. One other example I'll raise is a chapter ("Drift Catchers Combatting Pesticide Power," pp. 63-72) in Bite Back: People Taking On Corporate Food and Winning (U. Cal. Press, 2020), which is written by PAN personnel about a PAN project. That it was written by PAN personnel I suppose makes it non-independent for GNG purposes, but frankly, the fact that PAN was invited (by independent editors) to submit a chapter about one of its success stories for this book also demonstrates PAN's notability, as does the fact that PAN's work is widely cited by reliable sources and has been for decades (based on Google Scholar and Google Books searching). Levivich (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smartse's source review is compelling. The bottom line is that there appears to be no significant coverage of this org in sources (or at least no editor has demonstrated that), and that is really the end of the matter. Bon courage (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage: Why aren't you counting the five sources I linked as SIGCOV of the org? Levivich (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because so far as I could see none are independent sources with significant coverage. You know, some analysis and synthesis WP:SECONDARY-like. Or did I miss something? Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's just take my first link. Why is the first one I linked not independent? What connection is there between the author/publisher and PAN? Why doesn't it have sigcov? It's two pages long. A two page entry about PAN in an academic encyclopedia isn't long enough to be significant? Levivich (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It passes the independent text but so far as I can see (Google Books UK clips the start of the entry) this is just a directory-like entry. But perhaps you're looking at something different to me because what I'm looking at is not "two pages long"? Is there some analysis and synthesis in the bit I'm missing? Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "directory-like entry" in Toxic Chemicals in America? That book is not a directory, just look at the other entries... are any of them directory-like entries? That book is a two-volume specialist encyclopedia published by ABC-Clio in 2021, and it has an encyclopedia entry about Pesticide Action Network. You can see "Pesticide Action Network" listed on the list of entries at the top of page vi. The entry on PAN begins at the top of page 495 and runs to the middle of page 496. It is 6 paragraphs, 522 words of prose. Not a directory entry at all -- there is no contact information for PAN, no phone or address, no infobox with statistics, just a prose summary of the group. 500 words isn't very long, but it is normal length for an encyclopedia entry, and I'd think an academic encyclopedia would count as a WP:GNG source for each and every topic that it has an entry about. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at each of the five sources you cited. What's clear to me is that all of them are encyclopedia-like tertiary sources, but on specialized topics, and in each case, there is an entry, in the manner of an encyclopedia entry, about this page subject. I'm seeing descriptions of PAN, but not much analysis. So when I think about that in terms of GNG, I have to evaluate where this sourcing fits in WP:SIGCOV. It's maybe a little more than trivial, but it's less than in-depth. And I wonder why there is so much tertiary sourcing in the apparent absence of secondary sources. That's actually pretty unusual. A lot of the other entries in those sources also have lots of independent coverage in secondary sources. WP:RSPRIMARY says that pages "should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"; this page fails that test. And WP:TERTIARY says that tertiary sources are most useful to "help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In that context, the absence of secondary sources looks even more suspect. And it also says: "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." Here, it seems to me that we have to be cautious about treating these entries as really establishing notability. Normally, notable advocacy organizations get attention in secondary sources for what they have done. Yet, per my earlier comment here, the secondary sources that have been cited, in Time and the Washington Post, don't even mention PAN by name. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make any sense to me. It seems like just moving the goal posts.

