< January 09	January 11 >

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 undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyson Avenue[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable article fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG, with no WP:SIGCOV presented, as well as having needed additional citations for more than ten years.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet notability or WP:NALBUM either:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sweden, and Bands and musicians. HorrorLover555 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Fails WP:NBAND, WP:GNG, and WP:NALBUM. I found absolutely no coverage at all on newspapers.com, EBSCO, ProQuest, archive.org, or Google Books. General web hits are all streaming services, directory listings, or content farms. As the sole WP:ATD I would support a redirect of Alyson Avenue to Anette Olzon. Jfire (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2024 (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!} 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Ware[edit]

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

Subject appears to fall WP:NACADEMIC. Article is being targeted because of contraversial statements the subject made, but I'm unaware of anything else that notable about them. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and California. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Eight published reviews of two books would normally be enough for a keep from me per WP:AUTHOR, but it's weak because one of the two (the one with fewer reviews) is a multi-editor edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Africa, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In agreement with David Eppstein and Johnbod. This scrapes over the line. Edwardx (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2024 (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, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sal DiTroia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NMUSIC. Article only references self-published sources. WP:BEFORE reveals one sentence on the subject in Richmond Magazine and a few passing mentions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Florida, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a marginal case. In addition to the Richmond Magazine article, noted above, I found a few potential sources, including American Songwriter, AllMusic, and Best Classic Bands. Arguably the sources are reliable, but an argument can also be made that they are not. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete. The sources posted by Bearian are quintessential passing mentions. I searched newspapers.com, EBSCO, and ProQuest. The only source with more than a passing mention was [1], which at least has some biographical detail about DiTroia, but its primary subject is the band. Not enough to push it over the line for me, but maybe someone else can find more. Jfire (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all name mentions, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Bearian found the best sources in their BEFORE, they don't have SIGCOV:

[2], "He also started singing with a doo-wop group made up of Marty Monaco, Tony Giannatasio, Sal DiTroia, and Victor Eusepi."
[3], a list of credits, no details, nothing meeting direct and indepth SIGCOV about the subject.
[4], name listed in credits, "Others include Sal DiTroia on rhythm guitar, Diamond himself on acoustic guitar, Russ Savakus on bass, George Butcher on piano, Stan Free on Vox Continental organ..."

If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Olărașu[edit]

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

Reopened AfD individually from a squib bundled AfD. For this individual, WP:BEFORE shows passing mention in an article titled "Moldovan president congratulates medalists ..." and some athlete statistics but nothing that would satisfy WP:NOTNEWS substantively. No major medals attained as far as can be seen on stats sites, which would qualify under NATHLETE; merely participating in games does not qualify. I believe search on Romanian language (Latin) text on the Moldavan name as written in the article is sufficient (i.e. not Cyrillic). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Moldova. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my arguments at Daniela Cociu (her rowing partner). Same search results.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no GNG sources presented. (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:ForsythiaJo seems to have added a bunch of promising-looking references; has anyone analyzed those yet? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all the same passing mentions, brief announcements, and routine event recaps I found in my own search. Nothing approaching SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/above. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 01:12, 17 January 2024 (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 Ghulam Nabi Azad#Democratic Azad Party. ✗plicit 14:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Progressive Azad Party[edit]

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:TheChunky, the article falls short of meeting the criteria outlined in Wp:GNG and Wp:NORG. This regional political organization, founded just a year ago, has not made significant contributions to regional political developments. The provided sources primarily revolve around breaking news related to a leader resigning from their former party to establish a new one. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating the party's participation in any elections, and no sources affirm its status as a noteworthy political entity.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghulam_Nabi_Azad#Democratic Azad Party: If this were a recognised political party it would meet one or more criteria and should likely be kept. It is instead one of 3000+ registered unrecognized political parties (RUPPs) and appears yet to achieve GNG in its own right. Azad is unquestionably notable, however, and the formation of this party belongs in his bio regardless of current or future status. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further opinions about a possible Redirect vs. Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ghulam Nabi Azad#Democratic Azad Party: Fails WP:NSUSTAINED, all the sources are about Azad leaving the INC to form his own party. ^Queen of _Hearts 04:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ghulam Nabi Azad#Democratic Azad Party: if in the future sources show this merits a stand alone article it can become a properly wp:summarystyle fork. As it stands this is completely tied to Ghulam Nabi Azad and doesn't have stand alone notability. // Timothy :: talk 05:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Mirrat-ul-Arifeen International[edit]

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

This article lacks reliable secondary sources offering significant coverage, thereby failing to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. The cited sources are from the magazine itself.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources in the article, zero hits on Google News, and nothing substantial pops up in a Google search either. --Randykitty (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2024 (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. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical benchmarking[edit]

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

Delete I don't deny that a process like statistical benchmarking exists, but does it need to be separate from Statistics, especially when it has no sources connected to the page? Tooncool64 (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in a real quandary about this. The subject is definitely notable by Wikipedia standards, with a substantial literature. Statistics in general is also such an enormous subject that it's completely inappropriate to merge this into Statistics - we'd either have to compress statistical benchmarking to a meaningless sentence, or unbalance the overall Statistics article. This has to be a stand-alone. But the current article is painfully poor; it's got no citations, it explains the subject in a way that's unlikely to make sense to anyone who doesn't already know what it's trying to say, and it doesn't even offer any external links to help anyone who needs a more textbook-style approach. I don't want to delete it because the topic ought to be here, but I don't want it to linger like this for another 16 years without improvement. Evidence that there are sources out there: [5], [6] and numerous others. Elemimele (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT unless someone improves it rapidly. Clearly a notable term but we need a better page. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be salvaged as a reasonable stub if it were cut down to the first sentence and a few references were added. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there are no "Keeps" here yet, there are editors who see some value in this article so I don't think a swift Delete is the optimum response at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to benchmarking or benchmarking#Metric benchmarking Keep. I have done a google scholar and EBSCO search and found a total of five sources using the precise term. None of them define or describe the term, leading me to believe it is a neologism not meeting GNG. I will mention the essay section WP:JUSTNOTABLE. Even the current article reads: In statistics, benchmarking is .... The term to me seems to literally mean "benchmarking using statistics" which is, frankly, self-evident in any benchmarking process. And I concur none of the material can be salvaged; it is both too technical to be encyclopedic and unsourced. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem like a good redirect target; it's only about business, not about a general statistical technique.
The Google Scholar search linked above provides 700+ matches for the exact term statistical benchmarking, but not all of them apparently mean the same thing; sometimes the words are thrown about in a sense like "we used statistics to see whether we met our benchmarks", rather than "using auxiliary information to adjust the sampling weights used in an estimation process". XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about the google scholar search, I must have made a mistake on my scholar search. Having another look, I found [7] which mentions that two statistical benchmarking techniques are data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis, so I do think the redirect is a plausible target with the caveat that the current benchmarking article should really refer to both business and economics rather than just business. That being said, the two sources you provided about time series analysis for benchmarking have convinced me there is enough content to write about in a standalone article in summary style. Darcyisverycute (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubbify drastically and perhaps focus on time-series analysis per the second of the links Elemimele provided above and [8][9]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Statistics. There are discussions of related topics like sampling under the "Statistical data" section in that article. Steven Walling • talk 21:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current content is unclear and uncited; what is the benefit of merging it anywhere? XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet and now we have three different suggested Merge or Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I added several sources to the bottom of the article (all taken from the Google Scholar search results). Duckmather (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (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!} 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mason & Julez[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest attempted notability claim here is of the "has X number of listeners on a streaming platform" variety, which is no part of Wikipedia's notability criteria at all, and the article says absolutely nothing else which would meet any NMUSIC bulletpoint -- and of the ten footnotes, four are just their music circularly verifying its own presence on Apple Music, Spotify or YouTube, which is not support for notability, while five are PR blogs that aren't reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sources. And while there's one site ("Celeb Magazine") that might be marginally acceptable, one acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this.
In addition, it also warrants mention that when I saw this a few minutes ago, it was threaded through with a couple of dozen direct offsite links to Spotify for every individual song in their discography, right in open body text in defiance of WP:ELNO rules, thus bolstering the suspicion that the intent here was promotional. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original writer of the article; since my last edit, a user added advertorialized content including the Spotify links. I have reverted the article to its original form; I will work on adding references. SaltieChips (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll still need to find better sourcing than blogs and YouTube and Spotify. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. SaltieChips (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping to get more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would helpful to get a sense of whether recent additions have changed this article for the better.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Keep; I don't have much to say other than deleting articles on the borderline of notability seems pointless to me. I'd cite the Copyright Alliance and CelebMagazine sources. Doesn't seem like anyone else is interested in stating an opinion, so close as no consensus? SaltieChips (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLPs, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all promos, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me. // Timothy :: talk 05:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without independent, reliable sources, this doesn't meet WP:NBAND, WP:GNG, nor any other notability standard. Jacona (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2024 (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!} 23:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimosa Public School[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. A search indicates routine coverage like the school holding a festival. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to just be a school in a place, where thankfully nothing notable has ever happened. I also ran the same search for non-routine mentions in articles, found nothing.

Wizmut (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viera Mašlejová[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a footballer who played one international game. I am unable to find sufficient coverage on the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in searches were passing mentions (2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Slovakia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the @GiantSnowman statement. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to comment the same thing as JTtheOG. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence of sources that would bring this to WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:32, 17 January 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Friedman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, available coverage is limited to non-independent interviews and mere-mentions. Most online results appear to be typos of the homophonous podcaster Lex Fridman _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Pennsylvania. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, as no sourcing found about this person. Yes he hosts a podcast [10], but the sources used are simply name drops. The Hollywood Reporter source simply mentions he brokered a deal, talking about another unrelated thing. Being mentioned, once, in a story about something different isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That euronews.com source is in error: the podcaster who has AI-translated podcasts available on Spotify is Lex Fridman, not Lex Friedman (source). I know, it confused me too. Jfire (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Earwolf is a podcast interview. Verge and THR pieces are reliable, but passing mentions don't meet WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Smederevo explosion[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG and also per NotNews. An explosion of a fuel tank in a residential building. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only routine news coverage. Something happening and being covered in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)4[reply]
Delete - Completely irrelevant and not really Wikipedia article. Боки ^{Write to me!} 22:22, 12 January 2024 (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. given the sources found. Please make sure that any worthwhile references that aren't already in the article are moved into it from this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Perry[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. Subject has mentions in secondary sources but they are often just part of a list like Forbes 30 Under 30 or ELLE Magazine’s Genius Award. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the best RS I could find about her, [11], basically an extended photo caption under a large photo. Forbes looks promising, but it's an interview... Just not enough sourcing to keep the article at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and that she lacks notability beyond the company SonicEnergy. There was a merge discussion for merging her to the company here, and although the discussion itself was inconclusive, David Gerald had already merged some of the material, so redirect to SonicEnergy is another alternative. Liu1126 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 12 articles she is featured in or the primary subject:

