Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 06 May 08 >

Purge server cache

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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nagina (1951 film)[edit]

Nagina (1951 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews were found. All citations are passing mentions are focus on the actors/actresses involved with just mentions of them appearing in this film. Nothing better was found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "satisfies WP:GNG", but I don't think 3 one line mentions in books that focus on the actors passes WP:GNG, and nothing else was added to show that it does. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable and there are plenty of sources available; needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • Talk2me 08:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article is now peoperly expanded. Donaldd23, you might want to consider withdrawing the nomination. Please have a look at it following my edits. Shahid • Talk2me 12:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article has been further expanded and is now even qualified for DYK. Donaldd23, if you can have another look to reconsider your stand, that'll be good. Shahid • Talk2me 10:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the updates made by Shshshsh, the article appears to be passing WP:NFILM at this point. Even if plenty of reviews aren't found for the movie, the page may be kept as per WP:NFSOURCES. Cirton (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, keep per WP:HEY—the article looks to be in decent shape with regard to necessary sourcing. Nicely done, Shshshsh :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, I withdraw my nomination based on the citations that have been added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was keep. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 01:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Geddes[edit]

Anna Geddes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability is unclear. It seems much of her notability seems to derive from her marriage to Patrick Geddes, but of course notability is WP:NOT INHERITED. The references do not look like WP:SIGCOV to me. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge.XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable: has an entry in The New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women published by Cambridge University Press Piecesofuk (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and because the WP:NOTINHERITED essay states e.g. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG, and the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline states, e.g. That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). For this article, in addition to the biographical dictionary entry, there is also Walter Stephen, ed., Learning from the Lasses: Women of the Patrick Geddes Circle, Edinburgh: Luath Press, 2014, which includes in its description, "Several of the women profiled in this book wrote regularly to Anna Geddes, and she clearly held together much of what happened: exhibitions, summer schools, lecture series, musical evenings, in terms of organisation and hospitality."; her active and nontrivial participation is also discussed in Situated Knowledge and Visual Education: Patrick Geddes and Reclus's Geography (1886–1932). Journal of Geography, 2016, p. 1-17; there is also biographical information before and after she met Patrick Geddes in Romantic Ireland: From Tone to Gonne; Fresh Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Ireland at 173; and she is described as "The valiant Anna Geddes introduced her husband to the practical side of housing questions, had much to do with his successes in Edinburgh Old Town" in this review, and there appear to be at least two more sources in French via GScholar where she is at least mentioned. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per inclusion in The New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women. In addition to the sources found by Beccaynr, the first page of hits in WL gives a book review of Tanya Cheadle, Sexual Progressives: Reimagining Intimacy in Scotland, 1880–1914. By: Lynch, Charlie, Scottish Historical Review, 00369241, Apr2021, Vol. 100, Issue 1, and presumably coverage in the original book. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women entry; and per Beccaynr's excellent analysis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Beccaynr provides compelling evidence for Anna Geddes' notability. She appears to have been an equal partner in much of the social reform work undertaken with her husband. Additions references: Romantic Ireland From Tone to Gonne; Fresh Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Ireland, and Designing the Modern City Urbanism Since 1850.LornaMCampbell (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: From the above and recent improvements to the article, this is certainly a person of historical interest. We need to reinforce interest in women who have appeared only in articles about their spouses or male partners.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. An entry in The New Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women and an entire chapter about her in Learning from the Lasses is enough for WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED does not forbid articles about people connected to more-notable people, it requires only that we have in-depth coverage of the subject herself rather than passing mention of her in connection to the other person, and here clearly we do have that coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the compelling arguments placed by @Piecesofuk: and @Beccaynr:. WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't prohibit a person close to a famous person to be notable on his or her own merit or notability metrics. Cirton (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is notable for more than just being Patrick Geddes' wife and has been covered in works including those cited above. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am happy to undelete if any actual significant coverage is located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Emmermann[edit]