@Levivich do you have access to the full text of Toxic Chemicals in America? It would be nice to add it to the page which definitely needs additional sources. Thanks ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 14:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not moving any goalposts, just citing policies as they are written. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse's source review did not cover all sources provided (see also comment above). --Leyo 23:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've reviewed the page and found that PAN is credited with having influenced/participated in the processes that led to Rotterdam Convention and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Substantial coverage exists on those topics and I've added some content and sourcing to the article that I invite participants to review, but I recommend using tools such as the Wikipedia library [90] as most of this activity is from the 90s. Levivich if you have an easy access to the books that you mentioned I can try to source some additional content. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 10:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is content that indicates that there were multiple organizations involved, of which PAN was only one, and not a prominent one, and editors are trying to make PAN's involvement appear more prominent than what the sources actually support. I checked each of those sources, and not one of them is actually focused on PAN's role. They just cover events in which PAN happened to be one of the participants. Certainly, PAN is involved in significant activities, but is portrayed by secondary sources as an insignificant player in those activities. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions as an also-ran, in fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote from one of the sources (that I had still open on my PC): The term “prior informed consent” appears to have been coined by David Bull of Oxfam (UK) in the late 1970s to convey a trade norm specifically in the context of trade in hazardous pesticides.15 Bull’s work at Oxfam influenced the Pesticides Action Network (PAN), which lobbied international institutions to regulate pesticides. PAN was motivated both to address serious environmental and health consequences of current pesticide practices and to curb what it saw as irresponsible behavior by multinational corporations (Paarlberg 1994: 316–319). Thus, the moral, legal, and economic origins of prior informed consent came together in pesticides trade. from "Informed Consent: A Negotiated Formula for Trade in Risky Organisms and Chemicals" by Amanda Wolf. Is this nothing more than a passing mention in your view? Is PAN not prominent here? Did they "just happen to be one of the participants"? For context the concept of Prior informed is central to the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent. To me the answer is no to all of those questions, but we might have different sensibilities here. Let's hear from others. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 14:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's a passing mention or not (I think it is), the focus of that passage is David Bull's coining of the term "prior informed consent" which he did "in the context of trade in hazardous pesticides". PAN is mentioned as having been an example of who was influenced by that. It's not a passage about PAN, but a passage about a broader concept that uses PAN as an example. The Rotterdam Convention is notable, but PAN isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I looked into this one when it was added to the article earlier, but hadn't gotten around to removing it (also moot if the page is deleted). It's just another passing mention instance that wouldn't really be DUE at the article much less higher-level notability. KoA (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that you reviewed all the sources in the article but I find that hard to believe or you wouldn't misinterpret this text in such a way. It clearly states that it was Pesticides Action Network (PAN), which lobbied international institutions to regulate pesticides. And I quote the abstract (passing mention?) of another source: The establishment of PIC as a binding international rule was sealed by eventually gaining the support of the chemical industry in the early 1990s, after initial opposition, after a civil society campaign led by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), an alliance of nongovernmental organizations.[91] Have you included this source in your review? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 19:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after relisting. I actually took a look at all the sources mentioned here so far (including paywalled ones), but they all strengthen that the organization fails WP:NORG by lacking in-depth coverage. Instead, many sources have been provided that happen to basically just namedrop PAN, are part of indiscriminate directory-like listings, etc. This is the exact issue I mentioned in my initial delete comment.

Others have alluded to it, but when the evidence brought by those wanting to keep the article only further demonstrate the delete rationale, we're going to keep running into problems with the article WP:PAG-wise if it remains. Articles that don't meet notability requirements, but are instead stitched together with one-off comments in sources or a large number of passing mention sources functionally are a WP:COATRACK in the sense that passing mentions obscure the lack of notability and WP:SIGCOV. I've also seen comments here that run up against WP:INHERITORG. The group's associations with others doesn't lead to inherited notability. Deletion has just become more clear as editors actually walk through sources that contain the PAN term, and we do have to be mindful of just how much WP:NORG currently weighs against keeping the article from a WP:!VOTE perspective. KoA (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you claim you took a look at all the sources mentioned here so far (including paywalled ones): can you provide us with the relevant portions of text from this one [92] that mentions PAN in the abstract? Also from Toxic Chemicals in America that contains a full entry on PAN. I've been reviewing all of the sources myself and have come to a very different conclusion than yours but I do not have access to all the full texts. Thanks. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to ask those who cited the source first. For the first, the "chapter" is only a single page (barely that) which basically says nothing more than the abstract on PAN in a single sentence. When you look at other sources, you don't see them using this language about PAN or even singling any particular ones out, so there is a WP:DUE issue with that description. For the second source, it should already be a red flag that it's not indexed in most databases. I had to hop over to a nearby library that luckily had a copy, and it doesn't look like that book is stocked widespread either. It's mostly just citing them a few times, which is why it probably popped in the google search. As Bon Courage mentioned, it's just a WP:DIRECTORY-like entry, and Tryptofish already had a good description of the 5 sources mentioned in that main comment.