1. USA Today, "The inventor who may kill the power cord": [12]

2. Fortune, "She's an inventor. She's 25. And she wants to make true wireless charging a reality." [13]

3. Fortune, "Is this woman the next elon musk?" [14]

4. NPR, "Young entrepreneur has a better idea, now what?" [15]

5. CNN, 15 Questions with Meredith Perry: [16]

6. Business Insider, "Open letter to Meredith Perry and uBeam": [17]

7. USA Today, "uBeam's Meredith Perry shows her stealth wireless charging technology really works": [18]

8. Fortune, "CEO Meredith Perry explain what uBeam really is": [19]

9. The New York Times, "Wireless Charging, at a distance, moves forward for uBeam": [20]

10. J. Craig Venter Institute, [21]

11. Philadelphia Magazine, "25 Year Old Penn Grad called "Next Elon Musk", [22]

12. The New York Times, "An inventor wants one less wire to worry about." [23] WikiEditor020575 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted per reply above citing 12 articles outside of "mentions in secondary sources and part of lists" WikiEditor020575 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree this should not be deleted per @WikiEditor020575above. The subject meets notability requirements of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPROF. KnowledgeQueen89 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete KnowledgeQueen89 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reviewed the sources provided and I'm not seeing anything that would establish notability as per WP:ANYBIO. Also @KnowledgeQueen89, and @WikiEditor020575 since you both appear to be new to AfD here's a little guide to help you understand the process WP:AFDFORMAT. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
USA Today	Reliable source	Appears to be from an established journalist	~ The article about 40% about her but it's mostly about the company and invention	~ Partial
Fortune Magazine	? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Unknown
Fortune Magazine	? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access	? Unknown
NPR	Public Media	Opinion Article	Article covers the subject and their device	✘ No
CNN	Yes as per WP:RSPSS	~ There is not an author of this article and it's just a list of 15 questions	~ It's 15 questions and no indepth reporting	~ Partial
Business Insider	It appears that this article is independent	~ As per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. Also the article is more of a short form letter or pseudo correction	~ Article is about the subject but also about how the editor at BI underestimated them	~ Partial
USA Today	Reliable source	Appears to be from an established journalist	~ Article covers some of a fraud allegations and is just a revisiting of the previous USA Today article	~ Partial
Fortune Magazine	? Unable to determine if this source is independent or if they included this topic because they had just published an article on the subject	~ Interview doesn't appear to be in-depth and is only covering the device without indepth reporting on the subject	~ The article about 40% about her but it's mostly about the company and invention	? Unknown
New York Times	NYT is a reliable source	NYT is a reliable source	The article is about the device, the subject is only mentioned in the first two paragraphs	✘ No
J. Craig Venter Institute	? Just a profile for a non-profit	? Just a profile for a non-profit	Just a profile for a non-profit	✘ No
Philadelphia	Appears to have some independent content	? Article is three paragraphs talking about them appearing in another magazine	Article is three paragraphs talking about them appearing in another magazine	✘ No
New York Times	NYT is a reliable source	NYT is a reliable source	Article goes in-depth about the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Keep – Source table above is quite helpful. NYT is strong. An additional search on Google News brings up a bunch of good sources inc. Techcrunch, so notability is met IMO. TLA (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source table above. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cemal Akçin[edit]

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

Very little info on him, probably not notable ManILoveEatingChess57 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Turkey. ManILoveEatingChess57 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as he was elected four times to the Turkish Parliament. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPOL. His status as MP can be verified with machine translation. Needs the attention of a native speaker. Jfire (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Kazerum[edit]

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

The only substantial source is this, a family history website of unclear reliability. Other sources at best make a passing mention of some skirmishes in Kazerun and other places, without info on the role of Josef Pousette (not Puosette) or any of the other details found in that one source.

The whole "first battle" section, being the most important of the encounters, is sourced to this, which doesn't mention this battle. Perhaps someone can find some better sources to verify the information here, but otherwise we shouldn't have an article on this. Fram (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete it then Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Topic should be covered instead on Shiraz expedition. No need for a redirect there, since "Battles of Kazerum/n" isn't used as a term to describe these events. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Riggwelter (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2024 (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. czar 03:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Watson (voice actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability criteria for actors is not automatically passed just because the article lists roles, and requires evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his performances in media -- but there's absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing being shown here at all, and instead the article's only footnote is to a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself on a podcast.
An ACTRA Award is also not an instant free pass over NACTOR or ANYBIO in and of itself -- it would be a perfectly acceptable notability claim in an article that was sourced properly, but as a regional award it's in no way "inherently" notable enough that he would be exempted from having to pass GNG just because the article has the word "award" in it.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and/or better sourcing, but nothing here is already enough now. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR this way, can't even verify DOB from any BEFORE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:31, 12 January 2024 (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 Userfy for Beanie‎. Viable request from an established editor. Star Mississippi 03:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1880 Philadelphia Crescent Athletic Club football team[edit]

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

Unable to find enough to show this abbreviated season meets the WP:NSEASONS ~~or WP:SPORTCRIT~~. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying this should be kept, but just noting that SPORTCRIT has no relevance here as it is only for biographies. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, don't know what I was thinking writing that. Let'srun (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request userfication to User:BeanieFan11/1880 Philadelphia Crescent Athletic Club football team - I may decide to create an article on the Crescent Athletic Club, if I find it to be notable in the future - then this could be of some use as a user-draft. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Athletic Club already has an article that I started back in 2018. Presumably this is a Philly offshoot? Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy Non-notable team. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: As requested by BeanieFan11. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2024 (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 a redirect to Tickling#Tickle fight. Please, feel free to take some material from this article and place it into the Tickling page as appropiate. TLA (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle fight[edit]

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

I am proposing this article be deleted or redirected (although I am not sure to where) on the grounds of not meeting GNG. The references show no evidence of notability for a standalone article. Although there are several sources, I believe they make either passing mention of the topic, discuss one-off events or appear in non-reliable publications. We have no proper discussion of this concept in reliable journals or other publications.

The article itself has little encyclopaedic value, largely reporting on single incidents where notable people had a tickle fight. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tickle. Article fails to meet GNG and I think would need to be fully rewritten to even begin to appear encyclopaedic. CoconutOctopus talk 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fetish content in disguise and it simply has no use here. Nate • (chatter) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because article doesn't have scientific publiations, doesn't mean it's not worthy as Wikipedia article. There are plenty of examples, where articles don't have scentific publications. Food fight, snowball fight, water fight and pillow fight, should also be deleted, if this article gets deleted. --Pek (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has made any mention of scientific publications here. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what you ment. If so, why are these sources non-reliable publications then? --Pek (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the publications like USA Today and Slate are reliable, but the coverage they give to this topic isn't substantial. But source 4 is a church blog for example, not a suitable source.

If USA Today or Slate had an article called "Has the Phenomenon of the Tickle Fight Gone too Far?" with a full article or something, you might be getting somewhere with sourcing. But just a mention or two of tickle fights in an article about tickling isn't enough. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer redirect or merge to deletion. This feels like something that definitely is known, but I'm not sure yet whether reliable sources exist that contain non-trivial coverage of tickle fights. Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I'm also not getting the impression a proper WP:BEFORE was done here. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disappointed that you suggest I didn't conduct a proper BEFORE. I began discussing this article's notability two weeks before nominating for deletion and later opted to redirect the article. Above, I provided an outline of why I don't think this is a notable topic. So, that seems like a bit of a needless jab, honestly. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 20:58, 13 January 2024 (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. czar 03:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Previous AfDs resulted in delete (2007) and no consensus (2009). Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Switzerland. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AfD's, so not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two keep votes in the previous nomination cite an IP that arguably improved the article by removing promotional material, and that Once Wave will be released later this year, there may be more coverage. I guess the essay WP:TOOSOON didn't exist then, as it was made in 2010, but it certainly applies here. In any case I do not see any sources to confirm the 2009 AfD speculation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Archived sources: some don’t load anymore, some are based on press releases, others are passing mentions, and the last two seem to be WP:SELFPUB. TLA (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (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. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apolinar Solórzano[edit]

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

No SIGCOV found, after searching Google, JSTOR, the AP, and the Australian Newspaper Archive @ Trove. GNG fail InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Venezuela. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, it feels pretty unfair to nominate for deletion NATH passes on athletes from countries like these (Venezuela), considering that all the sources that would have covered the athletes are inaccessible to us. (I would be stunned if Associated Press or Trove had any coverage of an athlete like this from this era). If this person was from the U.S. we'd easily be able to find significant coverage. But we have no access to Venezuelan sources as far as I am aware. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RGW InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) Doesn't this meet WP:NTRACK #2? Winning medals at the South American Championships and Pan American Games should prove notability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NATH, it says significant coverage is likely to exist, but I could not find SIGCOV. There is no inherent notability for sports figures. If the SIGCOV doesn't exist, then the article per policy should not. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The thing is, you can't know that sigcov doesn't exist when you can't look at the sources that could have covered him! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found coverage at [24][25][26][27][28][29], which say that Apolinar is also in Venezuela's Athletics Hall of Fame. This, along with the sources used, should allow the article to meet WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utilizing Command F hits by last name, as well as MacOS safari translator to help with context, (it's common for people to be referred only by their last name), The first is an obituary. The second mentions him in passing. The third I couldn't Command F, so I poured through it but it's only a book version of a database. The fourth is the same thing. In the fifth he is only mentioned once, so passing mention. Same with the sixth. Not too much in terms of sources that directly provide SIGCOV, but at the same time, it could be a good stepping stone. My opinion however still stands to delete based on what we have so far. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Just as a note, Apolinar can be found in page 4 of the third source, under the section "2o grupo" (2nd group). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thank you for the nomination. Solorzano has received dedicated news coverage going beyond just mentions, as demonstrated in this broadcast news video. Keep in mind it is astonishing that modern news coverage exists of him at all, considering his primary accomplishments were in the 1950s. Combined with clearly meeting WP:NATH, per WP:SPORTCRIT this demonstrates significant coverage exists. --Habst (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem sufficiently significant enough. I need some more SIGCOV to flip my vote. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NoonIcarus and Habst. It appears that he is notable, especially with induction to his country's national athletics hall of fame (also note that in the broadcast news video, which appears to be a hall of fame induction?, each athlete has a plaque that goes in-depth into their accomplishments. That would be sigcov). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to relevant 1956 Olympics page. We still do not have a source of IRS SIGCOV to cite in the article, which is required to remain in mainspace. A primary news broadcast of an awards ceremony, posted by some random person on YouTube, is not acceptable as a source. We also have no evidence that whatever text accompanies the plaque is independent. None of the other citations mentioned rise above passing mentions.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a plaque at the Venezuela Athletics Hall of Fame discussing Solorzano wouldn't be independent? I also think one could claim that induction into said hall of fame could qualify as the "significant" honor mentioned at WP:ANYBIO. Also worth noting that he has been discussed in modern day sources as a "Venezuelan athletic legend" - it simply wouldn't make sense that someone considered so highly wouldn't have in-depth coverage from the time period when he competed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is hard not to see the coverage as not passing WP:GNG. Also, entry into a national hall of fame does suggest a pass of WP:NTRACK (unless there is a reason the SNG should read as only American-centric "Have been inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame or the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame."). --Enos733 (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:SPORTCRIT and not worth grinding over any further. Geschichte (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets WP:SPORTCRIT especially since he was an Olympian. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn and closed per WP:SK1(a). (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Ashcroft[edit]

