The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vengalil family[edit]

Vengalil family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable family. One of the members of this family V. K. Krishna Menon was a notable figure, but that does not mean the family becomes notable by association. No references provided in the page since it was created ages ago and none found on a search as well, indicating our notability standards are not met. Was created by an editor who has spent considerable time editing V. K. Krishna Menon indicating that they may somehow be associated with the subject of this article (probably a member of the family). Jupitus Smart 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, India, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References seem easy enough to find? Cf:

"The frontiers of expansion of cultivation were set by the dominant landowning tharavadus like those of the Vengayil Nayanar, who held two lakh acres of land"

"This steady intrusion on the forests had two consequences. First, it brought the new breed of cultivators into competition with the tribal groups practising slash-and-burn cultivation of hill rice. Secondly, it brought to light the existence of bonded labour-both tribal and untouchable caste - in what had been remote fast nesses penetrated only by the overseers of dominant tharavadus like Kalliatty and Vengayil. In 1939, a delegation of the All India Students’ Federation visiting north east Chirakkal had to inform the tribal inhabitants that it was the British and not the Vengayil Nayanar who ruled the country.72"

"One of the most illustrious Nayar tharavadus of north Malabar is Kodoth in what is now the Kasargod district of Kerala. The Kodoth family practiced hypergamy. In fact, the famous Vengalil family headquartered near Calicut was formed when a girl of the Kodoth family entered into a sambandham union with a Thirumulpad."

"The family papers of Koodali Thazhathu Veedu show that the family had maintained marriage relations with almost all major landowning tarawads of the region like the Kalliat family, Vengalil family..."

"A 3000-strong jatha marched from Korome, Erima and other places to meet their landlord, the Vengayil Valia Nayanar in October 1938. After a discussion lasting three hours the jenmi agreed to give up the important feudal levies like vast and nuri and to use the standard measure for rent in kind... The early peasant jathas were directed at some of the biggest landlords of Malabar. The Chirakkal Raja's family owned about 30,000 acres; the Vengayil Nayanar family owned over 200,000 acres, including forest lands; the Kurumathoor Namboodiripad owned 5615 acres and the Kalliat jenmi had 36,779 acres in his possession.

"Out of the 689.17 acres of land owned by the temple 589.07 acres were held on lease by one single family, the family of Vengayil Nayanar, a prominent landowning family of North Malabar."

These are all from academic sources unconcerned with Krishna Menon, which recurrently call the family "dominant", "prominent", "major", "famous", and so on.

Meanwhile, maintaining that VK Krishna Menon is the only notable member of the family is also bizarre. VK Nayanar more or less invented the short story and satire in Malayalam and is canonically one of the most influential figures in Malayalam literature. VK Chinnammalu Amma was a central figure in Malayali feminism and literature. Raman Menon was the Dewan of Travancore. VA Janaki was the chair of the geography department at Baroda College/Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda and a leading Indian geographer, especially of Kerala. All are discussed as such in the literature. It's not clear to me how exactly Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer is related to the Vengalils, but he's definitely notable. Etc. 2806:107E:15:1C4A:482E:D3E6:D000:7389 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear where you are quoting these lines from. Having 1-2 notable people like Vengayil Kunhiraman Nayanar and V. K. Krishna Menon does not make the family notable. Also, the entire country was ruled over by many feudal vassals in the 1800s. None of these references indicate that the family was any better than the other feudal landlords who also owned lands. Jupitus Smart 11:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rather than quoting some unknown source, please provide a link or some specific references which other editors can verify. Sources don't have to be online but they have to be identified and not merely referred to as part of your search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article references 2 books. Has anyone looked at these?

• Krishna Menon: A Biography by T. J. S. George (1965)
• V. K. Krishna Menon: a personal memoir by Janaki Ram (1997)

Why wouldn’t these establish notability? The first book is about one Menon but it could cover other family members.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. It looks as though the author of this article was trying to pen down his egoistic thoughts into wiki. Just 2 or 3 notable members from the family does not make the family themselves notable(Also Vengayil kunhiraman nayanar was from the vengayil family, which is another family. The Vengalil's were a Menon family). There were many menon families who related to royals of kerala by marriage and this seems like an advertising campaign for the family. In addition to that, as you mentioned, there are no proper sources. Many such Menon families like the Ankarath, Vadakke kuruppath, Ambat etc. were equally wealthy and produced eminent personalities but I don't see them having a separate wiki page. Like I mentioned in the Talk page, this article needs to strictly kept to family discussions and blogs rather than on Wikipedia. I completely agree with you on the deletion of this article from Wikipedia. Pedia.01110 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notable individuals don't make the family notable per WP:NOTDIR.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I believe the IP's comments are, in effect, an unbolded "Keep" so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indication the family is notable. Notable individuals don't make the family notable per above.  // Timothy :: talk  01:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTINHERITED. The argument for "keep" appears to be that there have been books written about the family, without evidence that this is significant coverage, or that the books themselves are reliable sources. By all accounts, this is a run of the mill, land-owning caste or clan. With the exception of Presidential families or very well-known celebrities, families of even famous or notable people are not by themselves notable as a group, and arguments otherwise are untenable, based on 20-plus tears of precedent here at AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Lena Zavaroni. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Zavaroni on Broadway[edit]

Lena Zavaroni on Broadway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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 00:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Lena Zavaroni, if there is anything noteworthy to merge there. This single broadcast was certainly not notable as a WP subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge to Lena Zavaroni
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am comfortable with a merge. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Krier[edit]

Lena Krier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 23:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diāna Skribina[edit]

Diāna Skribina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject has earned four caps for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of GNG-passing sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 23:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Kazlauska[edit]

Linda Kazlauska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject has earned one cap for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a lack of GNG-passing sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 23:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asnāte Lindermane[edit]

Asnāte Lindermane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject has earned two caps for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a lack of GNG-passing sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Re Talsi is more than a trivial mention but I can't find anything else Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Josselyn[edit]

Lewis Josselyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bringing this to AfD as one of a large walled garden of early Carmel-by-the-Sea residents. Sources all seem very local, and are generally brief mentions (or just photo credits) of the subject - not seeing how WP:NBIO is met. Melcous (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Typically fluffy contribution and, indeed, part of a walled garden. I looked at the sourcing: it's too skinny. Besides an obituary, there's nothing specifically about him; the rest of the sourcing are captions and more or less incidental mentions. It's a shame, cause I'm all about local historians and whatnot, but this one does not meet the GNG. Oh, please note the history, to see a section that was basically a kind of resume. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DrmiesIs this just a comment of did you mean to place a !vote too? Graywalls (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Graywalls, I think it will be obvious to the closing administrator where I'm going with this, but if you need my vote, it's "delete", of course. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I would hope, but the discussion is starting to drag on, so for simplicity sake at the end when quantity could matter, it could be useful to have to have the bold !vote. Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is indeed part of a large walled garden of articles, that not only focus on Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey Peninsula; but also relate to the Henderson/Ford extended family in some way. The article creator has created many articles that involve his family, and their homes, businesses, friends and and other affairs. The connection in this article was that Lewis Josselyn was a "close friend" of Byington Ford, a relative of the creator. These articles are frequently referenced to hyper-local sources and primary sources, or the sources simply mention their name. Additionally and even more concerning, is that the content of these articles often does not match what the sources actually say, they are embellished with exaggerations, here-say, original research and puffery. The photographer who is the subject of this article is run of the mill, one of hundreds if not thousands of local photographers in California. After clean up, basically what we are left with is: he was born, got married, had a job as a commercial photographer, he died and his wife donated his photos to various local places. That he owned camera equipment and made photographs does not make him inherently notable; that his photos were sometimes published along with a "photo credit" does not confer notability. The article fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Netherzone Netherzone 15:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I authored this article independently, but do not have any familial or personal connections to Josselyn. My interest lies in the exploration of topics related to Monterey County, California, a region where I spent my formative years.
• Lewis Josselyn's life and work have garnered extensive attention in both primary and secondary sources. If you're interested in delving into the biography of a pioneering California photographer known for his early contributions to Monochrome photography, this is a must-read. Josselyn had close associations with the artist Jo Mora and held the prestigious position of the official photographer for the Forest Theater. His lens captured iconic figures such as Robinson Jeffers and documented the restoration efforts at the Carmel Mission, also known as the Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo. Note that some of the content you currently see in the article has been removed by individuals known as Netherzone and Melcous. To access the previous version, please revert to this iteration.
• Best known for his historic record in photography for central and northern California, including California Missions, Yosemite, the redwoods, life in Carmel and the Monterey Bay area, and the building of Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast--including the construction of Bixby Creek Bridge ^[1]
• Has a collective body of work in the mid 1920s to the mid 1940s that served as fundamental points of reference for artist Jo Mora and his Pebble Beach studio recreated in the Jo Mora Collection at the Monterey History Art Association.^[2]
• Lewis Josselyn's legacy is well-documented, with a substantial presence in various media outlets and archives:
• His work has been cited in 21 newspaper articles, including mentions in The Californian and the Carmel Pine Cone.
• A collection of 277 images by Josselyn can be found on California Revealed, among other repositories.
• Tom Leyde, the author, credited Josselyn for contributing two historical photographs, one of the Carmel Mission and the other of Robinson Jeffers' Hawk Tower. Notably, Josselyn's widow generously entrusted 3,000 negatives to Pat Hathaway, a local photographer, as detailed in the statement: "Hathaway’s archive got its start in 1970 when he acquired a collection of photos from the widow of the late local photographer Lewis Josselyn."
• Josselyn's extensive collection stands as a valuable resource, offering invaluable insights to historians, scholars, writers, journalists, reporters, teachers, and students alike.
• His photographs have been featured in numerous books, including Cannery Row and Big Sur.
• He is in the esteemed company of photographers from the Monterey Peninsula, including luminaries such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston.