It should be pretty telling that we've gone through this many sources (some just thrown out there because they just briefly mention PAN), and still haven't found a source really getting to in-depth coverage like we would for other notable environmental advocacy groups. We can verify that they do stuff, but that's not the same as notability. KoA (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, was somebody touting a sourcing as proving GNG's bar had been cleared, without actually having accessed that source? Find that hard to believe. Bon courage (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think that's something the closer is going to have to sort through, was notability just asserted with sources that didn't really do that, or are there sources that truly showed depth focusing on the org itself. That's a repeated problem that was brought up early on in this AfD as a core issue that it would be helpful for the closer to address regardless of what the decision actually is. KoA (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Chemicals is not a directory, it's an encyclopedia. Levivich (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you can't provide additional quotes from those sources to prove your point? A lot of hoops to jump to disqualify all of those sources. Now we are at the stage of "not indexed in most databases" to discard encyclopedic sources? And not all sources use exactly the same "language about PAN" so it doesn't count? Pretty weak reasoning. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 10:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NORG: a near dearth of independent RS. Serial 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a notably non-sympatheic appraisal of PAN. A Google search reveals 100s of hits from newspapers across the world going back to the 1980s reporting on PAN. Some common sense necessary here; by all means clean up the article, but this is a high-profile 40 year old globally-recognised non-profit network (with significant visibility outside the Anglo-sphere). FWIW, in this case, if the forensic application of our policies and guidelines do not produce a better encyclopedia, we WP:IAR. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first link was already addressed from the Genetic Literacy Project as generally not reliable (we even avoid it as a WP:PARITY source in this subject). The problems of just throwing up Google searches and saying there are a bunch of hits has also been addressed to as not addressing the key parts of WP:NORG. KoA (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said *forensic* application of policy and guidelines misses the forest for the trees. The GLP source might well be corporate sponsored, but the question of whether PAN presents fringe theory is as asserted in this discussion is not backed by multiple, independent reliable sources. Moreover, I made a specific, not generic, search link to newspaper appearances of PAN - literally hundreds across 40 years. Despite the claimed difficulty with finding these sources, it's common sense that an organisation whose reports, lawsuits and lobbying activities receive newspaper coverage over decades in nunmerous countries is notable. Given the organisation's origins in Malaysia in the early 1980s there's more than reasonable likelihood for significant offline sources to also be available. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for significant coverage. Is there any? Invoking a "likelihood for significant offline sources" doesn't cut it. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment recognition of international prominence of PAN;^[1] not presenting fringe theories,^[2] discussion on international activities,^[3] overview of PAN as international social movement.^[4]