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

Serious BLP violation as this is entirely unsourced. I did a BEFORE to see if I can add or cite anything, but I can't find any sources published about the subject himself. From what I can tell, WP:NACTOR is also a reach, as most roles linking here seem to be guest starring appearances or supporting/minor roles. The more significant ones only appear to possibly be Truckers (he's a bit further down the IMDb credit list, so not sure there) and Birth of the Beatles (maybe?). If you find anything, please ping me, as I'm happy to withdraw if my search was simply insufficient. 2pou (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: His roles in The Bill, in the Beatles biopic as Ringo Starr, for example, can be called significant. Added a few other things. And will add more. Honestly, he seems to meet fairly the criterion for actors. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few sources for verification. Can be improved but I think he meets WP:NACTOR, as having "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the additional information and sources provided by Mushy Yank. Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - withdraw - I withdraw my nomination thanks to some of the work above. We still need to remove his unsourced birthday, but that's easy. -2pou (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2024 (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. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoseon Technology[edit]

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

I can see that all this subject's sources come from one local newspaper. I looked on Google and the listed sources are just blogs and trade press. Therefore, this medium-sized manufacturing organization fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) BigheadBigheadBighead (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as initial author, and I just updated it for the first time in a decade, there is substantial coverage in independent sources. None are the local paper (this company is in Hillsboro and the then local paper was the Hillsboro Argus). The PBJ and Oregonian are regional papers, and there are journals and other publications covering the company or its technologies. This is not a company on the scale of Apple, but we don't require that. May need some clean up from what appears to be COI edits over the last decade though. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Good coverage from editorial staff from editions of the American City Business Journals. TLA (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2024 (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. Participants agree this is a borderline case, but consensus is to keep the article. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asteria Limai[edit]

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

Lugstub and a NOLYMPIC fail. Unable to find SIGCOV and so a GNG fail in spite of a medal win which could pass for NATH. All sources found on Google with Cyrillic name (Астэрыя Лімай) provide mentions only in passing as part of a list. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Belarus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few more-than-passing mentions:
- A short news piece entirely about Limai's reaction to the 2020 Olympics (and the poor performance of the relay team she participated in): [30]
- Interview of Limai by the Belarus Athletic Federation, with significant biographical detail (but maybe not considered sufficiently independent): [31]
- Newspaper profile of Belarusian track and field athletes with a photo and paragraph on Limai: [32]

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She won a silver medal at a major tournament and was in the Olympics. To me, this one seems to be a borderline keeper. Jeanette The kisser Martin (si? 08:45, January 11, 2024 (UTC)
Keep as she passes notability (just) due to the silver medal and the sources provided above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NATH – it only says that sigcov is likely to exist. It doesn't flat out say notability is granted. Notability is granted with SIGCOV independent of the subject. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully the comment you are replying to, which explicitly refers to sources and not merely athletic results. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above references meeting WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:NATH. I think that the Belarus Athletic Federation piece is sufficiently independent in the same sense that any Belarusian newspaper is "independent" even if they primarily cover Belarusian topics. In addition, she is still in active competition (6 major results from 2023) so there is the possibility of future coverage. I also added her Belarusian Athletics Championships finals performances to her infobox. --Habst (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2024 (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 Althea Gibson#Legacy. Feel free to merge any relevant content over to the park article as well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Althea Gibson[edit]

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

I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why this statue should be considerd notable. On first seeing this article I changed it to a redirect to the appropriate section of the subjects biog (which is headed by a picture of this statue). And the actual content of this article is almost zero; certainly nothing which cannot be contained in the biog. And, considered purely as a work of art, I will eat a milliner-load of hats if it excites any real critical attention.TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Branch Brook Park There are sources about the statue in the article and this source popped up in a basic WP:BEFORE search. Is the statue itself and the sourcing about it notable enough to require the nominator to eat a pile of hats? Probably not. But should this be turned into a redirect and should the details of the statue and the Althea Gibson Tennis Center be merged into the article for Branch Brook Park, where the statue resides? Absolutely! The failure to "consider alternatives to deletion" and to conceive of and propose a merge / redirect as an option should be worth eating at least half a hat. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn, when I created the article, I was hoping for more sources on it. Even as I checked now, there aren't that many. Given that, I would say merge with articles Althea Gibson and Branch Brook Park. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omnis Scientia, you created the article in good faith, but I concur that a merge to both the articles ("There is a statue of Gibson at Branch Brook Park in Newark, ..." and "At the Althea Gibson Tennis Center, the park has a statue of its namesake Althea Gibson, a pioneering ...") with a redirect to the park are the best solutions given the state of sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn, thanks!

I actually created the article because, having been dealing with the categorization of statues of sportspeople, I noticed that none of them were women and sought to rectify that.

I realize now that the more notable (and better sourced) statue of Gibson is at the U.S. National Tennis Center (the location of the U.S. Open Grand Slam - Althea was the first African American to win it) and I should have focused on that instead of this particular one - partly because there was an image of it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: You can categorise the redirect, so that this can still be found that way. PamD 10:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD, good idea! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged (actually redirect) >>>Althea Gibson#Legacy, where image was/is appropriately pictured and text information already included. Djflem (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Statues are commonplace and rarely notable, and when there are sources, coverage in the subject's or location's article is often more appropriate per WP:NOPAGE.
Keep, this notable (see sources) statue of a major female tennis star is certainly page-worthy. It is exhibited outside of the Althea Gibson Tennis Center, which enhances its importance to her life and its notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2024 (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 a keep‎. TLA (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperTux[edit]

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

The game has many paragraph-long mentions in Linux guide books explaining its concept, such as 1 and 2, but I'm not seeing anything that goes into detail about the game. QuietCicada - Talk 15:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. QuietCicada - Talk 15:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs heavy cleanup, but this is a case of WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The game is clearly notable, having got reviews in Linux Voice, Free Software for Dummies, and PC Games World. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The game is notable and a quick search on Google and DDG brings up some decent sources. Yes, it does need improvement, but remember WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of RS to establish notability, there is another: Amiga Future 69, November/December 2007, p. 20 (review of the Amiga version). Pavlor (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Blitzfan51 speak to the manager — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 12 January 2024 (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 14:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MiniMax (company)[edit]

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

This is a startup firm with only routine coverage about their fundraising. Fails to meet notability with significant coverage about the company. Whpq (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine funding coverage, isn't terribly useful. Company is still new, might not have enough coverage yet in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find are the funding items from Reuters and the "China Money Network" , which doesn't feel RS-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that these are routine coverage, and a couple also sound like a press release. Maybe consider to DRAFT the page and wait for more coverage.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was in DRAFT but the author decided to move it to article space without using AFC. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: It seems that the quotation is not enough, and more information and reports need to be collected ~ Thank you for pointing out the problem ~ Carleyeta(talk) 14:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Somewhat routine coverage, this feels a bit like WP:TOOSOON. TLA (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2024 (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 14:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Broadcasting[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of in depth and significant coverage regarding the subject of the article. PROD was declined. Let'srun (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. Let'srun (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, current sources are all press releases - in other sources "Legacy Broadcasting" is just a footnote tag - unable to find more sources on the internet, made difficult by other results coming up name - solidly fails WP:GNG RetroCosmos ^talk 17:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company's entire existence seems to be solely for regulatory purposes and the stations it ran were designed to be as non-competitive as possible in their markets until a new owner could buy them out under a more friendly FCC regulatory environment. The company's 'owners' were effectively caretaker managers who also fulfilled the 'minority and women' checkmark to smooth over the FCC until they could sell again, and this business was never a serious effort to establish a competitive broadcaster. Nate • (chatter) 18:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's really not much you can say about a company that basically only owns/owned "excess" stations following another company's mergers, so the lack of the requisite significant coverage isn't exactly a surprise. Mentions of the company in the articles for their stations is sufficient; this never really warranted an article, and very little will be lost with its deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above, and Fails WP:GNG due to mainly press release sources. TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2024 (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. Everybody but one IP, whose reams of text I disregard per WP:BLUDGEON, agreees that the subject is not notable. Sandstein 14:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Evans[edit]

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

Prodded by Escape Orbit as "Self published author, fails notability. Article reads like an autobiography focused on linking to Amazon and Barns and Noble self-published books". Prod removed without explanation here, but like EO I can find no evidence of notability. I don't think any of the sources in the article currently contribute to GNG: they're either by Evans, do not discuss her in depth, or "rumors/gossip". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, the like links were added when the inclusion of the description of the book was contested and were put in place to allow the reader to view them from their origin.

I'm really surprised at the hate Michele is receiving. She is not just an author so deleting based on self publishing assertions fall flat.

Must I provide example after example of articles on wikipedia that have less documentation?

It is my position you are targeting Michele because of her situation with Sharpe. Which by the way, article after article could be sourced providing these indepth sources which are claimed to be missing.