Greg Henderson (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, why did you modify my signature to unlink my talk page? Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Theatre, Photography, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source Analysis - 1: Not SIGCOV[1] Published letters by a different person, source has two sentences on Josselyn, one mentions that he's a photographer; the second sentence states: I cannot get the [photo] negative of the reproduction without difficulty – the man who did it – Lewis Josselyn – (French family living here in Carmel) is a bit eccentric and would think I didn't like his work and so on or wonder wheter I wanted to have his negative criticized. 2. Not SIGCOV [2] three photo-credits. 3. Obituary in small, hyper-local weekly newspaper.[3] (probably submitted by family, The Carmel Pinecone states where to send obituaries) - standard obit content, he was born, married, had a photography job, died. 4. Not SIGCOV[4] four photo credits. 5. Not SIGCOV[5] one photo credit in small regional paper. 6. Not SIGCOV. [6] one photo credit. 7. Not SIGCOV[7] Article is on another person; one photo credit. 8. Not SIGCOV[8] A brief unattributed opinion/quote in a small, hyper-local weekly newspaper. 9. Not SIGCOV[9] name check only. Hyper local, small weekly paper. 10. Not SIGCOV. [10] two sentences about his work in a local show that his widow provided photographs. 11. Not SIGCOV[11] article is about another person; there is one sentence mentioning Josselyn. Therefore does not meet WP:GNG either. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - how are the principles of WHYN addressed by deletion? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The source for death date is the Carmel Pine Cone. Looking at the date of the digitized page I see 1963, yet the record states 1964. No exact birth or death dates are given in the obituary.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Birth and Death dates are fixed in the Request Edits on the article's Talk:Lewis Josselyn page. Please see all Request Edits before deleting this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Netherzone's source analysis showing there is insufficient evidence of notability. I've also reviewed the requested edits on the article talk page, and even if they were all added to the article, the subject of the article still fails each the four unique notability criteria of WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. On a side note, I also found a Find-a-Grave listing confirming his 1964 death, and his burial at Golden Gate National Cemetery, but that is a moot point for our purposes, since the subject does not meet notability criteria. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed a peculiar thing....the Find a Grave listing is a perfect example of why we should not be using any user-submitted content like Find a Grave. The article Lewis Josselyn and Find A Grave both list his death date as March 14, 1964.[12]

  However, his obituary which was printed in the Carmel Pine Cone clearly shows the date of the newspaper itself as March 19, 1963. (look at the upper right hand corner of page 16, on the print copy of the newspaper, not what Internet archive states as the "publication date", which is probably a human error.)[13] How could there be an obit for his death from 1963 if he didn't die until 1964? Unless he time traveled. ;-)

  Also upon examining the photo of the grave stone itself on the Find a Grave listing, it shows his death date as 1961, two years before the obituary, and three years before the FInd A Grave text entry for his death date. It is possible that he died in 1961, but the obituary was not published by the Carmel Pine Cone until 1963 (possibly submitted by his family as an afterthought?) Either way we should not be using Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.com, Find-a-Grave, or other similar genealogy sites as reliable sources. They are fine for family memorial content, but they are not up to snuff for the encyclopedia.

  None of this has an effect on his notability or lack thereof, but rather that there is very little known of him, the primary sources are not accurate, and it's far too nebulous to state in the article what year he died. If he was an important artist there would be multiple reviews in art magazines, notable museum shows, an obit in a larger paper like the San Francisco Chronicle, and what we would normally find for a notable photographer. To compare him to Ansel Adams or Edward Weston has no merit. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am beginning to wonder if there were more than one Lewis Josselyn, and that the article, as well as some of the user-submitted ancestry sites have inadvertently mixed the two up? Just a thot..... Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you are correct, in error I missed the gravestone photo's listing his death in 1861. Also, his wife's name on the gravestone is "Augustine", not Jeane. So I think your thought that there is more than one Lewis Josely is correct, and the submission at Find-a-Gravehas mixed two different people. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly why Wikipedia editors should not interpret primary source on their own. Graywalls (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But in this instance, the secondary source is also problematic. It has two different dates:1963 is the year in the heading on pp.2-16, but the front page headers gives the date as March 19, 1964. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is pretty obvious that the date is March 19, 1964 as provided in (a) first published page, and (b) the publishing date of the Pine Cone article. The date is also verifiable based on the date of death, which is published on the California Death Index (source already provided on Talk page via government records). Greg Henderson (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator has numerous edit requests in talk page. Not that I think they really help, but just a FYI. I think we should just be aware, but not implement the ERs until AfD is wrapped up in order to not waste time so. Graywalls (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Notability is the condicio sine qua non, in the absence of which, additions or corrections would be a waste of time. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the above, the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines state that:

• • "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field:" In this case, Lewis Josselyn is widely recognized with the eduring historical record in field of photography for the nationally recognized Forest Theater.^[3]
  • In addition, according to the guidelines "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary:" Accordingly, Lewis Josselyn is listed in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists here. Based on the above, he is can be presumed notable. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot imagine upon what basis you consider a biography of Carmel and Berkeley artists to be a "country's standard national" biography. Seriously? It's hard not to consider claiming so an insult to our intelligence. Ravenswing 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I have included two criteria, his widely recognized contribution to photography. And the 2nd criteria based on the life and writing of Jennie V. Cannon, one of California’s more important female artists and on contemporary sources from the first half of the 20th century. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      That is not an answer to my statement. You claim that the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists constitute an an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. Defend it or retract it. (What Cannon has to do with anything, I can neither see, nor have you explained the same.) Ravenswing 23:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      The book, Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, Vol. 1, has detailed biographical information, not only about Lewis Josselyn, but about more than 200 other artists. Therefore, it considered a standard biographical WP:RS resource with WP:BASIC information. This biography is a published secondary source that is reliable, and independent of the subject. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, that is not a Dictionary of National Biography, that is a small regional compendium. There is a huge difference. Also, the fact that his widow donated his photos to a local library and a local private collection is not the same as having his work curated into a notable museum or national gallery collection - collections that are vetted by a curatorially trained art historians and by the museum's acquisitions board. Sorry. Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will, perhaps, forgive us for having some healthy skepticism over your assertions regarding proper sourcing, given the numerous COI and sourcing issues that led to your current indefinite block from editing in articlespace ... your connections to the subject of this AfD included. Ravenswing 01:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, Military, California, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Netherzone's analysis is persuasive. I commend to the keep proponents WP:SIGCOV, which restricts the applicability of sources as reliable to those providing "significant coverage to the subject." Namedrops are not sigcov.
  Beyond that, people claiming that the subject meets the "widely recognized contribution" criterion are ignoring the explanatory note, which holds "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians." No such coverage has been asserted or demonstrated. Photo captions are not sigcov. Ten photo captions just end up as 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 22:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm gonna say "keep". Even though most of the sources cited are California sources, Josselyn's work was published in quite a few books that are cited in the article and in the article's Talk page edit requests, and his photographs form the core of an important historical photo collection. BTW, an even more notable person is Pat Hathaway, who is cited in 18 Wikipedia articles so far. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was able to locate some of his photos published in a book about Carmel-by-the-Sea rather than artistic merit. Sometimes, it's about having having free photos, or affordable accessible photos. A great deal of Wikipedia editors are published photographers, under their Commons name. Why? Because magazines, newspapers, authors are writing about something and they're looking for photos that works out for their story and pretty much any relevant photos they can casually use will do, and per CC-BY-SA licensing, photographers get credited. This doesn't make them "notable published photographers". Graywalls (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Josselyn has a collective body of work in the mid 1920s to the mid 1940s with artist Jo Mora that served as fundamental points of reference for artist Jo Mora and his Pebble Beach studio recreated in the [Monterey History & Art Association Jo Mora exhibit https://www.mayohayeslibrary.org/uploads/2/5/3/9/25392173/vol_52_num_3_fall_2009.pdf]. He is also best known for his historic record in Collection of Historical Photographs photography for central and northern California. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to show that this photographer is notable. Posting a huge wall of comments isn't going to help keep this article if those comments are along the lines of "He is in the esteemed company of photographers from the Monterey Peninsula, including luminaries such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston." Notability is not inherited by living on the same peninsula. Elspea756 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AMOUNT comes to mind. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Josselyn has significant coverage in reliable sources here, and here, Photographs by Lewis Josselyn and here. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - James Perry, Executive Director of the Monterey County Historical Society, is curator of the Pat Hathaway collection of historical photos. He is excited about the recent 2021 gift from the Pat Hathaway collection that incldues the Lewis Josselyn's photos.^[1] Sheila Sobell of the Dialy Record wrote the article, Saving a Glimpse Of Old California and talks about Josselyn, who had come to the Monterey area in 1914, had some 5,000 5-by-7 negatives documenting its history. Included were images of Carmel Mission (and all other California Missions); the construction of Bixby Creek Bridge in 1932; Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast; and famous Carmel poet Robinson Jeffers, taken in 1929. Sobell goes on to quote Hathaway, "Photographers are the keepers of our history, but they seldom get acknowledgment."^[2] Greg Henderson (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  okay..? and... ? Graywalls (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For WP:BASIC, Josselyn has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources including numerous books, magazines, and newspapers regarding his historical photographs. For WP:ANYBIO Josselyn has been a recognized major contributor that is part of the enduring historical record in the field of photography (see above citations). Greg Henderson (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is where you lose me - someone who took photographs at a particular time, that were then later realised to be of local historical value, is a far stretch from someone who is a "recognised major contributor ... in the field of photography." That would require evidence from well outside his local neighbourhood to substantiate and I'm not seeing it. Melcous (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source below doesn't even mention Josselyn. The second source does, but again its major focus is Hathaway. I'm not sure these count as more than local coverage, but even if they do, that would be for Hathaway, not Josselyn. Melcous (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The two citations point to Josselyn's contribution to Monterey County Historical Society via Pat Hathaway. Josselyn is listed in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists in in Jennie V. Cannon's The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies." Her published art reviews appeared for decades in regional newspapers and her recognition of Josselyn is reliably covered as part of this review. Why would you want to delete a historical photographer? Have you even seen his works? They are amazing!^[3] Greg Henderson (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Erm. We do not have Wikipedia articles based on how "amazing" someone's pictures are. We have Wikipedia articles based on whether subjects meet the requirements of the GNG that they have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. We do get that you're a hardcore fan of this photographer's works, but that doesn't translate to him being notable. Ravenswing 02:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BASIC - Presumed notable if published in secondary sources:

  • Josselyn is covered in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists in in Jennie V. Cannon's The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies."^[4]
  • The Monterey History Art Association's collection, curated by Jo Mora, encompasses Josselyn's photographs spanning from the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s. During these two decades, Josselyn, a close family friend, documented the Moras, resulting in a substantial portion of Mora's artwork being preserved through his lens. Photographs within the collection feature Mora's Pebble Beach studio, the commemorative half-dollar created to mark the 75th anniversary of California statehood, and scenes from the Abalone League Theater.^[5]
  • He was the official photographer for the Forest Theater, a historic amphitheater in Carmel.^{[6]: p26 [7]}
  • He is listed as a America's Distinguished Artists, a national registry of historic artists.^[8]

  Greg Henderson (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That "America's Distinguished Artists" website just contains a link to the same Jennie V. Cannon local directory of Carmel artists that you have cited again and again to prove he meets BASIC. He does not, and that local directory is not the same as a National Dictionary of Biography. Anyone can send the ADA Website text or images to include. The fine print disclaimer found at the bottom of each "page" of the website does not provide a lot of confidence in the source: Links to sources of information outside of our web site are provided only as referrals for your further consideration. Please use due diligence in judging the quality of information contained in these and all other web sites. Information from linked sources may be inaccurate or out of date. TFAO neither recommends or endorses these referenced organizations. Although TFAO includes links to other web sites, it takes no responsibility for the content or information contained on those other sites, nor exerts any editorial or other control over them.. It's not a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The above link "Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies" is used as a citation for about 106 Wikipedia articles. Looks like a WP:RS to me:

  The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if this bio did meet WP:BASIC, the requirement for creative professionals, inclucing WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, specifies, Such a person is notable if:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
  3. 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); or
  4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

  No criterion above is met by this subject. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meeting WP:BASIC means presumed notable.

  WP:PHOTOGRAPHER is easy!

  • Important figure  Done Josselyn is known as an important figure in the area of photography for California missions, buildings, people, and the official photographer for the Forest Theater. He is listed in a biography for Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies.^[9][10][11]
  • Significant or well-known work or collective body of work  Done See Hathaway Photo Collection, and California Revealed.^[12][13]
  • Permanent collection  Done Josselyn's work can be found in the collections of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, the Monterey Peninsula Museum of Art, and the Hathaway Photo Collection.^[14][15]

  Greg Henderson (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg, just because you say a guideline is fulfilled by saying it is "Done" does not make it so. As someone who has edited in the Visual arts area for a decade, I can comfortably say you are misinterpreting this SNG guideline by a long shot.

  •  Not done An important figure in photography is someone like Ansel Adams who has had hundreds of exhibitions in notable museums, is the subject of multiple monographs, hundreds of reviews, he invented the Zone System, he won a Presidential Award of Freedom. Sales of his original prints go for $600,000 at auction, whereas Josselyn's widow had to give away Josselyn's prints. His (Adam's) work is taught in universities around the world. Adams is a house-hold name, and his photographs of California are known around the world. THAT is what an important figure in photography is; Josselyn's career doesn't even come close to that at all. That he is listed in a regional directory of artists has no merit, it is NOT a Dictionary of National Biography.

  •  Not done Just because a photographer's work is mentioned in a book about Carmel, California does not make it a "significant or well known work or collective body of work." There is ZERO critical or art historical scholarship about his work; just because he had a job photographing a local theater in Carmel does not mean it's an important body of work. Edweard Muybridge created a significant well known body of work; Timothy O'Sullivan created a significant and well known body of work. Josselyn did not. Your saying "but he did, he did" does not make it so.

  •  Not done The Hathaway Photo Collection is a regional person's private collection, many of the photographs - in particular Josselyn's - were donated. It is NOT the same as a curated museum or national gallery collection. Nor is it important like the collection of the International Center of Photography, or the Museum of Modern Art's photo collection or the Center for Creative Photography collection. The only reason why the Hathaway collection appears in searches on WP is because of photo credits, not because the collection itself is notable. Josselyn's work isn't even in the collections of the San Francisco Museum of Art, nor the Legion of Honor in San Francisco, nor the DeYoung Museum all if which are only a few miles North of Carmel. Why do you think that is? His work is in 3 local collections: one is a park, the second is a local museum in the neighboring town where a person donated the print (according to the museum's object notes), it was not acquired through a normal curatorial process, and the third one is the Hathaway collection where his widow donated his work.

  Does he pass WP:PHOTOGRAPHER? No. Does he pass WP:BASIC? No. Does he pass WP:GNG? No. Netherzone (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Given discussion and verifiable information, this subject meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER.1, 4b, 4c, and 4d (for 4d, in addition to above, seems to be featured in permanent collection of Art, Design & Architecture Museum). It also looks possible that WP:BASIC will be met, but still, this is a good example of a case where GNG could fail our readers. —siroχo 00:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Siroxo, could you please add a link to where he seems to be featured in permanent collection of Art, Design & Architecture Museum? They have a searchable online collection and when I search the entire collection for his name I come up with "Your search yielded no results". When I do an advanced search of just their Photography collection, I come up with "zero totals" meaning he's not in it. Even if he were, the museum is a small university gallery in the town of Goleta, California. Netherzone (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's what I found[14] —siroχo 04:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that a single photo does not meet any part of WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, criterion 4, which says, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Siroxo, thank you for taking the time to look for that. Here is the thing....the record is in the AD&AM (not a notable collection) but if you scroll down, the source clearly says it's actually in the collection of the Santa Barbara Community Arts Association, definitely not a notable collection per WP criteria. Netherzone (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me help out:

  • 3,800 images in the Lewis Josselyn collection at The Pat Hathaway Photo Collection, acquired in 2021 by the Monterey County Historical Library.
  • Represented at the Monterey Museum of Art
  • Josselyn pictures of the Paul Flanders Mansion, now poart of the San Francisco National Historical Park
  • Collection from the California Revealed
  • Significant Josselyn photographic collection at the Harrison Memorial Library (Carmel Public Library)