References

^ Partzsch, Lena; Zander, Macy; Robinson, Hannah (July 2019). "Cotton certification in Sub-Saharan Africa: Promotion of environmental sustainability or greenwashing?". Global Environmental Change. 57: 101924. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.008. We selected the five most central NGOs dedicated to environmental sustainability in agriculture: Friends of the Earth (FoE), Greenpeace, Oxfam, Pesticide Action Network (PAN), and World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
^ Stapleton, Darwin H. (April 2014). "Technological Solutions: The Rockefeller Insecticidal Approach to Malaria Control, 1920–1950". The Global Challenge of Malaria: 19–33. doi:10.1142/9789814405584_0002. In such instances, the immediate need to save lives trumps concerns about subsequent health or environmental complications (including the potential for mosquitoes to develop resistance to the toxin). It was recognition of this stark calculus that forged the 2001 compromise on DDT, which was agreed to by groups with histories of firm opposition to the insecticide, such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
^ Groth, E. (2014). "Institutions Involved in Food Safety: Consumer Organizations". Encyclopedia of Food Safety: 369–372. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-378612-8.00387-5. Profiles are then presented to eight consumer international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) that have been active in international food safety work, with emphasis on the participation in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission
^ Zavestoski, S (July 2013). "Environmental health organizing in a globalizing world: The emergence of a global anti-toxics movement and its political, legal and economic challenges". In Kopnina, Helen (ed.). Health and Environment: Social Science Perspectives. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-62618-876-1. The next section examines evidence that just as economic globalization was leading to the global spread of toxic hazards, a parallel process was occurring in which social movements to resist toxic threats were becoming increasingly global. Particular attention is paid to the evolution of the international organization Pesticide Action Network and the constellation of other organizations in its orbit.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Thank you for the sources #1 is trivial coverage, #2 looks to be the same but I can't find the full text - do you have it? #3 I also can't access to assess. #4 is finally the kind of source that we need, the author appears to be independent and it contains several pages of content specifically about PAN. If anyone else would like to read the full text, drop me an email. SmartSE (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work @Goldsztajn and thanks to @Smartse for giving me access to source #4. Very in depth and important for this article. Will work to add it as soon as possible. Chapter 11 is titled "Environmental Health Organizing In A Globalizing World: The Emergence Of A Global Anti-Toxics Movement And Its Political, Legal And Economic Challenges" and states in the abstract: Particular attention is paid to the evolution of the international organization Pesticide Action Network and the constellation of other organizations in its orbit.. It has everything we need from PAN's origins to the main campaigns with great detail. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 14:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's getting better as I look through 4, though a still remaining challenge is this is only one book chapter from an author in San Francisco where PAN is based in North America. There haven't been other sources giving much detail, and that's a recurrent problem I'm seeing in the pesticide related literature. Other groups do get some mention, but PAN is typically only mentioned in the background at best lumped together which a bunch of other acronyms. That coupled with all this work to get one source that mentions more than a sentence is still a pretty serious question of notability from WP:NGO The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. (my bolds) after surveying this many sources. KoA (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the source (4) more, I see that Nova Science Publishers is generally regarded as a vanity press Nova_Science_Publishers#Criticism. I would be really wary of this especially being the sole source used to claim notability or impact and all the more reason to follow the NGO guideline's guidance on multiple in-depth sources. KoA (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is enough to get over the line. Shame so much editorial integrity had to be torched to get here. Amending !vote. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at 3 (Groth 2014). It's basically no different than previous directory-like entries. It only gets three sentences. The context in that the source is what NGOs lobby/participate with the WHO/FAO Codex Commission meetings. They make a bulleted list of those orgs, but PAN doesn't get any mention in summary statements of major organizations like the others. It just gets: PAN is an international alliance of environmental, farm-worker, and consumer advocacy organizations that promotes pesticide safety in a variety of contexts. PAN has been actively involved with the FAO’s Agriculture Committee and with the United Nations Environment Program. Pesticide residues in foods are one of PAN’s many concerns, and PAN has attended occasional past sessions of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.

The lens for this source is really just involvement in Codex, so it doesn't look like it'd be a great source for overall notability assessment. An org like Greenpeace basically gets a similar passing mention that they don't really participate much, while others that did participate more have much lengthier profiles, so we don't really have a good stand-alone WP:ORGDEPTH source or comparatively when the source is taken in context as to who the major players on the list are. It verifies PAN participates a bit in a run of the mill fashion, but it seems like we're still running into the issue that this an org often in the background, not not really getting a lot of notice from multiple sources. KoA (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Origins of PAN in US,^[1] reporting on PAN directory,^[2]^[3] example of PAN activities,^[4] reporting of PAN Europe complaint to European Ombudsman on EU pesticide approval process,^[5] PAN role in launching lobbying group in Philippines.^[6]

References

^ "Third world cautioned on pesticide". The Sault Star. Associated Press. 12 June 1985. p. 24.
^ "Pesticide health risks detailed on the Internet". Daily Citizen. New York Times. 8 September 2000. p. 13.
^ Jane, Kay (7 September 2000). "New Web site lists health hazards of pesticides". The San Francisco Examiner. p. 10.
^ Bragg, Tim (19 July 2006). "Pesticide levels called unsafe". The Fresno Bee. pp. B4.
^ Vries–Stotijn, Anne de (June 2016). "The European Ombudsman Urges the European Commission to Abandon its Unlawful Pesticide Approval Practice". European Journal of Risk Regulation. 7 (2): 413–415. doi:10.1017/S1867299X0000581X.
^ Papa, Joey C (8 December 2001). "Land and food without poisons". Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Satisfies the WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are medical claims coming from newspapers and wouldn't be reliable sources for that material. The first is also in a small town newspaper as well as the second. The third and fourth are from larger regional newspapers, but still have MEDRS issues for relatively short articles. They might be ok simply for sourcing basic verifiable org information in an article, but not notability (a important distinction for those not familiar with AfD's vs. due weight article inclusions). The sixth is another passing mention at best just barely namedropping PAN and has some WP:FRINGE fear-mongering. The fifth is a little different in that it's more of a WP:PRIMARY blow-by-blow description of a case PAN brought to the European Commission (and an uncited report), but the focus is more on the case, not PAN.

Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Significant_coverage_of_the_company_itself highlights the overarching problem here. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. These articles are highlighting a product, case, or a report at best, not PAN itself.

We've had a recurring problem at this AfD of assertions of notability with, yet actually digging into the sources shows the opposite. If the organization truly was notable, all someone would have to do is follow WP:NGO and provide multiple sources that provide in-depth coverage for the closer to close this as keep. So far we've only had one source that meets that criteria only if you ignore reliability issues. When that criteria isn't met though, we're looking at a clear delete when you look at the volume of sources topic editors have been "asked" to sort through that don't show in-depth coverage. KoA (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this response conflates a critical reaction to PAN with a critical assessment of sources about PAN. The first two citations are wire pieces, Associated Press and the New York Times, respectively, that is, they are national news stories, not local (leaving aside that there is no community consensus that discounts local news coverage per se). How are the second and thrird MERDS issues? The question is not about the content of the directory, it is that the directory exists and that there is reliable sorucing reporting on the existence of the directory. The fourth and sixth illustrates, as has amply been shown, that PAN reports, activities receive widespread coverage. The fifth citation indicates that it is a notable case; there are literally millions of ~~court~~ administrative review processes which do not receieve reporting. PRIMARY would be the judgement of the ~~court~~ ombudsman, this is secondary. Finally, PAN is *not* a company, you cannot conflate a for profit corporation with a not for profit, non-government organisation - our guidelines distinguish profit and for-profit organisations precisely because of the ways in which for profit corporations have resources above and beyond non-profits to game sourcing. Where is the sourcing that supports the claims that PAN engages in fringe theory? I've no problem with those being included in the article, but there's a lot of assertions here about PAN, but I've seen no sourcing (other than the piece I mentioned above, which was discounted) to support those particular assertions vis à vis PAN. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Highs in the Mid-Sixties, Volume 1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highs in the Mid-Sixties, Volume 2[edit]

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

Barring database entries or extreme passing mentions ("SONG was included in ALBUM"), this does not appear to be notable as a stand-alone entry in the (likely notable) album series. I could not find any specific reviews for this entry. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting that it has been tagged as unsourced since 2021 and has been unsourced since 2007, with no attempts at improvement on that front. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article (WP:NOPAGE) — target can be Highs in the Mid-Sixties, Volume 1, followed by a rename. I can propose merges for the rest of the series. Collectively they are notable and it would be a bit unfortunate to delete individual items. eg.
1. Reviews in Maximum Rocknroll:[93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100]
2. Reviews in AllMusic: [101][102]
3. Review in an indie mag [103]
4. Coverage in TeenBeat Mayhem! Commemorating America's Forgotten Musical Heritage : Those Teenage Rock & Roll Combos of the Swingin' 1960s [104]
5. Some background in Brick Through the Window [105]

—siro χ o 08:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valco Melton[edit]

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

Non notable corporation. Didn't locate sufficient CORPDEPTH-compliant sourcing to meet NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find passing mentions and press releases, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. No evidence that this company meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunner and James Storm[edit]

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

No notable tag team. Article includes 1 source. Most of sources found online are just WP:ROUTINE results, not in deep coverage of the team. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (given that all but one Keep vote came from a sock farm, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Craig (businessman)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessman and politician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businessmen or politicians. As always, neither businessmen nor politicians are "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their work -- but the attempted notability claim as a businessman is that his company exists, cited entirely to primary sources such as press releases self-published by his own company and Q&A interviews in which he's the speaker and not the subject under discussion; the attempted notability claim as a politician is that he's served on a borough council, which is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion under WP:NPOL, and is still referenced to a primary source "staff" profile rather than GNG-building media coverage about his work on the council; and what's left for GNG-worthy coverage is two pieces that are covering him in trivial human interest contexts entirely tangential to the attempted notability claims, which thus aren't enough coverage to vault him over GNG all by themselves if "man is proud to be Irish" and "man is Olympic torchbearer" are the only fully independent third party sourcing he has.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and England. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Keep. I would like to address some factual inaccuracies that appear to have contributed to the nominator’s rationale behind submitting this for deletion.~~
Firstly, no primary sources are used in this article. There are no “self published articles by the subject’s company”. As per WP:GNG, only secondary and reputable sources are used (London Evening Standard, The Irish Times etc).