This article reads as it does because no discussion on Michele is allowed and anything thing not sterile is swiftly deleted. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than WP:SOURCESEXIST, with a bunch of unsupported and completely false theorising about my motives on top. If "article after article ... providing these indepth sources" exists, then provide them. I have looked and I cannot find them, so until some evidence that they actually exist is provided I can only assume that they do not. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find articles on Michele Evans and Shannon Sharpe?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michele-bundy-accuses-shannon-sharpe-of-sex-assault-cbs-analyst-steps-aside/

https://www.tmz.com/2010/09/17/shannon-sharpe-accuser-michele-bundy-nfl-denver-broncos-relationship-dating-2002/

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/tarnished-twenty/michele-bundy-files-restraining-order-against-shannon-sharpe/

https://www.westword.com/news/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-from-cbs-due-to-restraining-order-see-documents-here-5861925

https://www.tvguide.com/news/shannon-sharpe-sexual-assault-1023089/

https://www.nydailynews.com/2010/09/15/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-of-absence-from-cbs-after-michele-bundy-alleges-sex-assault/

https://nypost.com/2019/09/22/antonio-brown-glued-to-twitter-after-being-sacked-by-patriots/

https://www.denverpost.com/2010/09/14/sharpe-to-take-leave-of-absence-from-cbs/

These are just a few. Assuming is not cool my friend. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post is not reliable, TMZ is questionably reliable, and none of these sources are in depth coverage of Evans which contribute to establishing her notability. If the only reason Evans ever recieved any mention in reliable sources was that she filed for a restraining order against Shannon Sharpe back in 2010, then at best maybe this could be a redirect to Shannon Sharpe#Personal life, except this was clearly so irrelevant that it isn't even mentioned in that article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!!!! So we are going to just gloss over the fact she was published in the NEW YORK TIMES????? Make her life about Shannon? The only reason these links were included was to dispute claims articles don't exist. To downplay her success is shameful. Do you know how hard it is to get your work published in the New York Times? Have you done it? Why not?

Redirect to SHANNON????? I am dumbfounded that was even typed! She is a software engineer who you have probably used her brain cells given she developed the video player for espn.com and march madness, not to mention tiger woods website, which has a citation. Right click on that cited archive page and view source to confirm she was one of the engineers on his website!

She has authored 4 published books. Made Movies. Written screenplays. Was a sports reporter. Is an advocate for social justice reform, testifying at the city council etc.

And you want to make her life about Shannon??? Redirect? OMG!! I would like to nominate you as a hostile contributor. How do I do that? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you would sign in using something more than an IP address so we can properly set the thing up, then you can make a complain about their conduct if you must. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to "provide example after example of articles on wikipedia that have less documentation" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GoingBatty (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Thank you! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found articles with less sourcing, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion as well. Thank you for bringing them to our attention in that case. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU Can't help but notice you added all these. discussion groups but left off Domestic Violence deletion discussion inclusion. Was that because it doesn't exist or because you included only ones you felt were relevant? Please add the Domestic Violence deletion discussion if it exists! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Domestic violence. GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the above sources are SIGCOV in my opinion. ~~In the article, this NY Times article might be but it is locked beyond a paywall.~~ The rest of the sources there are not SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look I see the NY Times article is an opinion piece written by her. Alvaldi (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Santa Clara University link to enhance 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Santa Clara University source is not a WP:SIGCOV about Evans. Alvaldi (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including for reference because comments made in discussion DO NOT align with Wikipedia standards: Please refer to bolded text.

Notability requires verifiable evidence

Shortcuts

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires multible sources of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None have been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of all that is holly. Added 15 reliable sources to the article that are independent of the subject. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if the new 15 are not enough. I'll get more but feel adding more is redundant. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is what is generally called a WP:REFBOMB. These are all just coverage of the same 2010 case that briefly mention the subject. There is no significant coverage of Evans/Bundy in those sources. Alvaldi (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content is where your position fails. It is in no way a refbomb according to the very definition. To say articles about bundy/evans getting a restraining order against sharpe are just brief mentions is untrue at best. The whole articles are about her. Unless of course, you are reading with biased colored glasses. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about her in those sources is that she got a temporary restraining order on another individual in 2010 which was rescinded a few days later. The fact that the individual that was accused is notable does not make Evans/Bundy notable per WP:INVALIDBIO (in short, having a connection to a notable person does not make someone notable). And even if they had significant coverage of the person, they still would fail WP:SUSTAINED as brief bursts of news coverage over a period of a few days is not enough to demonstrate notability. Alvaldi (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped adding sources because it had become redundant. The talk continues still to this day and is why Sharpe has finally been brought to court. Again it must be stressed, Evans has her own notability outside of Sharpe. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She likely does, but there are few to no extensive sources used in the writing of this article, is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to be acknowledged. Urge you to vote keep. Perhaps call Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Evans' book on Rikers Island, in which she is an established expert by being incarcerated there, and who had her work about the subject, previously published by the reliable, independent publication, New York Times, is tantamount to this discussion. Please try to read the fine print of what you are making claims about! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS/SPS 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, self-published and autobiographical sources can be reliable. Nobody is disputing that. The question is whether Evans is notable, and notability requires independent sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is an independent source. I can't believe I even have to type that! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times piece is written by Michele Evans. It's clearly not an independent source Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her notability seems to be based on a few things;

Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable
Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim.
Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague.
A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her.
An appearance before New York City Council, about the same matter
Her relationship with her husband and former boyfriend. Notability is not inherited, and it's not Wikipedia's job to air the trials of otherwise private individuals not in the public eye. (Whether they are ok with that or not.)
Her descent from "notable historical figures" - as above, notability is not inherited
Her film-making. Potentially her strongest claim, but the sources are either just a listings of herself in IMDB and one of her films in a user generated website. These are not sufficient. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To refute your points:

"Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable"??? Please refer to WP:RS/SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Evans' book on Rikers Island, in which she is an established expert by being incarcerated there, and who had her work about the subject, previously published by the reliable, independent publication, New York Times, is tantamount to this discussion.

"Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim." View the source of https://web.archive.org/web/20070609230258/http://www.tigerwoods.com/noflash.sps you can do this by right-clicking on the page. Michele is listed as being a Sr. Software Engineer on Tigers Website.

A "single op-ed" in the Times? Let's be honest, have you accomplished that? Downplaying her accomplishment is tacky.

"An appearance before New York City Council, about the same matter". Please read the sources for which you are speaking. Evans advocated for Women being able to have their babies under one year old with them as the law permits. The times article is about covid.

"Her relationship with her husband and former boyfriend. Notability is not inherited, and it's not Wikipedia's job to air the trials of otherwise private individuals not in the public eye." You are suggesting she should gain notability from these men? Her notability is all her own. Why would you suggest there is notability to be gained from her husband? What did he do that makes him notable in your eyes and not her? And not that it matters but sharpe is in the public eye.

"Her descent from "notable historical figures" - as above, notability is not inherited" Why would one think she derives notability from them? It's in a section labeled personal life. It is about her. Her story, which includes them and they are notable here on Wikipedia which makes the addition of thier information relevant.

"Her film-making. Potentially her strongest claim, but the sources are either just a listings of herself in IMDB and one of her films in a user generated website." Wrong, her films are viewable as streams and are valid proof as a filmmaker. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are having difficulty understanding the differences between reliability of sources and notability. The discussion here is about her notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. All I mentioned above is what someone (perhaps yourself) saw fit to include in her article. If you do not think something adds to her notability, then good, we are in agreement. Nor do I. You also need to understand the distinction between being judged notable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, and any kind of judgement on her worth, opinions, claims, life or causes. Not having a Wikipedia article does not cast any aspersions on her. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You are having difficulty understanding WP:NPOSSIBLE "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try contacting Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an articleBold 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in RS found about her. Writing an opinion piece in the NYT is fine, but it's a primary source, and she's only had ONE published. She isn't exactly a prolific columnist in the Times with several dozen articles to her name. Source 35 is a RS, but it talks about two different people and mentions this person in passing. I'm not seeing notability as there is little to no extensive coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and we have no reliable sources, none exist. Thank you for confirming that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get no reliable sources exist out of that? Nobody confirmed anything. Don't put words in my mouth to suit your agenda kind sir... 69.117.93.145 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating what I stated above, again. Do as you must. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NPOSSIBLE Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just where are those sources that have significant coverage of the subject? I merely ask because none have been presented here in the AfD, none are in the article itself and nobody has been able to find any. Alvaldi (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cited new source in article https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans 69.117.93.145 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOSSIBLE Again just because you are not aware does not mean they don't exist! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a site for filmmakers to submit their projects. Again it is written by Evans and therefore is not independent. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you complained about no evidence for her being a reporter. I gave you video evidence enough to prove she was a known personality whether you like it or not. Let's be clear. Evans's memoir is a separate piece of work from her being a sports reporter. What's your position? Was she a sports reporter or not? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about whether or not she was a sports reporter, and nor do I care. Evans having been a sports reporter is only relevant to this discussion if there are independent reliable sources discussing Evans as a sports reporter, which might contribute to demonstrating her notability, which I have not found and you have not provided. My position is that Evans' memoir is obviously not independent of Evans, and therefore doesn't count towards her notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the response below. There are independent reliable sources. They do not have to be accessible via the Internet. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge the question all you want. She was a sports reporter. Your words: Evans as a sports reporter, which might contribute to demonstrating her notability.

Context matters. Clearly, Michele Evans was a sports reporter and any one who says differently is not being truthful or unbiased. That video evidence would hold up in court my friend, under the tightest of scrutinies, let alone for Wikipedia!!!! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please do not selectively quote me to mean something completely different to what I said. I did not say that Evans having been a sports reporter might contribute to demonstrating her notability, I said that if there are sources about Evans as a sports reporter, that might contribute to demonstrating notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a source

Shortcut WP:SOURCEDEF

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

Definition of published

"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published (WP:PUBLISH).

Shortcut WP:PUBLISHED

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context Matters Shortcuts. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. WP:RSCONTEXT

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Let me repeat: It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

WP:NPOSSIBLE Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.