  Greg Henderson (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg Henderson, I appreciate your efforts to help. In the list of sources above, howere, 4 out of 5 are photos available at local libraries, and the 13 "picturs of the Paul Flanders Mansion" appear in an application for the mantson's National Register of Historic Places Registration form. None of these sources qualify as either a significant monument, a substantial part of a significant exhibition, covered by significant critical attention, or in notable galleries or museums. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we are reaching consensus here. We have several keeps and several deletes. Although his name may not be as familiar as figures like Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, or Mathew Brady. Josselyn's notability is more regionally focused, with his work holding historical and artistic significance in the context of the Western United States. His legacy is more pronounced based on the historical importance of his images. His 3,800 images in the Lewis Josselyn collection at The Pat Hathaway Photo Collection, acquired in 2021 by the Monterey County Historical Library is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't require unanimous agreement. AfD consensus won't be read by involved parties in discussion for a good reason. Graywalls (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question was this NON-ADMIN relist above at 7 days and two hours appropriate? Guidelines say it's supposed to run for 168 hours and admins obviously can't get to it immediately, so I feel a non-admin jumping-in and relisting mere two hours past the required duration is unduly hastily non-admin action. Can't say I've encountered this before. Graywalls (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not something I can say I've ever seen people other than admins doing. Pilaz (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me as well, esp. since it is a fairly new editor with a low edit count who has even closed deletion discussions that were "close calls", which is not really best practice for a non-admin. Netherzone (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the user who did this closure had taken it upon themselves to administer at least two AfDs prior to having been listed for the required 168 hour. If it is seen as an acceptable practice for non-admins to relist what they feel in their personal opinion as a close call and wants to buy more time, they'd stand aside and relist at 168 hours and one minute before there's a chance for an admin to render a reading. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that beyond anything else, let's review. Greghenderson2006's filibustering aside, he's under a current indefinite TBAN from editing articlespace due to an inability to stay clear where there's a COI: something we've seen in spades here. (A look at his talk page also reveals that before the block, he had already had his autopatrolled right pulled, and there are multiple questions about him playing fast and loose with sourcing.) Any reasonable closer would discount his arguments at the least, and that leaves a strong consensus of eight editors advocating deletion against two advocating keeping. This is one of the more egregious "what the pluperfect hell?" relistings I've ever seen, and it should be promptly overturned. Ravenswing 02:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Parobiec[edit]

Łukasz Parobiec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet GNG, WP:NMMA or WP:NKICK. Nswix (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Poland. Nswix (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for MMA and or kickboxing. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't find significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found listings in databases and fight results. The Polish WP has a lot of sources, but they all just seem to be fight results. His highest MMA ranking ever was 141st according to fightmatrix.com and even with his win for a vacant ISKA title, neither he nor his opponent was ranked in the top 10 in kickboxing [15]. Papaursa (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is being an "ISKA world champion" not enough? pl:Łukasz Parobiec appears to have more footnotes (also I note Papaursa did not find them useful, and neither did I; the best one - from general Polish sporet portal, not MMA nichje sites is [16], from sport.pl, but it's just a fight result press blurb, twitter-lenght pretty much...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when some kickboxing titles presumed WP notability, but that's now true only for Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champions. Otherwise a top 10 world ranking is needed. Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 23:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjoy Paul[edit]

Sanjoy Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. WP:REFBOMB. Kadı Message 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, India, and United States of America. Kadı Message 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: look like WP:REFBOMB. nd fails in WP:GNG Worldiswide (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This Bell Labs scientist meets the criteria of WP:NPROF, which also applies to research scientists in industry, since he was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2004 for "contributions to the design and development of communication network protocols". Kadı, it helps in these cases to look at the history of the article. It is now in poor shape due to August changes by an IP editor. this version is much better and I would suggest reverting to it and improving it from there. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As StarryGrandma writes, meets WP:PROF as Fellow of the IEEE. Citation profile looks healthy too [17]. Also agree that reverting to the pre-IP version would be an improvement. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the IEEE Fellow and WP:PROF#C3, which explicitly cites IEEE Fellow as an example of something that passes that criterion. He also passes #C1 with plenty of highly-cited publications [18]. Per the discussion above, I have reverted to the suggested version (except for keeping the AfD notice in place). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C3 and WP:PROF#C1 which he both passes. --hroest 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A classic pass of WP:PROF#C3, which would be enough by itself, and WP:PROF#C1 is also met. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Munjariya[edit]

Rahul Munjariya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No Reliable sources, only PR stuff Worldiswide (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India, ABP News are just PR Stuff?! They are credible cite-worthy news sources, PR stuff or not, how can you deny the relevance of these publications which are supporting the work this person has done? Paperpopscissors (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sourcebot has all the sources used in the article as yellow, so iffy. It's a delete, based on the flowery language used in sources; this [19] is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 23:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trina Davis[edit]

Trina Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant coverage can be found, notably this, this, and more. Clearly a significant figure in Fiji football and women's football as a whole for being the first female professional from her country. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage presented above by Paul Vaurie is enough to meet GNG for me. Although some of the second source is an interview, there is also plenty of independent prose. This source also points to further coverage "Besides being a fan favorite at matches, she was featured in multiple Fijian publications, did a photoshoot for Fiji soccer sponsor Vodafone and modeled for local active wear company, Bolalicious." MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 20:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oceania and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 04:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaara Vineet[edit]

Zaara Vineet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

COI-like article. See the promotional tone. The reason for deletion is that other than Doctor, she has no multiple notable roles. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7.

She did not host Super Moms, her mom Archana Chandhoke did. See the full episode here. Standing next to your mother in the same color clothing without speaking is not hosting. Why not delete or redirect to Archana Chandhoke?

P. S. Almost all of the sources are just pictures of her. DareshMohan (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Due to the quantity of citations, could someone supports keeping this article please identify the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is all in articles about her mother. I don't a redirect as suggested would be helpful, as she's barely mentioned in articles about the show. Not enough notability at this time, perhaps TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst RPG[edit]

Amethyst RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting. PepperBeast (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is Kobold Press an RS? If so, that's one review... but that's all I see. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens, Kobold Press is a company run by Wolfgang Baur, so for RPGs I'd say yes. BOZ (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings unless sources are found to estabilish stand-alone notability. Ping me in that case and I'll be happy to revisit my my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 30 August 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, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. The award isn't enough and the GNG doesn't seem to be met, but there is still something here and a place to merge to, so... Hobit (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting ranges in the United States[edit]

Shooting ranges in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not believe this article is notable per GNG. At point of creation, it was very much a guide. It developed into a directory of ranges (WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Since "Cleanup", it now largely continues to duplicate the content of Shooting range, or else provides advice on costs and etiquette (WP:NOTAGUIDE). Whilst mindful that Content does not determine Notability, I see no evidence that this topic is actually notable or distinct from the main article. What is distinct about Shooting Ranges in the United States compared with anywhere else? Since 2006, no one has found a US-specific angle to build the article around. I would propose MERGING, but I don't think there's anything in there worth adding to the Shooting range article. The article has had Multiple Issues flagged since 2014, and aside from the fact that nobody has fixed them, I'm honestly not sure it is possible to fix them - because the topic isn't notable. Consequently it has become a dusty corner full of unreferenced pearls of wisdom and anecdotal best practice. There are certainly notable ranges within the US (which deserve their own article, and can be grouped in "Category:Shooting Ranges in the United States"), but I do not believe that the general case of "Shooting Ranges in the United States is distinct or notable in its own right, or can be usefully written about in an encyclopaedic fashion. Hemmers (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Much of the deleted content can be reintegrated back into the article. You deleted much of the content that made it relevant to the US, then claimed it was no longer relevant. Its a relevant split as the entire shooting range article would be filled with US relevant info. Also the cost of shooting, renting firearms vs bringing your own, your own does make it relevant to the US and is a big factor, that isn't a guide thing. That's encyclopedic information.DarmaniLink (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  changed my mind on the costs section, that bit was unsalvageable. The rest of the article should however stand, as a split for the shooting range article. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously I would gently disagree, although I'm glad to see we have consensus on the issues over "Cost of Shooting" which is a ludicrously unverifiable section when referring to the entire USA! If I see a dollar sign anywhere in the article, I'm probably going to delete it. It's inherently unrepresentative of the US as a whole, will age horribly with inflation and is probably incompatible with WP:NOTAGUIDE (and this is assuming it's referenced to begin with).

  But more broadly I don't see how sections such as:

  The largest problem currently with outdoor ranges is the lack of sufficient area behind and beside the impact berms. This area, usually called the Surface Danger Zone (SDZ), is a fan-shaped area that extends lengthwise to the ultimate ballistic distance of the round fired. Outdoor ranges often use baffles to contain fired rounds within the range, and, with proper design can reduce the surface danger zone area. Guidelines for surface danger zones vary widely.