Secondly, there are no ‘staff profiles’ used in the references. I am unsure what the nominator is referring to here. Both the Irish Times and Evening Standard pieces are full features on the subject and in reputable publications and as such meet WP:GNG. PoliticsDex (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish Times article is just an ongoing business feature on Irish people working abroad. It doesn't really lend itself to notability. The LES article is just about how he carried the Olympic torch for a little ways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~That’s correct. Both would meet WP:GNG as both are WP:SIGCOV and also WP:SUSTAINED. I see no reason why this shouldn’t be kept. PoliticsDex (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Then everyone who got written about in a weekly feature by the Times would be one small piece of SIGCOV away from a Wikipedia article. That column is clearly not discriminate when it comes to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll likely need to agree to disagree, but the article is in a publication that fully meets Wikipedia:GNG source criteria in that it is reliable, independent, secondary, published and significant. Our job is not to discuss what makes the editorial cut at the Irish Times, but to determine whether it meets guidelines as per Wikipedia policy - which it does. PoliticsDex (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, you're wrong that no primary sources are used in the article: Local Government Chronicle is a primary source, as it is just a directory of his own writing for that publication — but we're not looking for sources in which he's the author of content about other things, we're looking for sources in which he's the subject of content written by other people. University of Southampton is a primary source, as it's just an institution self-publishing a calendar listing of an event it's hosting and not third-party coverage establishing said event as newsworthy. Stuff published by his own company isn't the only thing that counts as primary sourcing — stuff self-published by any entity directly affiliated with the claim it's sourcing is primary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I was responding to the specific point you made where you said references were “press releases self-published by his own company”. Clearly, this isn’t the case. I agree that better references than the LGC and University of Southampton ones are required. PoliticsDex (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, who always makes the argument better than I can - after looking at the sources, the article fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Expressive101 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it's borderline. Looks like changes have been made to original article that was nominated - broadly falls in line with WP:GNG ButtonPocketSquare899 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brachy08 _(Talk) 23:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could do with expanding, but references seem to meet policy thresholds.JoinFluffy250 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more from those editors advocating Keep to counter objections from editors seeking Deletion. A simple "Keep" is insufficient in a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. I don't see sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ in relation to request to expand upon original answer. As per PoliticsDex. The Irish Times and Evening Standard articles are reputable, independent and verifiable sources. So is PR Week. Those alone mean this meetsWP:GNG. Agree with others who have said it needs expanding, however there is no policy-driven reason here for it to be deleted --JoinFluffy250 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoinFluffy250, you can only "vote" once so I have struck your duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:GNG by way of being published in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of one another and the subject. I count at least three - a couple of others more disputable. Nonetheless, it ticks enough boxes to be kept. --Pocketsquare123 (talk) 16:51, 02 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I can't help but notice that most of the editors advocating Keep have low edit counts reflecting a lack of AFD experience. So, I'm doing one final relisting. A reminder that while editors can make multiple comments in a deletion discussion, you can only "vote" once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source is fine, the rest are him talking to media or being interviewed. The PR Times requires registration, so I didn't read it. It appears to be in a trade magazine, which I'd assume isn't a RS, but sourcebot has it green... Regardless, carrying the Olympic flame isn't notable, rest of the sourcing is interviews or typical "ask the expert about xyz" that news programs use. I can't see that he's regarded as the go-to expert in his field, just appears to be a person doing their job for a long time and is able to explain it to others. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have enough SIGVOV to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources provided in this article do not provide much notability. Also, in order to appear in media, one must have a clear and present appearance in the network, not merely a mention from user-generated content. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 20:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Ali Vaez[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Only worked for small, independet promotions. Not in deep coverage about him, just WP:ROUTINE results HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Constellation Automotive Group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cinch (company)[edit]