Lets use this one example. https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans

It is a source
It was made available to the public in some form
It was published
The media was recorded, broadcast, distributed and archived
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.
Source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article

With these things in mind, https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans is reliable for the statement on the wikipedia article that says Michele Evans was a sports reporter. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't help establish notability for the article, as we need more than a "she works here" post. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is history of people attempting to erase Evans life to suit their agenda. The continuation of this theme by deleting her family is interesting. The misogyny displayed here, whether intentional or not is a bit much and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread makes its way into her memoir. Her meticulously documented family doesn't go away BTW! The pen is mightier than the sword. Anybody can delete. Regardless of what is decided here, Evans' list of accomplishments will continue to grow, which begs the question, Do you really want to be on the wrong side of history? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued the IP a formal warning for the preceding comment (AGF, BLUDGEON, failure to make any policy- or guideline-based point, etc). DMacks (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully - Addressing the deletions of my contributions to the article which were prevelant throughout the day, which can be seen in the article history, constitutes a point. This is not Bludgeon as I had not made a comment for over 23 hours prior to me addressing the ongoing deletion of cited facts. Thank you! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've heard your point, multiple times. Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mooknayak[edit]

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

I searched very deeply, but could not find anything special. If we searched "Mooknayak", we get the Marathi newspaper Mooknayak, started by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in the year 1920. But, there is name at some places but in-depth articles. I think it is not suitable for Main space right now. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 1(b) or 3, or keep per WP:GNG and sources in the article at the time of nomination, e.g. ‘Leading the voiceless’ - how low-caste Indian journalists are crowdfunding their own newsrooms (Al Jazeera Journalism Review, February 2023), With Stories of Her Oppressed Community, a Journalist Takes Aim at the Walls of Caste (New York Times, March 2023), and from a search: India: Dalit journalists give a voice to the marginalized (DW, June 2023), In India, News Outlet Gives Voice to Low Castes, (VOA, December 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Beccaynr clearly passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article meets GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2024 (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. It's snowing Star Mississippi 03:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of schizophrenia[edit]

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

A rambling and entirely unnecessary list. We already have a History of schizophrenia article, which discusses the topic in an encyclopaedic manner. This instead consists of what appears to be a personal selection of more or less arbitrary snippets, only some of which actually relate to schizophrenia at all. To describe it as original research would probably be unduly flattering, in that it doesn't appear to have been based on any actual research worthy of the description. Instead it seems to be a list compiled to make some sort of point. Not that it does even that very well, considering its tendency to wander off-topic into discussions of Freud's cigar-smoking, the origin of the word 'eugenics', and Babylonian divination practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and Psychiatry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:TNT applies here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree with everything posted by the filer. Clearly a non-encyclopaedic example of list-cruft, although it probably does not even meet that low standard. History of schizophrenia sufficiently handles this topic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. In the unlikely event that it contains any good and properly sourced information not already present in History of schizophrenia, merge it into that article. Bishonen | tålk 13:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 11:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally unnecessary. It directly predates the History of schizophrenia article. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is better covered under the already existing article about the history of the disorder. This feels like an essay or a too long list of citations a person has found cobbled together. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify Hemiauchenia, JoJo Anthrax provides an essay not policy as a reason so their reasons aren't necessary according to any policy. No indication of why "Speedy Delete" is necessary, if the artilce meets criteria for this type of deletion then what is the criteria, if there is one, then the other editors would have found the reason for this type of deletion also. So what is the specific reason? None of the editors provide any policy reason for deletion. " In the unlikely event that it contains any good and properly sourced information not already present in History of schizophrenia" doesn't indicate evidence of a reason, "In the unlikely event" isn't proof (the editor hasn't verified if it does or doesn't). "totally unnecessary" how is it unecessary - describe how the article has complete non necessity (plus statistics of viweres who also should apparently know unessary when they chose to view). It feels like an essay: then if it were an essay the relevant notice could be filed to the top of the page "needs improvement as reads like an essay" which isn't a reason for deletion. "too long list of citations a person has found cobbled together" is not a reason for deletion, is avague criticism without any actual comment on how the article obviously shouldn't exist. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) AndyTheGrump provides at least comments which could be construed as critical, ut they aren't true as a matter-of-fact whch could be determined y discussion on the Talk pahe which isn't provided by a discussion of deletion (and no discussion of improvinfg the article has een made). That the filer has identified the parts he disagrees with means those parts could e deleted, but obviously there are numerous parts which are relevant to the term schizophrenia. The parts which seem irrelevant are with the history of symptoms prior to 1908 when the trmn was created, which is obvious to anyone who has tried to understand the suject. The article is simply not failing OR and everything is attached to infomration within the sources, so that criticism is not true simply. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC) the filers reasons are just rhetoric without any real consideration of the value of the article, which approximately 50 people per day think is an interesting subject matter. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) That the reasons why I placed the infomation into the article isn't known therefore presumed wrong by the filer and his supporters does not indicate that there isn't a reason, which is quite easy to understand, actually (why I chose to add the information which is in the article) it is more a observation of the lack of effort that editors have made to understand the article, or their lack of understanding of the subject. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a complete mess of an article. WP:TNT at the very least. Not convinced it needs a separate article and it actually appears to just be a Wp:COATRACK to hang a ridiculous (and I mean ridiculous) list of every single reference someone can locate and list every book they can find. In fact it seems that it's a list of references and a bibliography with an ill formed and sometimes incoherent list that exists just to justify the sources. Even if this is needing an actual article (not convinced), this is certainly not it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft with unclear, meandering scope. This comes across like a passion project intended to further some purpose, while at the same time being so difficult to follow that the purpose isn't comprehensible. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT as utterly incomprehensible. Rehsarb (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2024 (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!} 09:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv Productions[edit]

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

nn arts and entertainment agency - Altenmann >talk 08:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Television, Entertainment, Companies, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mach61 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such companies usually stay behind the scenes, as they should. This company is succesful especially with Israeli artists but that doesn't make it notable. I included the debate in the Israeli queue so others who take interest can share their opinions. gidonb (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Definitely feels like WP:COI due to the excessive listing of its staff team. TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genomatix[edit]

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

Proposing TNT. The article reads like an advertisement. Chance for improvement is very small. Probably not very useful as a good starting point for a rewrite. Janhrach (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, and Technology. Janhrach (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I was able to find this, at least: [33], but that might be well-disguised churnalism, hard to tell. Same for this one: [34]. Everything else I found was either not independent or obvious press releases. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WeirdNAnnoyed’s findings are helpful. The latter is definitely a press release due to the email tag at the bottom of the article. Other then that, per nom. TLA (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Raiter[edit]

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

Faiils WP:BIO. Sources are mainly primary. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Pakistan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This issue should not be the quality of the sources, but whether the subject is notable. He was for 5 years the principle of a Bible College. Bible colleges (in US seminaries) are often small independent academic institutions, but they ought not to be judged merely by size in comparison with institutions teaching a wider range of subjects. Three of his predecessors have articles, but others do not. Not being in Australia or Vanutu (where he founded another), I am not qualified to judge his notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still need sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Peterkingiron. This is someone who may be considered notable despite not clearing GNG's conventions. I'm reading this subject in the way we generally give leeway to bishops in significant denominations. Sourcing confirms that this person does exist and did hold some fairly notable positions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the positions held confer inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's possible that Stirrings of the Soul may meet WP:NBOOK given it won an award, though online RS reviews seem thin. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As far as I can see, the subject fails WP:BIO and I don't see any other notability criteria that are met. I don't see that WP:BOOK is met. A reading of the award process (self-nomination and an entry fee required) and its criteria does not convey obvious notability. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he's a well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College in Australia too which has notability in other countries. If there's no consensus to keep then please merge to Melbourne School of Theology to preserve the history of the article. Cavepavonem (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College" are not criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only applicable notability guideline is GNG, it requires in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and we do not have that. All the blathering in earlier contributions to this discussion about how we should ignore the guidelines and consider him notable because he's notable is content-free, circular, and should be disregarded. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's discussed in a few textbooks [35], [36], with a quote in this one [37]. For such a small field of study, he's somewhat well-known. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (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 Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. czar 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. A facility operated by Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Source eval:

Comments	Source
Primary, from Penn State	Penn State University". www.psu.edu. August 9, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
Primary, from Penn State	2. ^ Wall, John. "History of the Rock Springs Facility". Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved January 5, 2022.
Primary, from Penn State	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Wall, John (2001). "A History of the Rock Springs Facility". Penn State Agriculture. Spring/Summer 2001: 11.
Nothing about the current facility, covers an event "Ag Progress Days" and the dairy farm that used to be there	4. ^ Venesky, Tom (August 7, 2023). "Before Ag Progress Days, Rock Springs Was Dairy Farm". Lancaster Farming. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
Primary, from Penn State	5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Research Farms". Penn State Department of Plant Science. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
Primary, from Penn State	6. ^ "Entomology Farm at Rock Springs". Penn State Department of Entomology. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
Primary, from Penn State	7. ^ "Facilities". Penn State Department of Plant Pathology. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
Nothing about the current facility, covers an event "Ag Progress Days"	8. ^ "Penn State's Ag Progress Days offering wide range of activities, exhibits". Morning Ag Clips. August 1, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
Primary, from Penn State	9. ^ "Ag Progress Days". pcntv.com. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
Primary, from Penn State	10. ^ Wall, John (2001). "A Yearly Farm Fair Extravaganza". Penn State Agriculture. Spring/Summer 2001: 12.
Nothing about the current facility, covers an event "Ag Progress Days"	11. ^ Jump up to:a b "Ag Progress Days Returning for In-Person Event in August". StateCollege.com. June 18, 2021. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
Primary, from Penn State	12. ^ Jump up to:a b "About the Show". Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved January 13, 2022.

Only three of the sources above meet WP:IS, those three have no information about the subject (the Research Center) but brief promotional information for a year event that takes place on the property, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth..

BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

No objection toa consensus redirect to Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences // Timothy :: talk 05:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Education, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences per nom. Jfire (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. I didn't find anything to indicate notability, but I wouldn't actually be terribly surprised if there turned out to be more somewhere about this. Regardless, merge allows information to be preserved. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 10 January 2024 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simfy[edit]

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

Not notable, no significant coverage by independent sources. It's little bit confusing because it died, then what was left was called Simfy Africa, but now if you Google it, it's completely different, not related to music subscription service. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not demonstrate sustained coverage by independent and reliable sources WP:GNG. The available references primarily cover business transactions and partnerships, which do not establish the long-term significance of the company within the industry (WP:CORPDEPTH). The liquidation of the company and the redirection of users to Deezer suggest that Simfy Music's impact was limited and transient. Article also lacks comprehensive coverag that would indicate the service had a significant influence on music streaming or cultural impact (fails WP:SIGCOV)

Cray04 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-business transaction non-partnership SIGCOV: [38] Next couple from dewiki: [39] [40] [41] Treating Simfy Africa as the same entity: [42] [43], [44]. Notability is not temporary, and in any case widespread coverage across close to a decade indicates non-transient impact. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A412. I also found [45] by Mybroadband, published 10 days earlier than the one A412 found. Plenty of significant coverage here. Darcyisverycute (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2024 (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!} 08:40, 10 January 2024 (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!} 02:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AMGTV[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent coverage about the network itself. A BEFORE check only found some minor and routine coverage regarding confirmation of certain shows the network was set to air, such as [[46]]. Let'srun (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 3 January 2024 (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!} 08:39, 10 January 2024 (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. No consensus to merge as proposed. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hale Area Schools[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:GNG, schools by themselves are not notable. Tooncool64 (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Tooncool64, true, but this article is not about a school, but rather a school district. — Jacona (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Jacona noted, this is a school district, not a school. Although the article does need improvement, standard references that are available from the government via NCES are enough to meet the notability requirements for geographic locations like school districts. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts, "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). ~Kvng (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to Ogemaw_County,_Michiganand or Iosco_County,_Michigan as appropriate. The policy cited by the above vote uses the phrase near-presumptive, so school districts are almost presumed notable. According to WP:N, presumed simply means an article can be created without checking for notability, but if the article is challenged then if must be proven to meet WP:N or be deleted or merged. The article does not meet WP:N.James.folsom (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Kvng, and per WP:N (Geography)