  Have anything to do with Shooting in the United States. Baffles are common to ranges globally. Range design is constrained by physics and ballistics - these are not distinguishing features which make US Ranges special. And of course it's entirely uncited. Rinse and repeat for... most of the article.

  I would also note with reference to this edit message:

  "this isn't promo unless you think there's a US gun range conspiracy run by a $5B range chain in texas to mom and pops back alley shack where you shoot bottles".

  I don't think there is a conspiracy. I think the problem is that this article does not address a notable topic and is therefore looking for a gap to fill. Consequently, every mom-and-pop shop feels like they want to stick in their little bit of local wisdom. Which is why the content is of a very poor standard, and almost entirely unreferenced. Lines such as "to help one to easily learn use of any rental firearm in just a few minutes." read like a promotion (WP:ADVOCACY), even if they're not advertising a specific business or location. Such language is advocating for the concept of rental ranges generally and advertising their services. Which is not encyclopaedic. Hemmers (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The wording could definitely be improved as it seems verbatum from a gun range's pamphlet, but I wouldn't say its conceptually advocacy or promo. Lets continue this on the talk page so we don't clog this DarmaniLink (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - To be clear, I really, really don't like this subject or this article. The Anglosphere's recent obsession/lovefest with firearms is a disease. That said, the article's main problem is lack of RS and that, at least, can be remedied. American English has an entire universe of RS about shooting ranges. Sources and a thorough rewrite leaves an encyclopaedic article that enhances Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankyou for your feedback! I agree about the obsession. But the presence of American English RS doesn’t justify a US-specific article though? Unless they cover something specific and unique to Shooting ranges in the United States. Things like range design are founded in ballistics and physics. Which are literally universal. I’m not seeing anything “us-specific” that justifies a US article. Any American English RS about shooting ranges is likely to apply equally to French or Indian ranges. Which is emphasised by the reaction to this AfD, which has been to try and shoehorn in generalised information about gun laws in California/US states (which doesn’t even relate directly to ranges). No one seems to be able to find a notable US-specific angle or explain what value this article could or should provide over and above the basic Shooting range article. Hemmers (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Anglosphere"? This is a USA phenomenon. Other anglophone countries -- Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ... -- don't have the obsession with guns that Americans have. It's not so "recent", either. Anyway, delete: the article is of no interest to people outside the USA. Athel cb (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is so much factually wrong with that comment, but let's start with the idea that US-focused articles are somehow bad. There is no policy that I know of that discourages US-specific articles opposed to those specific to other counties. Articles about Shooting ranges in Norway and Switzerland are perfect encyclopaedic, so why can't this one be improved just as easily? On the idea that the article is of no interest to people outside the USA, we have around a hundred-thousand articles on CDPs, a concept of a "locale" so small that the subject doesn't even qualify as a village. With US gun madness on the global news about once a week, you think that people are more interested in Bartlett, Iowa than in US gun ranges? Now, as for the idea that gun obsession in the Anglosphere is a USA phenomenon, you might want to read the news outside the US and UK. Oh, Canada has the fourth highest rate of gun ownership on the planet. Australia would still be giving the US a run for its money if it hadn't been for Port Arthur. If we exclude Latin American countries, South Africa currently has the third highest gun-death rate in the world, and the leader is Eswatini (also part of the Anglosphere)^article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Didn't think I'd ever see an article about America and guns nominated for deletion in part because there's nothing special about the subject in this country. In addition to research about ranges in relation to the larger subject of simply guns in the US, there are articles about the culture of shooting ranges, biases in shooting ranges, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See, this here is the hurdle that I'm struggling to get past. People are saying "ah well, it's adjacent to firearms in the US, and must therefore be notable because guns and america". But there's no evidence of that. Shooting culture and politics is already well covered - there's an article for "Gun laws in <state>" for basically every US state. Plus summary articles like Gun politics in the United States, Gun law in the United States or Gun laws in the United States by state. But a shooting range is a geographical place or amenity. Put aside the politics... what is unique about shooting ranges in the US? Nada (other than being quite a lot of them). There are indoor 25m ranges and 1000yard outdoor ranges. There are 10metre airgun ranges. These are similar to ranges you will find around the world. What is so distinct about a 10m ISSF-compliant airgun range in the US that makes it sufficiently different from one in Germany, the UK or China that those distinctions meet GNG? Or a 25m pistol range? It's like having an article "9mm ammunition in the United States".

  You raise an interesting point on broader culture... but... there's an article for that (Gun culture in the United States). Likewise anti-muslim biases in US shooting ranges is extremely notable... but is really just a very specific case of Racism in the United States and/or Islamophobia in the United States.

  Someone will probably come along and accuse me of bludgeoning the conversation in a bit. But for all the people saying it's "obviously GNG", nobody seems able to add good, quality encyclopaedic content that isn't a guide or a list of businesses! Hemmers (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The general consensus is "it's notable, but the current state of the article sucks." It's not that a lot of people are "not able", its "not want". Not everyone spends 40 hours a week editing wikipedia and frankly, i'm not passionate enough about guns, nor do i have the time anymore, to overhaul the article. Either way, the linked sources are about american shooting ranges. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis covering the subject of shooting ranges in the USA please as this is otherwise a discussion devoid of strong policy based argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've created a source table that Spartaz suggested. It is based on the current sourcing of the article. There isn't much to grasp here, though I'm sure there are more reliable sources our there. Conyo14 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://damagefactory.com/yes-foreign-nationals-may-rent-and-shoot-guns/	Primary source of a shooting range	? no consistent reliable sources say much about this particular location, but it does give an official gov't source	Merely mentions laws regarding rights of foreign nationals	✘ No
http://nrahuntersrights.org/PlacestoShoot.aspx	?	unsecured and unregistered site	Domain page	✘ No
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=30515.&lawCode=PEN			WP:ROUTINE	✘ No
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2009/05/18/firingrange/	WP:BLOG			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful for those editors arguing for a Keep to review the source table analysis and respond to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source table. I won't wade into the gun debate. The USA literally has thousands of shooting ranges, and what's given seems to be no different than shooting ranges elsewhere. You bet your Colt 45 ranges here in Canada are 99% similar to what's described here. Other than being in the USA, I see no reason to have an article about American gun ranges; other than the sheer number of them, I can't see a difference between a range in Canada, Mexico, or the US (to limit ourselves to North America for the source of example). Safety concerns, yes. Most are part of a gun club. So you take out the American bits in the article, and this is just an article about shooting ranges. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to table as requested:The topic itself falls under general notability but the article, in its current state, sucks and needs improvement. That has been my stance the whole time. There's already precedent in Shooting ranges in Switzerland Shooting ranges in Norway to have a nation specific shooting range article.

Currently horrible sourcing and a poorly written article going back to like 2006 doesnt mean the topic itself isn't notable. Rhododendrites posted two links about american specific shooting ranges. here and here.

There's a ton of news articles and papers on american specific shooting ranges, or which contain a heavy focus on them. This needs to be updated by someone with the time to overhaul it. I do not fall under this catagory, otherwise I would.

Notable topic, bad article. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made another source table to analyze Rhododentrite's sources. Kinda wish someone could provide an example of an academic source, then I could !vote. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Rhododentrites additional sources analysis by Conyo14 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) :[reply]

They talk about gun ranges, yes, but don't differentiate them from any other gun ranges around the world, I think that's the issue. The article wants to talk about it, but only mentions basic facts that apply to any gun range, anywhere. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. The NPR article is literally talking about gun ranges in America. The NY Times article is talking about Muslim bias about guns, in the US. Conyo14 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the NPR piece is is about US ranges, and the NYT is as well. The question from a notability standard, though, is whether either of them makes US shooting ranges somehow uniquely notable as opposed to shooting ranges everywhere else. The NYT piece is more about the treatment of Muslims in the US, using shooting ranges as the frame. It's not an invalid point, but it is certainly the weaker of the arguments here. The NPR piece is harder to dismiss. Like DarmaniLink, I still feel that the problem here is the sourcing, not the subject. I have to admit, though, that Oaktree b and Hemmers's points are making it a much more difficult decision. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I cannot decide whether this article should be kept or deleted. I'm more for a no consensus on this. Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170391799/are-shooting-ranges-the-new-bowling-alleys	NPR	NPR	Literally about gun ranges	✔ Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/07/us/muslim-gun-owners-america.html	A couple of interviews, but don't speak for the majority of owners	NY Times	~ Mostly routine mentions about gun stores and Muslim bias, not much on the ranges themselves, but still partial.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 04:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rita De Crescenzo[edit]