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

No independent sources, only routine financial information and quotes from founders. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Constellation Automotive Group: seems like the best option, there is very little coverage of this subgroup. Or merge selectively into the Constellation article, I'm not fussed about either choice. Oaktree b (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator has claimed that references used in this article are not independent and includes only routine financial information. That is not factually accurate. All references used are verifiable with independent, third-party sources, as per WP:GNG. They include national newspapers and reputable industry publications and meet all reliability tests, as per Wikipedia policy. Politics Dex (talk) 16:13, 02 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Oaktree b, or just delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Per nom, sources are not independent and/or fail WP:SIRS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Constellation Automotive Group since just having financial information and a brief history of the company does not make the article itself notable. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 20:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Los Angeles crime family. There is certainly an overwhelming desire for this to not be kept as a standalone article, that much is clear. Closing as no consensus would not be in keeping with that desire. A delete decision would not preclude anyone from updating any proposed merge target, but it would remove the current title from being a redirect. As the List of Cohen crime family members is already slated to be merged to the LA crime family article, any remaining sourced information from this article should be merged there as well. I note that there is nothing stopping anyone from adding any sourced material to Mickey Cohen as well. UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen crime family[edit]

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

Article is a largely unsourced, largely OR compendium of material. Sure there are sources, but all deal with irrelevancies and side topics and none, zero, even attempt to address the subject of the article, the supposed "Cohen crime family" No sourcing is offered to indicate that such a "crime family" actually existed. In fact, if you look at the section called "Formation," you find that the formation of this supposed "crime family" is not described.

This article was merged into Mickey Cohen in 2019 but was recently unmerged. ~~I have no objection to merging in lieu of deletion,~~ but this article adds little if anything to the Cohen article due to its lack of useful sourcing.

Note that the realated article List of Cohen crime family members, which has zero sourcing, has been nominated for deletion on the same grounds. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cohen crime family members Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC) nomination updated. Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mickey Cohen per my nomination. Tuck this into that other article, as happened in 2019 with no objection until two days ago. Though this article doesn't add very much usable material to Cohen, a merge in lieu of deletion is harmless. Coretheapple (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Delete. There is no point to merging since there is no sourcing substantiating the existence of the article subject. A discussion of which article should be the merger target strikes me as unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Striking out to avoid giving the impression of a duplicate !vote. Just noting as nominator that I believe that delete iis preferable to merging. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, California, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a major crime family with a storied history, in relation to both the Italian-American Mafia and Jewish-American organized crime. However, it is unclear how major, given the fact that much of it only alludes to Mickey Cohen himself. It certainly needs more detail and sources, but I believe it should be given the chance to add this. PickleG13 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PickleG13 Can you please cite a single reliable secondary source that substantiates your statement that the "Cohen crime family" existed, much less that it was a "major crime family"? I have searched diligently and found not even a single source substantiating the existence of the subject of this article. Secondly, the article was created in 2015 and tagged in 2019. Ample opportunity has been given to source this article. Coretheapple (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge List of Cohen crime family members into this one. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That does not make sense. Since this article is proposed for deletion, your suggestion implies that article should also be deleted. You cannot keep your cake for later and eat it at the same time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Los Angeles crime family under the section about Jack Dragna. This so-called family appears to have arisen as a result of a falling out between Dragna and Mickey Cohen when Bugsy Siegel was killed. Also, both Siegel and Cohen were working for the New York mafia, so their West Coast operations is more like a branch office. Follow the chain of command to the top, Cohen wasn't the boss, just Siegel's lieutenant and bodyguard. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a Keep and two different Merge targets that have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mickey Cohen per nom. I am also not finding independent confirmation that a "family" under this name (or Siegel crime syndicate) existed, and WP is not a reliable source. Cohen surely existed, and the activities regarding the remnants of the West Coast Lansky-Siegel operation that Cohen controlled and utilized to do battle with the Los Angeles crime family can be folded into his article, minus the background information (it's only there to pad the article) which can already be found under Jewish-American organized crime, Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel. Compare for example New York divorce coercion gang, another descriptive Jewish gang name that cannot be found in sources, but is kept in lieu of having the article at Mendel Epstein (the ringleader). Here, the situation will be the reverse—but having 2 articles in any case is not sensible. StonyBrook _babble 15:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case there are more opinions about the two different Merge target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Liz's comment in relisting, note that I have changed my !vote to ~~delete~~ as merger would serve no useful purpose. If there is no consensus on a merger target, that does not detract from the utter lack of sourcing for the very existence of the article subject. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is a duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing what I believe is your concern. Also I am puzzled by your comment about a possible no consensus close, which I believe would be tantamount to keeping. If only one !vote is for keep, the consensus is not to keep. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Liz was only trying to encourage a stronger attempt at achieving consensus. Simply pointing out that there is currently no consensus about what to do with an article does not imply that it is worth keeping, only that the default result is that it will remain, for now. StonyBrook _babble 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point. There is a clear consensus at this time that it not remain. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a standalone article. As of now, there is no clear consensus to make the content therein completely disappear, which is what happens as a result of the deletion process. As stated above, I am in favor of including the general information in the Mickey Cohen article. However, that does not mean I agree that there ever was a Cohen crime family per se. It just means that I think the people who worked for and with Cohen should be included in his article in some form, whether via prose or a list. StonyBrook _babble 18:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my feeling as well. Perhaps my !vote should be delete or merge somewhere. I don't much care where. In January 2020 I merged this into Mickey Cohen, where it remained until a few weeks ago. In any event at the current time the consensus is clearly not to keep the article in its current form, and a "no consensus" would be a de facto "keep." Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I try, subtlety, to nudge the discussion along, Coretheapple. I'm trying to read the room. THe primary thing a closer needs to avoid is introducing their own opinion in the closure. Also, "No consensus" simply means that there is no agreement in the discussion it doesn't equate to "Keep". I've seen discussions closed as No consensus return for future visit to AFD, it's more likely than when they close as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator that merger serves no useful purpose. If you must merge for some reason, merge to Mickey Cohen. 108.176.17.98 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from one editor advocating Keep, it looks like opinion is divided between Delete and Merge which might result in a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the entire topic - there being this crime family is dubious, and appears to be original research.Cortador (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Milford, New Hampshire[edit]