Cray04 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kvng. I note James.folsom's point that "near presumptive" is not an absolute guaranty of notability, but this school district contains schools, including a high school, and those schools do not have pages. Where schools are not notable for pages they should redirect to the school district, but if we delete the school district page, that's not possible. So on a practical basis I lean keep here. Except that is not notability. If it were found the high school were notable for its own page, would we then have to delete the district? Well no, because anyone searching sources will find plenty of mentions of this district. Largely these are in national registers and directories (e.g. [47], and you could argue that those are primary sources, but you could argue that of any school district. The district is not notable because it meets GNG with secondary sourcing. It is notable because it meets GEOLAND. This is based on a long established consensus that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia, it is also a gazetteer (WP:GAZ ). As such, the fact that the school district exists and is nationally recognised to exist in multiple directories is enough to meet this notable place criterion. I am not going to paste in all the source links but note the books search, the scholar search and the 4 newspaper mentions [48]. I think this is a clear keep as long as any school district is a keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reading of WP:GAZ is is that things still need to meet WP:N, as all geoland article have to meet WP:N. All these policies make clear Wikipedia is not repository of everything. There are standards for articles, what do you think this place is going to look in a thousand years if this loosy goosy interpretation of the policies continues. The county article has notability because because of legal recognition and the school district article could be moved there and the schools could be listed by district within the county article as well. This is actually what makes the most sense. And this should be the case with all the school district articles unless they are wildly notable.James.folsom (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination provides no rationale for deleting this article, apparently confusing it with something else. In any case, the arguments above by Kvng and Sirfurboy🏄 are sufficient to show that this article meets the appropriate notability standard for a school district. Jacona (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2024 (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. Even disregarding the blocked Cray04's view, there is only one, "weak", keep opinion; everybody else thinks the sources are not enough for notability. Sandstein 14:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Crazy[edit]

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

Completely unsourced (and tagged as such since 2008 without ever having a stitch of sourcing added in 15 years) article about a television game show. As always, WP:TVSHOW does not confer automatic inclusion freebies on television shows just because they existed, but rather a television show has to have WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about it to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- but after searching both ProQuest and newspapers.com, literally all I can find is very short blurbs and glancing namechecks of its existence (and accidental text matches where the phrase "acting crazy" was used in other senses unrelated to this show), with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage about this show found at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Note the content is very similar to its fandom page. IMDB links to no other sources, and the three sources added since nomination by A._B. do not have significant coverage. There is a moderate possibility of offline sources, however. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already checked two databases of pre-Google newspaper coverage, and found nothing much. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

Cray04 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (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!} 08:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The show fails in WP:GNG. It lasted a few years and only had a regional scope. In sources, the series only appears to be cited in some lists as a low-success program. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's in IMDB and has some coverage on the net. Probably could be developed further with research (I added a cite for Wayne Cox hosting the show while doing a quick google for info). --Zippy (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nb. added a few more cites. still weak keep, but wanted to make it as good as I could from a quick search online. --Zippy (talk) Zippy (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, the article is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with the only thing that counts as a reliable or GNG-eligible source at all being the North Delta Reporter, which is an acceptable starter source but as a suburban community hyperlocal it's not in and of itself enough. None of the other three footnotes in the article are notability builders at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement re the quality of the added citations, which is why I am still a weak keep. But given the apparent popularity of the show during its multiyear run, I would not be surprised if there are newspaper or TV cites that would turn up with more digging. --Zippy (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I already did WP:BEFORE searches in both ProQuest and Newspapers.com — which, between the two, cover off virtually every single GNG-worthy newspaper that exists in English Canada at all — and found nothing of value. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv String Quartet[edit]

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

self-referenced; tagged for notability since 2018. - Altenmann >talk 08:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per the following significant coverage in reliable sources:

Kozinn, Allan (2007-10-23). "A Substitute Steps Up, an Ensemble Settles In". The New York Times. (Concert review)
Adams, Martin (2000-05-12). "Aviv String Quartet Masonic Hall, Molesworth Street, Dublin". Irish Times. (Concert review)
Dervan, Michael (2001-06-08). "Aviv String Quartet Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin". Irish Times. (Concert review)
Ashley, Tim (2004-01-07). "Aviv String Quartet". The Guardian. Retrieved 2024-01-11. (Concert review)

There's more, but that's more than enough to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Concert reviews are not significant coverage. They say almost nothing about ensemble itself. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I disagree. Concert reviews often contain analysis and critical commentary, which does constitute significant coverage, particularly in the genre of classical music, where concert reviews are one of the primary venues for music criticism. Here's an excerpt from the Guardian review:
  Aviv String Quartet, founded in 1997, is rapidly emerging as one of today's finest chamber ensembles. Rich, warm and distinctive in sound, their playing combining technical exactitude with instinctive emotional intensity. Their methodology is often striking. With many quartets, the first violinist tends to be the principal figure. Here, however, the second violinist Evgenia Epshtein and viola player Shuli Waterman are predominant, anchoring their performances in rhythmic and harmonic density and gradually prising the music open from within, while the leader, Sergey Ostrovsky and cellist Rachel Mercer weave gracious tendrils of sound around them.
  
  Not only is this significant coverage, the fact that this ensemble has concert reviews in major general-audience newspapers such as The Guardian and New York Times is strong evidence that it will have also been covered in specialist publications such as The Strad -- and hey, look: [49], [50]. Jfire (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What you cited is an advert. The only fact is that it was founded in 1977. - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The excerpt I posted was written by Tim Ashley, a classical and opera critic for The Guardian. It is not an advertisement. Jfire (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Examples provided by Jfire are sufficient to establish notability. Marokwitz (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage through critical reviews. Also, the intro does not contain a valid reason to delete. Instead of after the fact inisting that a critical review is an advertisement, why not do a solid BEFORE ahead of nomination? It's not the case that there are insufficient AfD nominations! WP:SNOW outside and here. gidonb (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: easily meets GNG. A search shows up plenty more concert reviews and other good sources, but those above already meet GNG. Additionally, I found this quite substantial programming of Shostakovich quartets on BBC Radio 3, which aired the quartet's recordings over several days on a national radio station. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 10:23, 17 January 2024 (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!} 08:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Gullies[edit]

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

This article is not notable. A recent revision reads like an advertisement. A revert today by another editor has the text as a stub. Although it has references, I am not sure this makes it notable (per WP:PRODUCT). Further the subject was supposed to be finished in 2021, there seems to be no further update. The production company is not notable enough to have a WP page. I propose deleting this page, and will also make the same case for the 2 other games linked. Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete It's non-notable currently and lacks reliable sourcing and significant coverage, given all the sources mention it trivially. Also WP:TOOSOON for an unreleased game. Could draftify if more sources are found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.Delete. Lack of reliable sources. RomanRaju (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As probably WP:TOOSOON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not meet GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2024 (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 as the article is now fully cited with reliable and significant citations. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)‎.[reply]

Dira Betachtonim[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to Chabad philosophy. Minor piece of the Chabad movement's philosophy that fails WP:GNG. All the sources are Chabad-affiliated, and thus are not independent to established notability. Per a WP:BEFORE, couldn't find RS to justify a standalone article vice the proper paragraph-length coverage in the main article. Longhornsg (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Longhornsg (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per WP:Before, this should never have been raised as an AFD. WP:RS are easily available when searching online, (eg. in Google Scholar). Editors can locate sources by using Hebrew keyword, english translation rather than solely searching for the transliterated term. Since the AFD notice, I have expanded and reorganised the page to better present the idea as a significant theological doctrine and added multiple scholarly references. In any case, editors should also be able to use discretion to determine whether certain Chabad sources do in fact meet WP:RS. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep particularly in light of the excellent work done by @I.am.a.qwerty; numerous, academic, non-Chabad sources are now included. Kazamzam (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2024 (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 04:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Publisher[edit]

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

Book publisher that fails WP:NCORP. No sources on the page and a search for sources finds nothing that would meet WP:GNG or NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Slovenia. CNMall41 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point. Yes, they exist, but not under the name Dream Publisher, this is Založba Sanje. And all other names seem to be rough translations that are not used in practice. There is a chance that notability is demonstrated but it is better that the article is completely rewritten from scratch. --Tone 08:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, continue under title Sanje (publishing house) or similar. A09|(talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – May meet WP:GNG, but the article is a bit WP:PROMO at the moment. WP:TNT is right play.. TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bell (sprinter)[edit]

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

According to [51], this is not the same person as the most commonly googled Alan Bell as deciphered from his age cross-referenced with the article, as well as "his start as a PE teacher". Otherwise unable to find SIGCOV, calling a GNG fail InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added several new cites to the article. Newspapers covered him on a first-name basis, see for example "Alan rings up double to start the season". Liverpool Daily Post (Merseyside ed.). 1978-03-20. p. 13. Retrieved 2024-01-11. They demonstrate WP:SIGCOV -- I found them by just scrolling through the over 2,000 matches for "Alan Bell" from 1977-1985 in the UK, there are still many yet to be found. Clearly satisfies WP:SPORTCRIT, and he is quite fast too as his 45.65 400m in the 1980 UK Champs semifinals was the #3 UK mark of all time. --Habst (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per Habst's expansion and work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2024 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeonsoo Kim[edit]

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

Not finding significant coverage or independent reviews of this emerging ceramic artist via Wikipedia Library. Search engines turn up a couple of Q&A interviews which provide insight into his life, but these do not qualify as independent secondary sources. Situation is unlikely to change in the next 6 months, plus this is a name shared by other people who may be more "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. For this reason, am recommending deletion at this time. No prejudice if this article is re-created in a few years if and when there is significant coverage conferring notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:NARTIST. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria for inclusion. Residencies don't contribute to notability, and the awards aren't notable. Fails NARTIST, GNG, BASIC, and ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be an artist in residence [52], with not much coverage beyond that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2024 (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!} 08:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien de Montagnac[edit]

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

This page has been sourceless since 2011. I was able to add a dubious citation, but most of the information seems to be from this wikipedia page. Mason (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France. Mason (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fr wiki article has sourcing, does any of it pass muster? I don't read the language well enough. English language sourcing is generally non RS. Star Mississippi 03:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fr wiki shows that he has an entry in Biography of military celebrities of the land and sea armies from 1789 to 1850. And, even limiting myself to English sources, his Letters from a soldier are cited in modern scholarship, e.g. [53], [54], [55]. Jfire (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons described by Jfire, translating software can be used to aid in citing french sources. EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (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. In the sense that there is disagreement about whether to keep the article (the majority's view) or to merge it with the case about the murder committed by the subject. But nobody supports deletion, and therefore, should people want to continue this discussion, the proper place to do so would be a merger proposal on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy-Rose Blanchard[edit]