Karl Emmermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem like a notable person. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, this person is only originally mentioned very passingly in a work by Marx and Engels, and subsequent sources based on that are similarly passing (like just dropping his name and that's it). There is no corresponding article in any other language Wikipedia.

n.b. There is a later U-boat captain with the same name, so don't let that confuse you in search. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Germany. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can expand the article to provide substantial content. At present all we have is probably the quotation of a footnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some sources, which are possibly secondary or tertiary references on Marx's life and work and include Karl Emmermann's references. It is hard to believe that such a historical person if was so insignificant had such mentions in multiple occasions in scholarly discourses. Besides, we need to be considerate when trying to find digital reference of a person from nineteenth century. Cirton (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there's still zero biographical detail about him, where he was born, educated, died etc. or even why Marx mentioned him. Mztourist (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2022 (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. revision can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 15:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Institute[edit]

American Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a list of WP:Partial title matches, and such a list does not constitute a disambiguation page: none of the entries are known solely as "American Institute". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 15:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raaste Pyar Ke[edit]

Raaste Pyar Ke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a BEFORE to meets the notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (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. Per article improvements. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper Stumpers[edit]

Bumper Stumpers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Bumper Stumpers" + "Al DuBois" returned literally nothing on newspapers.com. The only source I could find besides the TV encyclopedia already cited in the article is the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. And two encyclopedia listings whose combined content doesn't take up half a printed page are not WP:SIGCOV. It's a shame too, because I actually remember liking this show as a kid. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably cobble enough together for a re-write. I'll take a look later today. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Spence, Rick (1988-10-08). "The true-life adventure of a Bumper Stumpers contestant Game shows there's no such thing as easy cash". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "My wife and I were touring the Canadian National Exhibition a year ago, when we discovered auditions for a new game called Bumper Stumpers. If you could guess the meaning of puzzles based on imaginary vanity licence plates, you could win $1,000 or more. As an expert at watching for real-life plates like GRADU8 or 2TH MD (dentist) when driving, I suggested we give it a try. Inside, we and 60 other hopefuls learned that Bumper Stumpers was the highest-rated game show on the USA network, and would start soon on Global TV. Then we played a pretend game and took a written test. The audition cost us an hour that might have been spent winning stuffed frogs on the midway, but we marked it down as an investment."

    2. "Bumper Stumpers". Lambda. Vol. 38, no. 17. 2000-02-03. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Internet Archive.

      This is an article from a student newspaper at Laurentian University. The article notes: "Bumper Stumpers made its debut on June 29, 1987 over the USA cable network. The show was a joint venture of Barry-Enright Productions & Wink Martindale Enterprises, Inc.; it was the second game show Wink created ... BS was taped at the Global Television Studios in Toronto, Canada, & was hosted by Al DuBois, a popular Toronto TV personality. BS was played by two teams of two contestants (married couples, siblings, friends, co-workers, etc.), who competed by trying to figure out the meanings of personalized licence plates."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. Smith, Diane (1990-01-06). "The lure of loot and lucre". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Gale.

        The article provides several sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Thirty-eight hundred dollars for just a few hours work, most of it sitting and waiting. Two Ryerson students earned that amount recently on a Canadian television game show called Bumper Stumpers. ... On Bumper Stumpers, a maximum cash prize of $10,500 is up for grabs for anyone who can decipher cryptic licence lates (if BBRNTBB looks like 'To be or not to be', give the folks at Global a call. Like all shows, they're clambering for contestants and audiences).

      2. Strachan, Alex (2006-10-24). "Deal or No Deal comes to the country that brought you Supermarket Sweep". National Post. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via PressReader.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Sixteen years after the cancellation of Bumper Stumpers, true gaming excitement is returning to Canada."

      3. "Updates on 'Sacred Straight'". The Cincinnati Enquirer. 1987-04-26. ProQuest 1895812218.

        The article provides several sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Veteran game show host Wink Martindale has turned producer with Bumper Stumpers, a new game show for cable's USA Network. ... Canadian TV personality Al Dubois hosts the show, which premieres June 20."