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

Unnotable hoax, with one piece about its uncovering and one primary "source" that is the original hoax article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reference 1 cites Wikipedia, and Reference 2 is the hoax itself. Nothing else could be found. Clearly a non-notable hoax, and the article creates the risk of misinformation, considering how many sites scrape Wikipedia for data about towns and localities. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, History, Geography, and New Hampshire. Skynxnex (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 incoming links at Benjamin Orr (Massachusetts politician), White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs, and List of ghost towns in New Hampshire, which should be checked for hoax info or might also serve as redirect target. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's strange that the official biography in the Benjamin Orr article mentions New Milford; it could mean Milford, NH, but someone would have to do more research. Best just to de-link there and remove the item from the list of ghost towns. Ken Gallager (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Hampshire/Milford, New Hampshire or perhaps best to White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs. There may not be enough here for stand-alone article, but the information itself can be preserved on Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge to Milford, New Hampshire. The fake community was described as being in a region that is more than 100 miles away from Milford. The only relation is that people in Milford detected the hoax. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There isn't enough coverage for a separate article. I could see a mention somewhere, but not at the real town, which is questionably related. A mention in White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs may be fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs, where it is already covered, seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disassociated Press[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything elsewhere which would seem to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was No consensus.

Previous discussions: 2006-06 (closed as No consensus)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary discussion of this idea was found. There is a Dissociated Press [106], which is a blog, but not connected to this concept. Deletion would prevent confusion and would be approrpriate for what is apparently a non-notable satire trope. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That even has its own article; see Dissociated press. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced for years, couldn't find anything that could be used for sourcing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no value to this mini-joke page with zero sources. Reading the previous AfD, I cannot fathom why that closer evaluated as 'no consensus'. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2006?! I scratch my head when I see these old discussions. It really was the wild west in wiki land back then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the entire article is unsourced. Even the one Internet Archive link there is only leads to a generic "under construction" website, so this may as well be fabricated.Cortador (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, it's been used in the Warner Brothers cartoons, but it's clearly a spoof on the AP. Clever play on words, more suitable for a footnote in a cartoon biography somewhere. Delete for zero sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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