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

Gypsy may one day be notable for something other than killing her mother. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and nothing in this article suggests any current independent notability; most of it is content that reiterates what's already covered in the article about her mother's murder. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Louisiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references dated after the murder may establish notability. If the consensus is that there shouldn't be a standalone article, I would prefer to redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard than to delete. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they establish anything that would make her notable if she hadn't murdered her mother? Daniel Case (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard (this could have been tried as a first step with a explanatory message prior to AFD, per WP:NPP#Content_forks and WP:BRD) given that the bio is a highly duplicative subset of the murder article and she is notable only in the context of this, so WP:NOPAGE applies. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gypsy Rose Blanchard (the correct spelling of her name), which I created as a redirect around the same time I created the original page, exists already. Of course, having this one as a redirect wouldn't hurt, either. Daniel Case (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah apologies -- missed that. It is a plausible redirect[56], and she may actually be using the hyphen now[57] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she’s notable enough as an individual to have her own page, but the page needs a serious cleanup. TheXuitts (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exactly what i was gonna say -jakeyounglol (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this 2604:3D09:757D:CE70:CCC5:B5C1:8FED:68A (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a Merger be appropriate here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: ref [58] there's not much available to merge here, so while I'm not opposed to a merge decision, redirect is probably a cleaner result, and the page history is there for limited merger. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. If she publishes a book and becomes notable herself, this article can be expanded in future years. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Currently she is only notable for one event. If this changes in the future an article can be created then, but at the moment there's no sense in having her biography be a separate page. Chocmilk03 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard as per WP:BIO1E, there is nothing notable apart from her crime Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. There is no viable merge content, and much of the existing article was already improperly copied from that article. I've repaired it for now by providing attribution in an edit summary, as well as talk page templates. Additionally, this article is at the wrong location as the subject's name isn't hyphenated; Gypsy Rose Blanchard is already a redirect. In addition to WP:BLP1E, this page is the embodiment of WP:CRIMINAL which is clear that since we have the appropriate redirect target, this should not be an independent article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT - This article has more detail regarding the life of Gypsy Rose Blanchard and the actions that lead up to the murder of her mother. I would wait a year before considering deleting the article. If no more notable information comes forward, now that she has been released, then merge the articles. DandEs (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially WP:CRYSTAL. It can always be recreated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I feel this article should be kept because of the future of Gypsy since being released and the doccumentry series that has just been released about her life.

People would be looking her name up rather than her mum's or the guy she met online that killed her mum. I feel shes more notable than anyone else in this case. 93ben (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for something already; according to the documentary she has had made about her she is the only known case of Munchausen by proxy victim who committed murder to get away from her abuser. I think that in and of itself makes her worth having at least a modest article written about her. Lisenka92 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Wikipedians are not stupid. Remember when people tried to redirect COVID-19 when it first came about even though we knew it was going global? I think the sources and interest show Gypsy Rose has made a name in her own right, and I guarantee she will have appearances on Dancing with the Stars and Celebrity Big Brother under her belt come next year. Why redirect?Manipulative Maniac (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [blocked sock--indeed, Wikipedians are not stupid. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)][reply]

See above. This is even more CRYSTAL.
I also find it interesting that an account that has been around for less than a month "remembers" events here from four years ago ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Case, I don't have an explanation for that: their CU-confirmed socks go back to December of last year, if I remember correctly. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect She's only notable for the murder, so it should redirect there unless and until she has a substantial career that is not directly linked to her having killed her mother. Just because she may eventually become more notable doesn't mean she needs an article now. EasyAsPai (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy is notable as a high-profile victim of factitious disorder (Munchhausen-by-proxy). Her mother's abuse and the subsequent failure of the medical profession to detect it for so many years would make her notable even if she had not facilitated her mother's murder. Elinde7994 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, yes, within the context of a notable event. It does not necessarily follow from that that she is notable enough for a separate article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a notable public figure engaged in activism, and whether the notability is due to her mother's murder or not is irrelevant. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIO1E it is very relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is talked about more and has a lot more written about her than many people on this site that have pages covering content found in other pages. Listen1st (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I'm not oppsed to keeping the page, a merger is probably the more realistic outcome. Looking through the murder article though, it seems most of Gypsys life is being told trough the biography of her mother, so I would prefer to see some kind of rewrite that separates the two a bit more, splitting the background section in two and incorporating parts of this article into it. Right now a simple redirect won't fix any of the issues with the main article. --jonas (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is exploding in the news and our readers deserve an article for a noteworthy, notorious, and famous person Caniteurbana (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTHENEWS. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard as per WP:BIO1E. Only known for the murder of her mother so obviously makes sense to redirect there. –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E, allow separate articles about the same subject if the individual in questions becomes notable enough. “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.” - WP:BIO1E

you and many others arguing redirect, have failed mention and show how she does not qualify for this exception. BigRed606 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Often people in high profile cases become media personalities upon release, it looks like she's going to become popular in her own right. ManicD101 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of the other users who voted keep. On @ManicD101:'s part, he might right. What happens next will be up to her. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has become very notable over the last couple years. There have been many tv shows and documentaries on her, as mentioned above. She definitely meets the threshold of notability for a stand alone article. BigRed606 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse "TV shows about her" with "TV shows about the circumstances that led her to kill her mother". Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Article clearly reaches the criteria mentioned under WP:BIO1E, which states “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”- WP:BIO1E. Based on the fact she has generated enough publicity for there to be multiple tv shows, about her life before during and after the murders, along with other major news sites talking about her recently, CNN, ABC, USA, Today ect… their seems to be enough notability to meet the criteria mentioned above per WP:BIO1E. BigRed606 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others SDVBou (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Like it or not, she is notable due to all the coverage of her life. – Meena • 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No, not an important figure, and a redirect to the other article is more than enough. We should not be acting on the whims of the boulevard press. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per others above. She has become notable over the years and was the subject of an entire television series. Now, she's all over the news and mainstream media in ways that aren't about the murder (an article which some suggest we should merge this too), see here, here, here, and here. She's become a celebrity.. even has 9.3 million followers on TikTok, which is a lot more than most other TikTokers who have articles on Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is basically WP:ITSINTHENEWS. And one's Tik Tok follower count is not, and never should be, a determinant of notability for a standalone article. We have deleted articles about far too many YouTubers and Twitchers whose followers created accounts to vainly make that argument for there to be any dispute about this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying her TikTok following determins her notability, I was using that as an example of her celebrity and growing presence as an internet personality especially seeing as there are now social media trends that she is the focus of. This is more than just being in the news. She's been on talk shows and given exclusive interviews for major magazines. She wrote a book, was the focus of a television movie, was the focus of a documentary, and was the main character in a television series. She's reached a certain level of famous for being famous for the criminal background.. I would argue it's very similar to Anna Sorokin. I mean, Slate even went so far as to call her America's Sweetheart. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for many reasons listed above, but a parallel case to this includes the page for the Menéndez Brothers [59]. As with Gypsy Rose Blanchcard, the Menéndez Brothers are primarily known for murdering their parents, but there is strong evidence of childhood abuse. In any case, the term "Menénsez Brothers" is more well known to the general public than that of their parents. See also Amy Fisher [60] and Pam Hupp [61]. This may not be what we wish for, but these individuals have gotten a celebrity status based on their crimes, and it can happen very quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJPyatt (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Menendez Brothers had one trial that became almost a soap opera (and had one of the best real-life Perry Mason moments ever, even if it didn't result in a conviction) and a second after the first one ended in a partial mistrial. Amy Fisher was the subject of three made-for-TV movies and didn't kill the woman she shot. Pam Hupp's husband got convicted of a murder many people now think she committed, but which remains officially unsolved after he was acquitted at a second trial granted following evidence of severe prosecutorial misconduct. Hupp herself has been convicted of one murder; people also think she might have killed her own mother as well. There's a complex story there, as for the others.

Gypsy Rose? She killed her horribly abusive mother, pled guilty to second-degree murder and got a ten-year sentence, which ended with time off for good behavior a couple of weeks ago. She is hardly out of the shadow of the event which made her notable (and no, we cannot say "she pretended to be disabled and sick" before that when we all know her mother put her up to that, and if she hadn't she would never have killed her mother).