Rita De Crescenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although I am the creator of the page, months later I realize that the article most likely has low encyclopedic relevance. The person in question has released various songs but only through YouTube, there is nothing on the most popular streaming platforms. They’re also songs released digitally only, and independently, without a record label. Finally, the person in question is actually a TikToker, whose relevance usually goes only to the most prominent characters. Yeagvr (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Thanks to the nominator/creator for being honest. It appears that Ms. De Crescenzo attempted to start a new career as an influencer and social media singer at age 40, and good luck to her but she has not yet been noticed by the reliable entertainment media. The sources covering her (in Italian) are clearly self-promotional vanity sites or gossip rags that comment un-informatively on passing social media trends. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 03:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Donohue[edit]

Denis Donohue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable standup comic. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found for this person; all are hits on a Raytheon executive. Appearing on the Howard Stern show and the like are name drops. He appears to be active since the late 90s, yet has no critical attention. Appears to be just a working comedian. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Lighthouse (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry E. Smith[edit]

Larry E. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP (suspect but cannot definitively prove WP:AUTOBIO) of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing notability criteria for musicians. The notability claim here is of the "musician notable as member of band" variety, which is not automatic grounds for a standalone biographical article as a separate topic from the band -- he would have to be shown to pass WP:GNG as an individual for some reason besides the band (e.g. going on to a solo career), which this article is failing to demonstrate: it's referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and cites absolutely no GNG building media coverage about him whatsoever.
It also warrants note that this existed as a redirect to the band until yesterday, when it got converted into this -- I would ordinarily just redirect him back to the band and walk away, but I already did that once and then it got revert-warred back to this a few minutes later, so unfortunately escalation is necessary.
The article just isn't saying anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of much, much better sourcing than just the band's own self-published website and discogs.com directory listings. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lighthouse (band): They're a musician that doesn't have a claim to notability outside of the band. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 22:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement[edit]

Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per request by User:175.107.224.105: No proof of notability of this article, let alone sustained coverage. Had only unreliable references which do not even mention the subject, which were cleaned up by me UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any material which can be salvaged such as the sole ref to History of Gilgit-Baltistan#Self-governing status and present-day Gilgit Baltistan. - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed my earlier vote per what Jahaza wrote below. - Indefensible (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure what's going on here, but the IP user removed material that was not, in fact, unreliable, merely no longer available via web or which per WP:RS Noticeboard had "additional considerations apply" while claiming that the source had been "blacklisted," which it hadn't.[20]. There are other sources that are not included in the article:[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Some of these are passing mentions, but I think it's enough to confirm that this group really does exist. Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources need to be dug up from Archive, for instance, the initiator thought that the first source no longer existed/or was too old, I found it in Archive.org and fixed it. Jahaza (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza My apologies for removal of those refs, I was not aware of the concept of link rot and thought refs can be removed as I could not see relevant content. (Though the ANI source I removed is still "deprecated" if not "blacklisted" per the link you showed me, which is what I meant actually). Modifying my argument above per new info that the article lacks sustained coverage as evidence by the sources which are all either unreliable, passing mentions or decades old hence fails the GNG policy. It is better off merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.224.105 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the opinion piece sources you've restored as relevant because it was written by the party chairman would probably be useful if an article existed on the chairman, I removed it here to declutter the article as the political entity (GBUM) was not even mentioned in it. Just noting it here for the afd reviewers.175.107.224.105 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're really familiar enough with our policies or with Wikipedia editing to make these judgments. You've stated that it was a hoax[29], or that the sources were too old (but see WP:NTEMP), or that sources didn't contain mention of the topic (some of which just had to be recovered via Archive.org), or that there is no sustained coverage (which in practice contradicts your statement that the sources are too old). Jahaza (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I had already modified my comment about the "hoax" part, that is an old revision. Not sure why you're looking too much into it, but understand why I might have left a "confused" impression on my part by not clearing things up properly by including diffs. Here's a diff I was refering to, the content of which I removed (now reverted) because it didnot even mention the political entity [30]. The "too old sources" argument is just ONE argument for lack of evidence of sustained coverage, because the only reliable (independent) sources that exist are passing mentions of the party, unreliable partisan sources/opinion pieces cannot be used to establish notability as stated under the notability guidelines. Especially not ANI. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A detailed analysis by me for all the sources used in the article and given above by Jahaza. The ones listed in the vote above are all passing mention sources, and cannot be used to establish notability.

1). Ref 3 [31], Ref 4 [32], & Ref 5 (an open access journal) [33] passing mention sources, not enough to establish notability as a standalone article. 2). Ref 7 [34], Ref 8 [35] & Ref 9 [36]. Again, another series of passing mention low quality Indian news sources, all of which are ridden with heavily partisan language. 3) Ref 1 [37] This is the only source you've listed which is focused on the party, but again dubious looking partisan source/propaganda outlet for the Indian government , it is not usable as a WP:RS as it not independent.

An analysis for the sources listed in the article.

4). Jahaza states that ANI as a source is usable since "additional considerations apply" "[38]. But here it explicitly mentions that "the news agency's coverage of events and people related to Indian domestic and FOREIGN politics, in particular, is WP:QUESTIONABLE" i.e. its use as a "reliable" source doesn't apply to this article. 5) Passing mention news sources used to bloat the article which do not even mention GBUM, but just discusses some other "4th political party" which existed. [39] and this source [40] which also doesn't mention GBUM. 6). [41] a letter written by the party itself to the Pakistani prime minister. Primary source. 7) Lastly, this book [42] is also passing mention.

As the notability guidelines state, atleast a couple independent sources with evidence of significant coverage are required to pass WP:GNG, which this article does not have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.224.105 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you previously edited in this topic area under a different account? Jahaza (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An oddly inappropriate thing to ask out of nowhere in the middle of an afd. Is there something wrong with my edits/the arguments I have presented or not having a registered account? You can leave a message on my talk page. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an inappropriate question at all. Being able to review an editor's contribution as part of an AfD conversation isn't unreasonable, and you appear to have excellent info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but off topic for an afd. My IP address contributions disappear after a few weeks/months, which is completely out of my control just to let you two know. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (with a bias toward Keep). This would make an excellent section in Gilgit-Baltistan, possibly called something like "Independence Movement" that could also include other like-minded parties if such exist. If that is not seen as viable by all editors, I lean toward a !vote of Keep. It teeters on the edge of GNG as a largely regional group, but there are five sources ranging from 2003 to 2012 which meets SIGCOV and SUSTAIN within that narrow context. Cheers Last1in (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  History of Gilgit-Baltistan#Self-governing status and present-day Gilgit Baltistan See here regarding the politics of that region. This autonomist political party is already mentioned. Inline with the what all the relevant sources say if you go through them, the rest being bloat material. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient coverage from reliable sources. Non notable movement. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The cited sources either don't mention the subject or are from Indian sites which are not neutral on the issue. Even if such movement exists, it is not notable yet. Insight 3 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 22:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Nakitsas[edit]

Ioannis Nakitsas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem WP:NOTABLE to me. No English-language results in Google Scholar [43] [44] or Google Books [45] [46]. One single Google Scholar result using both Greek spellings [47] [48] and it's just a mention of him without discussion, while both Greek spellings give no Google Books results [49] [50].

This individual is mostly mentioned in Greek-language non-academic websites regarding the Macedonian Struggle. I'm familiarized with this topic. It was a violent confrontation between several ethnic groups to achieve supremacy within the weakened Ottoman Empire. It's common in the historical narrative of the peoples that participated on it to commemorate lots of names of fallen fighters, but few of them are notable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is part of a larger series of articles about people who participated in the Macedonian Struggle and it was, like usual, part of the Greek and Bulgarian Wikipedias before an English version was written. It's expected for the sources to be in Balkan languages because this is an area in which Balkan language-speakers are interested. There is no requirement for every article on Wikipedia to have significant English language coverage, just to be covered by secondary sources in any language, and from my experience many articles on the platform are in a similar situation to this one regarding English-language coverage.

The specific individual is mentioned in pretty much all the usual publications related to the Macedonian Stuggle, as can seen from the articles references, you needn't have looked for references online from scratch. The Society for Macedonian Studies for example is a fairly academic institution that cooperates with the University of Thessaloniki. --Antondimak (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of problematic articles of this topic area in Bulgarian Wikipedia. Generally they're written by the same person and cite the same general sources. They have WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH problems such as assigning ethnicites to individuals without any source. In Bulgarian Wikipedia Nakitsas is said to be not a Greek but an Aromanian. Also, there's over 700 articles of Greeks during the Macedonian Struggle in Bulgarian Wikipedia [51]. I don't think we even have 100 articles here for Greek soldiers in a more famous and researched conflict like for example World War II. It should ring some bells.

I did not imply English-language coverage of an individual is necessary for notability, I just wanted to note Nakitsas is not discussed at all in English-language academia.