I do not argue, as some seem to be implying, that she will never be notable by herself. I fully expect her to do something like appear on Dancing With the Stars or Celebrity Big Brother or something like that soon, maybe even run for political office. When that happens I won't argue she isn't independently notable. But not now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, literally just saw on the news an interview where she is coming out with another book. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's quite a few participants created 15+ years ago who have minimal edits. Is there canvassing somewhere (other than delsorts)? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, but don't have solid evidence. Especially given the huge number of Keep votes that are completely against policy, or don't give a rationale at all. I would encourage the closing administrator to carefully review the strength of the arguments, as this is WP:NOTAVOTE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) agree, I have never seen so many dormant or semi-dormant accounts come out of the woodwork. I counted 7 I would put in those categories, including one that was dormant for 15 years and another for 4 years, plus the rest for multiple months. (I listed them in my original comment but got edit-conflicted, and can't be bothered re-listing.) The prima facie majority above is surely not an accurate reflection of true consensus as a result of this, on top of any potential weaknesses in arguments. Daniel (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt, that canvassing is at play here. Instead i believe the recent rise in her notability is the main reason we are seeing people who typically don’t edit on regular basis comment their support for “keep” in the debate page. BigRed606 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While numerically, the editors (not all of whom have low edit counts) arguing to Keep this article have not presented many strong, policy-based arguments, there is no support for deletion so this is a decision between Keep and Merge/Redirect. But I'm also skeptical of the argument that this violates WP:BIO1E as most of the article is about her life with her mother and some on her post-prison life, only a portion is about the murder which I assume is the "event" considered. I see her on so many magazine covers that I don't think she will return to being a "low profile" person that is one of the WP:BLP1E conditions if we are looking at that policy. Also, even though "other things exist" is a popular essay (not policy), interpreted WP:BIO1E in this way would result in the deletion of articles on any person primarily known for either committing a crime or being a victim of a crime and we have hundreds of those articles (perhaps thousands). Also, I don't see any critique of the sourcing of this article which I assume is satisfactory. Let me state, I'm neutral here but I'd like to see more policy-guided arguments on what to do with this article, I'm wondering if there is anything more on the Redirect/Merge side than WP:BIO1E and how those advocating Keep would address this criticism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Redirect/Merge side have offered nothing but a blanket response using Wikipedia’s WP:BIO1E as their standard for their argument, but have failed mention specifically how this article does not meet the expectation, for a stand alone article under a section of the WP:BIO1E, which states “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”- WP:BIO1E. Judging by her recent rise in notability concerning not just her role in the murder, but her whole life in her totality before and after the murder. We will see that if we take this exception mentioned above into account, that this article does indeed in fact meet the criteria for a stand alone article. BigRed606 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me the key phrase in BIO1E is "If the event is highly significant ..." Is a murder nine years ago really so significant yet? Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The murder from 9 years ago is not the main reason for her notability, it’s her recent release along with increasing media attention caused by the increasing number TV shows and articles about her life, of that is causing her to become notable. Hence why she should absolutely be considered for a stand alone article using the exception in Wikipedia BIO1E mentioned above. BigRed606 (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would she have been released from prison if she had never committed the murder? Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, what is there to say that can't be said on the article about the murder? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. The tipping point for me is that there is almost complete duplication of the information, so why have two articles with so much overlap? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Gypsy Rose Blanchard, per other's points, has sort of outgrown her murder in terms of notability. At this point she is a notable influencer, even if it's upheld by a single event. Her life and the psychology behind her is also significantly documented and studied, and has most likely outgrown the murder article. --Wikiwillz (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to the rise of her popularity following her release, and her rise in social media numbers, she has essentially become a social media influencer that rivals many top members in the industry today, on top of the other contributions to keep the article as well (new book, interest in her specifically and not the murder, etc.). As well, we now have an article about her that can be added to depending on her life choices from this point onward. She has become a celebrity. Kbeast33 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her story is encyclopedic and she's amassed a large social following. She's been featured either in person or in character in a number of documentaries, biopics, and interviews. Especially since her prison release, she's been pervasive in media and culture. Dmarquard (talk)
Keep: She has become a quite notable public figure over the last couple years and will likely do so in any future. Also, there are likely more media-coverage in any future – Especially her case being released premature. --Smartcom5 ^(Talk ?) 06:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So from what I've gathered it sounds like people suggest her own article because of her "rise to fame". However, what matters is whether or not her fame is discussed by WP:RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what matters is what those RSes establish she is notable for. And right now I see precious little reason she gets media coverage that would have happened if she hadn't killed her mother, pleaded guilty to it, served eight years of a ten-year sentence and gotten released. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (so basically delete). I edit a lot of crime articles and while I'd say I'm more inclusionist than most on the question of "should the perpetrator have an article", there's really nothing else here that isn't already in the article that would be undue on the main article, which IMO is the line for when the perpetrator should have one. I would guess she becomes notable for independent actions in the future but she is not right now and the relevant event already has an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Subject have been in the media eye for a decade. Plenty of third party sources shows notability. Is releasing a book. And the media attention about her personally is establishing WP:GNG beyond the crime case.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Do not redirect. A complex victim and participant in the murder, not convicted of first class murder with the one who was, so this is not just someone notable for killing someone. The post release from jail coverage cements here as worthy of an independent article. However, is do read the article as containing excessive content, it should be cut down, not merged elsewhere, but not cut down drastically. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is ongoing now. This is definitely not NOTCRYSTAL. Points of interest include her youthful dubious diagnosis, the ongoing dubious diagnosis, murder of the mother, and now post release coverage. This far exceeds the limit of BIO1E. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that she has amassed enough attention to warrant having this article. Additionally, she's not only notable for her part in the murder. I think that insinuating such is a massive generalization. -Euphoria42 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. She got out of prison a week ago and hasn't done anything worthy of her own article at the moment. Her biography, the murder, and her time in prison are sufficiently covered in the existing article. She has gotten a lot of press in the last week or two, but I don't think a separate article is needed- Is there anything not covered in the existing article other than more details about her personal life and her announcement that she is going to publish an ebook? Anybar (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not she keeps being interviewed and reported in the media ever since her release and that therfore contributes to significant coverage in reliable sources. Interviewed on national television by Good Morning America. Interviewed by CNN. Her release was profiled by the New York Times. Washington Post. ABC News. I mean, the sources are there. Trillfendi (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A private university, therefore N:CORP applies and there's no indication this is the case nor that anything has changed since the June AfD. Move warring over twice rejected draft from a conflicted editor, so we're here. Star Mississippi 03:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Somalia. Star Mississippi 03:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to not be tortured because it belongs to the University in the country once I vote only to improve its information Somali Editor (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been advised many times why it wasn't ready, you chose to disregard that advice and edit disruptively. Now the community will decide. Star Mississippi 03:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I hope to take your advice Somali Editor (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one reference, which does not establish general notability. Already deleted seven months ago, and no indication that anything has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed. Some salt would be nice, too, so we don't have to keep litigating. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no indication of passing WP:NSCHOOL. Qcne (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as one of the AfC decliners) nothing to indicate any notability - fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be deleted, it just needs to be corrected and improved to make it a complete and reliable article. I think that should be deleted. I have quoted these references from sources that I can say are reliable.

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post-mobile.php?story=20230626061727185

https://www.dovepress.com/determinants-of-disagreement-with-female-genital-mutilation-among-moth-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJWH

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Abrar+University%22 192.145.175.197 (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources contribute anything towards notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP, who just came off another block and is unquestionably part of the same group of editors.

Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Star Mississippi 14:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aukro.bg[edit]

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

This article was created in 2010, and since then, there's been no indication that the subject is actually notable. Google gives limited sources. Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Bulgaria. Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it evidently operated in several central and Eastern European countries for a while before being taken over but I’m not seeing anything to suggest notability. Ukrainian Wikipedia has an article about the brand in that country with some sources, but I find nothing for Bulgaria. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a declined prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't pass the WP:GNG. Cruzdoze (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit[edit]

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

Many of the sources in the article don't seem to have significant coverage, just mentions of partnerships or new features. The entire features section is only referenced by primary sources, with one section not referenced at all. I believe some sections also seem like promo. Lewcm Talk to me! 15:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Skynxnex (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems not like just simple promo. Why contributors made Features paragraph based only on primary sources? #5 sources (WSJ) does not even mention the company. Not passed WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Vinzaretti (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Confirmed sock and struck. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masckarpone. Star Mississippi 17:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bybit is a top 6 of worldwide crypto exchange with a trading volume of almost 4billion dollars in 24h.[62] It is one of the top exchanges in the world and already translated in 7 languages. People that want to learn about the top exchanges might find this wiki article very useful. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per explanation from HighKing⁺⁺. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only news coverage I could find is company-issued press releases. No in-depth reliable secondary coverage, as far as I can tell. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 14 January 2024 (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. TLA (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Meaby[edit]

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

Not notable individual, lack of independent SIGCOV GraziePrego (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GraziePrego (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full obituary in a major national newspaper. We have always considered this to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Youth Hostels Association (England & Wales): Fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is OBIT, with all the normal issues that go with using OBITs as sources. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if SIGCOV sources from WP:IS are added to the article. GNG requires multiple, IS, SIGCOV, sources. // Timothy :: talk 18:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with using obits in national newspapers as sources. Not sure why you think there is. By capitalising, you seem to be suggesting that the page you want is WP:OBIT, which I'm sure isn't it given it has no relevance to this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I expanded the article and added more sources. Although I would like to see additional sources (especially on his work designing railroad carriages), I am convinced that Meaby is notable and worthy of coverage beyond the suggested link to the organization's article. I also agree that a bi-line obituary in The Guardian pretty much proves notability. Rublamb (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, to consider recent expansion/addition of sources by Rublamb.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the Obituary and expanded sources, this would suffice. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2024 (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 Dhaka Division cricketers#A. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md Anamul Haque[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 02:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 02:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dhaka Division cricketers Following a page move to Anamul Haque (cricketer, born 2000). No idea why the article is titled as is, but the subject does seem to fail WP:GNG, however he has played the majority of his games for Dhaka Division, so a suitable redirect exists per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2024 (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 Columbiana Centre. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Columbiana Centre shooting[edit]

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

Not really notable anymore. Last edited 6 months ago. I think a merge into Columbiana Centre would be sufficient. What does everyone think? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a merge request would have been easier than a whole AfD, but now that we're here, merge and redirect. Not like there's much content to lose. A bunch of people got shot and then the center got sued, would better fit there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any applicable info not already in the target article to Columbiana Centre. Sourcing is routine news coverage of the event and its aftermath, which does not indicate notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2024 (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 radio stations in California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHCF[edit]

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG. All I could find were radio listings and brief mentions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; unable to find any in-depth secondary coverage about this radio station. Left guide (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in California: this alternative to deletion as a ((R to list entry)) is probably the best that can be done for such a relatively new station with no significant coverage to speak of. This stub is definitely the product of the looser "notability standards" in this topic area prior to about 2021. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 January 2024 (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.

Feel free to create a redirect, I wasn't sure what target article you were arguing for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1893 Western Maryland Green Terror football team[edit]

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

Not enough coverage is present for this subject to meet the WP:NSEASONS. All I can find is some brief coverage, with nothing substantial present (although of note, one article I found covering the Baltimore City game says that Western Maryland lost, which directly contradicts the media guide, and also says they played a set of games on the weekend of November 4th, which is not noted in the media guide [[63]]. Bottom line, there isn't enough to justify keeping this. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Maryland. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or delete: Closest sign of notability I could find is to the 1891 season, their first.[64] Such early history could easily fit into the modestly-sized McDaniel Green Terror football.
Also note the same arguments will apply to the article for the 1892 team. AfD page[65] Wizmut (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2024 (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 Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perception (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct developer article with no real sources. Suggest a merge to Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. I haven't done a WP:BEFORE due to the infuriatingly vague name. Judging by the current state of the article, the developer never seems to have successfully published a single game on console and only managed two coin-op arcade titles, and the cancelled Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. The studio's entire notability really does just seem to be hinged on the notoriety and controversy for the development of that game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom. Basically complete TNT material even assuming the company was notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Aside from this The Sydney Morning Herald [66] article I found nothing else. Timur9008 (talk) 04:17, January 10, 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, dont think this can merit its own article. TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2024 (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. There is no need to come to AFD and have a week-long discussion when you are really looking for a second opinion. Just go talk to another editor or pay a visit to the Teahouse which is not just for new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Water infection[edit]

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

I created this, but not sure if this term deserves its own disambiguation page. Thoughts? GnocchiFan (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - water infection is a common term, especially in the UK, for a urinary tract infection and a bladder infection. Not sure if 'contaminated drinking water' is referred to as a water infection so much as the source of a water infection but I think as a disamb page, this is okay. Kazamzam (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: half a million GSearch hits suggest this is a common search term, and DAB pages don't need much more than that to justify their existence. GnocchiFan, you've created a useful page; no reason for you to second-guess yourself. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 11 January 2024 (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!} 01:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuruddin Sarki[edit]

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

Insufficient sourcing RJFJR (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still not seeing why he's notable, this reads like a biography on a family website. Unsurprisingly, I can't find any sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a memorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rehsarb (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2024 (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.