I also want to note the quality of the sources. Reference 4 is a blog and reference 1 does not mention Nakitsas. Reference 2 and 3 do not have links so verification becomes harder and they anyway cite one single sentence, which just says where he was born and that he was a guerrilla fighter in the Balkans, pretty common and unspecial for biographies of this topic area. Collaboration with Georgios Tsontos, seemingly a perfectly notable individual, could increase Nakitsas' notability but it can definitively not be the single thing carrying the article. I should also note that reference 3 seems like a repositery or encyclopedia of a kind. It probably does not discuss Nakitsas in depth. Passing mentions in usual general sources regarding a topic is not enough. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect unless reliable sources that give him significant coverage are found. The last citation is a blog, the first is a ~200 page document that doesn't contain his name, and the third is a self-described "Yearbook of Fighters of the Macedonian Struggle"—a database, whether that's physical or virtual. The second may be useful, but one source does not confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To what target article could this page title be Redirected to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be redirected. The only potential target would be Macedonian Struggle and I find a redirect of an individual into the article of a conflict as improper. Plus Nakitsas is not discussed there so the redirect would have justification for deletion anyway. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Two "keep" arguments are entirely in regards to things other than this, and so are not relevant to whether or not this article should be retained. The remaining valid "keep" argument was even stated by its writer as "weak", so the consensus here is that this is not a reasonably maintainable subject given its inherent subjectivity. There were suggestions of an article on the topic, rather than a list, and this seemed to attract some substantial interest, so that may be something to consider. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye[edit]

List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable fancruft trivia list. There’s probably something notable here but “list of frequent targets of parody ain’t it. What’s next? List of frequent targets of parody by Mad magazine? By SNL? The Onion? Homestar Runner? Dronebogus (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Literature. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saturday Night Live? Have you seen that? Stuff like whole categories of Saturday Night Live catchphrases‎. This is just another WP:NOTAMERICAN nomination, you seem to have done a bunch of those today. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per concurrent discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#XfD ban proposal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye. Deletion is almost certainly off the table for this specific AfD, given recent history here. —siroχo 08:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – not sure why this has attracted less interest than the three related AfDs, but none of the sources in the article discuss these people and organisations as a group, nor is the group at all well-defined, nor is the article well-sourced. For Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Recurring jokes in Private Eye it's been possible to look for sources, but for this one I'm not sure what I'd even search for. Nothing salvageable here as far as I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arms & Hearts (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no opinion of this publication, and have not examined the other concurrent AfDs; but this one is suffering from a lack of participation, so I thought I'd investigate this one. There is extensive literature on the topic of parody in Private Eye; as such an article about Parody in Private Eye is probably viable. However, this list has impossible inclusion criteria. I don't see any sources making such a list; so then who determines "frequently"? Indeed who determines what figures were parodied at all? The obvious ones are obvious, but I have no doubt that there are innumerable parodies picked up on by the audience that no secondary source has ever commented on. Siroxo, I'm a little surprised at your !vote here; deletion is indeed off the table at some of the other AfDs, but there's no basis in policy to treat all related Private Eye AfDs the same, given that the articles have entirely different scopes. The IP vote above should be disregarded entirely, as it has nothing to say about the need and viability of the article under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's more about the context surrounding the discussions. I agree that the inclusion criteria on this one are both too broad and too specific at the same time, and your suggestion of Parody in Private Eye is a very good one which I support. However, I generally am not comfortable moving forward with deletion on AFDs where I view the risk of violating pillar 3 or 4 in the nomination as higher than the risk of violating pillar 1 or 2.

  As an editor who had taken long breaks, I'm honestly really happy with the consensus that developed around AFDs over the past several years. Even if good faith, I don't think this nomination was made in the spirit of existing AFD consensus, and I think the discussions surrounding it have uncovered that. —siroχo 17:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Siroxo: I don't necessarily disagree that this group of AfDs, and quite a few nominations in general, are come too soon; in that they don't begin with the question of "what should we do with this content?" which is really a talk page discussion that needs to account for the broader topic, and instead jump to "is the article as framed notable?" However, I really don't like it when broader AfD conduct issues slip into specific discussions, because it makes those discussions nearly worthless (in my opinion) without at all resolving the broader issue, because this isn't a forum that can do that. The patterns visible in the endless sports bio AfDs are a perfect example, though these have gotten better since NSPORTS was changed. All of which is to say; I feel strongly each article at AfD should be treated on its merits, regardless of the approach taken by the nominator, and I don't think we're doing that here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally agree with what you're saying, but I think my take on it is a little different. In my personal view, AfD norms reflect the 5 pillars pretty well. I know the pillars are intentionally not rigid, but I'll try to summarize my thoughts here. The substance of discussions do tend to focus primarily on pillar 1 (generally N or NOT) with a big chunk of pillar 2 (V, NPOV are big ones) and occasional pillar 5/IAR. So, in my view, nominations do need a special focus on pillars 3 and 4 (BEFORE, ATD) -- and yes, the occasional IAR nomination is ok. We know that despite our best intentions, we often increase the heat when articles are rightly deleted, and respecting both pillars 3 and especially 4 is the path toward improving that situation. So, that's why I sit where I do on this current AfD.

  To your note regarding sports bios, honestly, I really appreciate the way the folks who regularly nominate articles that don't meet NSPORTS handle it. It's very respectful of pillars 3 and 4, allowing for the discussion to easily focus on pillars 1 and 2. I'd say they have a correctly high deletion rate due to that. —siroχo 17:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree about the applicability to specific AfDs, but can respect that position, thank you for clarifying. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems rather trivial, but I'm not sure. Sources are ok, but they talk minimally about this. There aren't extensive sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and tag for cleanup. The lack of sourcing for many of the entries is concerning. Ideally it should be possible to find multiple independent reliable sources for any item that actually belongs on this list. I don't really see a clear conceptual distinction between this and Recurring jokes in Private Eye ("list of targets of recurring jokes" doesn't seem usefully distinct from "list of recurring jokes"), so I am inclined to think that the same arguments regarding NLIST would apply here. And in general, the topic of "Private Eye making fun of people in a frequently recurring and in-jokey sort of way" is sufficiently well-attested that I don't think that NLIST has a lot of teeth. By the same token, it seems to me that merging these two lists might lead to better coverage overall. But executing that merge would require considerable work and familiarity with the topic (which I lack), so for the time being I'd be inclined to tag it and move on. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 04:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Kalanzi Kachapizo[edit]

Leila Kalanzi Kachapizo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not meeting NACTOR, poor sources and no notability. Mozzcircuit (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, Television, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Karnataka ^talk 21:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in Gnews, literally nothing. Sources used in the article aren't reliable or barely so per sourcebot. I can't find mention of this person. I swear we've seen an article about a hairstylist actress recently in AfD, if not his very person... Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 22:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X Country[edit]

X Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough secondary coverage for this defunct satellite radio channel to warrant a standalone article. No opposition for a redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable radio station. The coverage also does not seem to be significant. Redirecting the article to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels is pointless. FlutterDash344 (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Jilani Manzari[edit]

Gulam Jilani Manzari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see significant coverage in independent sources. Also, some of the articles don't even seem to mention him. Kk.urban (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, Islam, Internet, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Kk.urban (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 04:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Golden[edit]

Andrew K. Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO. None of the sources provide independent significant coverage on subject. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Finance. Imcdc Contact 09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 04:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Daniel[edit]

David S. Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO. References are press releases, non-independent interviews and info from alumni school. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Imcdc Contact 09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 23:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MV Kaie[edit]

MV Kaie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this ship in secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Estonia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom --Blythd920wkw (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote struck by — Trey Maturin™ 14:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No news or book results for MV Kaie or Vessel Kaie, Other than the usual "Details and current position" results I'm not able to find anything on this ship, No evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzSaw[edit]

BuzzSaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A lack of secondary coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV for this defunct satellite radio and television channel. Someone capitalized incorrectly on the title of the subject (s should be lowercase), so I oppose a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I presume the miscapitalization here is because the primary topic for buzzsaw is as a redirect to circular saw; the correct solution would be to rename the article back to its original title of Buzzsaw (Sirius) (it was moved without discussion by a (long-since-blocked) user who asserted that the "s" was capitalized later on, but I can't find any proof of that), but the lack of notability probably renders that moot. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3-Demon[edit]

3-Demon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability - sole sources on article is a MobyGames listing, a playable version of the game itself on Archive.org, and a mention of the game in an ad for shareware, nothing demonstrating notability. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing the game on Archive.org (largely getting results for an Amiga 3D model program of the same name) or Google. Article was previously deleted by PROD. Waxworker (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Could not find sources in a google search to prove notability. Lightoil (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found this, but as nom said, most hits are for an Amiga design program that is unquestionably notable and should probably exist here instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found nothing on Google or Newspapers.com. Timur9008 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IceWall SSO[edit]

IceWall SSO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Not seeing WP:GNG, but we have WP:V on this via Google books search results[52], so WP:ATD-M is ideal. —siroχo 09:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge there is not enough information to warrant a standalone article. Partofthemachine (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage[edit]

The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This has been repeatedly reverted to an unsourced plot-only article. Unable to find sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Redirect to Five Find-Outers is my recommendation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We have to improve the article by Adding citations and sources. If we don't find any citations or sources we can't just delete or redirect any article. We need to improve it. There are some other articles which don't have sources and citations but it has not been redirected or deleted. We can't just delete or redirect anything if citations are not available or added. DitorWiki (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. I can’t find any in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Editors can’t just create articles in the hope that someone else will find some sources eventually. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or draftify) per nomination. The series article Five Find-Outers, and all of the articles for the books in that series, are in a poor state. None are properly sourced, with a Blyton Society link if you're lucky. In fact, most of the articles linked from Enid Blyton bibliography are unsourced, and would struggle to pass WP:NBOOK.

Blyton was the R. L. Stine of the early 20th. She churned out 762 books over 48 years (about 16 a year average), many of which were wildly popular then and still sell today. So the series are probably notable enough for their own articles, but it's tough to make a case under WP:NBOOK or even WP:GNG for all 762. I'd suggest a redirect of all of the Five Find-Outers articles, and an improvement of the series article. Wikishovel (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or weak delete per WP:NBOOK and WP:Wikipedia is not Fandom. Give the author the chance to improve the article at least to Five Find-Outers level, maybe then it can pass although I doubt that FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Sheridan, Greg (2023-04-05). "Damn the politically correct censors of great art and literature". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

     The article notes: "A distinctive joy of literature is unexpectedly finding yourself in a character, or an outlook, an idea or person you instinctively identify with. For me, this happened first when I read The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage, when I was about eight or nine. The group’s leader is Frederick Algernon Trotterville. His initials form the word FAT. ... Even as a child, my natural shape resembled a potato. The idea that a smart-talking fatty could be a hero was terrifically appealing, perhaps the basis of the rest of my life. ... Body-shaming, hate speech, stereotyping – every offence a children’s book could commit. And yet it’s also marvellously plotted and absorbing to read even today."

  2. Houghton, Robert. "The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage". Enid Blyton Society. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

     The article notes: "The twelfth book, The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage is another fine tale, involving a stolen painting and its whereabouts. Goon's nephew Ern once again comes to visit, supposedly to help his Uncle, but inevitably he sides again with the Five. This time, he has a bigger role to play, and actually has four whole chapters almost to himself in the middle of the book, when he is given the job of shadowing the suspects."

  3. A. P. L. (1954-08-25). "Two Adventure Stories for Children". Shipley Times and Express. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via British Newspaper Archive.

     The article notes: "Miss Enid Blyton is indeed a remarkable personality. The volume and variety of her production of children's books is almost incredible. The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage is the twelfth in her mystery series dealing with the further adventures of "the five find-outers" and their dog, and centring round a cottage town by the river. Besides mystery there is a strong and continuous element of fun in the story contributed largely by the steadily plodding Ern and the irrepressible Fatty. A healthy and enjoyable story."

  4. ""The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage"". Morpeth Herald. 1954-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via British Newspaper Archive.

     The article notes: ""The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage by Enid Blyton (Methuen, 7/6) is a grand yarn which centres around a cottage down by the river. Two runaways, a stolen picture, a little white poodle, and the Five Fond-Outers and Dog on the job; these are the ingredients of this splendid yarn. In addition to a first-class mystery, there is also plenty of fun and hilarity."

  5. Ginley, Joanne (2010-09-04). "Video: Enid Blyton treasures go under the hammer". The Yorkshire Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

     The article notes: "The auction also features the original typescript of Blyton's The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage, complete with the author's handwritten note, which is expected to fetch 300 to 500."

  6. Greaves, Amanda (2010-09-02). "Best-selling author's original typescripts set for auction at Ilkley". Telegraph & Argus. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

     The article notes: "The original typescript of Enid Blyton’s book The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage, expected to fetch £300 to £500, includes a handwritten note from the author, explaining that she did not write her books by hand, but liked to type them “straight out of my head”."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of the improvements made by Wikieditor Cunard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment well done to Cunard for unearthing all of those and adding them in. However they are little more than passing mentions and certainly not in-depth reviews, or significant coverage, so I’m not changing my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here is another review I found about the subject:
  1. Granform, Henry (1965). "Blyton, Enid, Metsästysmajan salaisuus. Alkuteos: The mystery of tally-ho cottage" [Blyton, Enid, The Secret of the Hunting Lodge. Original work: The Mystery of tally-ho cottage.]. Kirjastolehti [fi] (in Finnish). Vol. 58. p. 104. Retrieved 2023-08-23 – via Google Books.

     Kirjastolehti  [fi] is a professional magazine for public libraries published by the Finnish Library Association. The review notes that The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage was translated into Finnish by Sisko Pylkkänen. The translated book was published in 1965 and was given the Finnish-language title Metsästysmajan salaisuus. The review notes: "Tavanmukaista patenttijännitystä aitoon blytonilaiseen tyyliin. Peruukkeja ja valepukuja on tällä kertaa muillakin kuin nuorten etsivien erinomaisen älykkäällä johtajalla tuskinpa muuta uutta tutunnäköisten kansien sisällä."

     From Google Translate: "Usual patent tension in true Blytonian style. This time, there are wigs and disguises for other than the extremely intelligent leader of the young detectives, but there is hardly anything new inside the familiar covers."

  Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". The book received significant coverage in Enid Blyton Society (377 words) and The Australian (103 words). These sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". There is additional coverage in book reviews in Shipley Times and Express (63 words), the Morpeth Herald (64 words), and the Finnish Library Association's magazine Kirjastolehti  [fi] (53 words).

  The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage was published in 1954. Many newspapers and magazines from that time period are not available online. That this book was able to garner this much critical coverage that could be found online despite being published 69 years ago strong contributes to notability:

  1. "Body-shaming, hate speech, stereotyping – every offence a children’s book could commit. And yet it’s also marvellously plotted and absorbing to read even today." (The Australian, 2023)
  2. "Besides mystery there is a strong and continuous element of fun in the story contributed largely by the steadily plodding Ern and the irrepressible Fatty. A healthy and enjoyable story." (Shipley Times and Express, 1954)
  3. "... these are the ingredients of this splendid yarn. In addition to a first-class mystery, there is also plenty of fun and hilarity." (Morpeth Herald, 1954)
  4. "Usual patent tension in true Blytonian style. This time, there are wigs and disguises for other than the extremely intelligent leader of the young detectives, but there is hardly anything new inside the familiar covers." (Finnish Library Association's Kirjastolehti  [fi], 1965)
  5. "The twelfth book, The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage is another fine tale, involving a stolen painting and its whereabouts." (Enid Blyton Society)
  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria also notes:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

  It is very clear from this Google Scholar search for Enid Blyton that "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work [has been] a common subject of academic study" for many decades. The Wikipedia article for Enid Blyton says:

  Enid Mary Blyton (11 August 1897 – 28 November 1968) was an English children's writer, whose books have been worldwide bestsellers since the 1930s, selling more than 600 million copies. Her books are still enormously popular and have been translated into ninety languages. ... She is the world's fourth most-translated author, behind Agatha Christie, Jules Verne and William Shakespeare with her books being translated into 90 languages.

  Among numerous other reasons, Blyton, the book's author, "is of exceptional significance" because she is the world's fourth-most translated author behind Agatha Christie, Jules Verne and William Shakespeare.

  Cunard (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY[53]. I will also point out that books can meet WP:GNG and Cunard's sources demonstrate that as well. —siroχo 06:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Kudos to Cunard for providing the citations that clearly establish the book's notability.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last Night on Earth: Live in Tokyo[edit]

Last Night on Earth: Live in Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page literally only has one live source, and it's the band's own website. The only other link goes to a 404 error and is just a distribution site, which likely would not provide any sort of notability even if it was still reachable or at least archived. Seems like it should obviously be deleted, or perhaps at the very least redirected to Green Day discography. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This seems to have hit 31 on on the Japanese weekly music chart, which should meet WP:NALBUM#C2 for Japan. There's also a good possibility of sources existing in Japanese. At the very least, redirect to Green Day discography as WP:ATD-R. —siroχo 10:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doriana Aguilar[edit]

Doriana Aguilar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - cannot find GNG-passing sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismelis del Toro[edit]

Ismelis del Toro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cannot find GNG-passing sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth Kandragula[edit]

Srikanth Kandragula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has no notability, sources are not about him, failed AfC. DareshMohan (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a portfolio of work, WP:NOTPORTFOLIO. Nom is correct, sources don't establish notability. —siroχo 07:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, India, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nomination Worldiswide (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.