      4. Florak, Hal (1987-09-25). "Games". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 299, no. 5. ProQuest 2594677981.

        The article provides several sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Bumper Stumpers features contestants playing for cash prizes as they attempt to guess the message or meaning on personalized "vanity" license plates. Produced by Barry & Enright Prods. in association with Wink Martindale Enterprises exclusively for the USA Network."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bumper Stumpers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of those seem to be passing mentions of the show decades after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most? That's not the standard. I'm not sure why you haven't retracted this yet. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is a local-interest story. Source 2 just name-drops the show in one sentence. Source 3 is also just a name-drop. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of them are dated during the show's run, and any hit not dated 1987-1990 (which is, again, a minority of them) serves as proof that the show was still remembered and discussed years after its cancellation. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2006 source says literally nothing about the show other than that it existed. Is that really WP:SIGCOV to you? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What has that to do with what I said, which is that your assertion that the majority of Nfitz's sources were dated from the 2000s was incorrect since more than half of them are dated 1987-1990? Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does it have as much coverage as we would like, no, but it most certainly has enough to pass WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG, which is all that matters here. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per Cunard's sources above. Also 3 seasons on a national network - common sense says this shouldn't have been nominated without a lot more research. Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still remain unconvinced that any of that is WP:SIGCOV. Can you explain to me how half a sentence is significant? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first article alone (Toronto Star 1988) is almost entirely about the show, mentioning it eight times. Why would you claim it's half a sentence. With that kind of blatantly false claim, I'm not even going to waste my time checking any more references. It's a well known show that everyone in the country has heard of. This nomination is a disgrace, and making blatant false claims is surely a bannable offence. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not see the part where I said "Source 2 just name-drops the show in one sentence"? That's an article on Deal or No Deal that dedicates less than a sentence to Bumper Stumpers. Don't twist my words. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't see that - you should have mentioned it in response to my comment. Though surely it's moot given how good the Toronto Star one is. I struggle to understand how the largest circulating English-language paper in the nation is "local interest" on a program aired for years nationally on one of the big-three networks. I'm not sure, User:TenPoundHammer why you haven't withdrawn this. Nfitz (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bumper Stumpers received significant coverage in a 1988 article in the Toronto Star and a 2000 article in Lambda so passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I provided the other sources in the "Less significant coverage" section to show the additional less significant coverage Bumper Stumpers had received as they contribute to notability (but do not establish notability as they are not significant coverage) in showing the attention the show has received. I included the sources in the "Less significant coverage" section also so they can be used to verify additional material that can be added to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are student newspapers reliable sources, though? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As all the information in that student newspaper matches what other reliable sources have said, then yes. But we don't need that ... I've added five further sources to the article verifying the same facts; all are brief, but the sources include the New York Daily News, Ottawa Citizen, USA Today, and Toronto Star. I focused my search for sources from before the program was first broadcast; presumably there are more during the years it was on the air. One thing I wasn't able to confirm was the number of episodes. Several sources said the initial sale was 130 episodes - but given it aired for 3 years (and then a decade of repeats), was there additional orders? Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears clear that newly-added sources help establish that Geick now meeets the GNG. Star Mississippi 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Geick[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dylan Geick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been deleted twice before. The references added since then don't change much. Still does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. Still does not meet WP:GNG. agtx 02:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to revisit the source analysis please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: here's a source analysis table (just below, collapsed). I didn't include all the sources in the article or mentioned here. Some of these sources were discussed in the last AfD, but most commenters were analyzing them through the lens of NCOLLATH. There's no need for SNG analysis here, as GNG is met. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Oustports (2017) Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Chicago Tribune (2017) Yes Yes syndicated content from the News-Sun, also reliable. Was definitely published in the Tribune Yes ✔ Yes
Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, 2017) Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Outsports (2019) Yes Yes Yes Not exclusively about Geick; about 380 words of coverage, hitting the major beats of a couple years of his life, and additional 400 directly quoting him on his life and NCAA policy ✔ Yes
Lake County News-Sun (2018) Yes Yes now hosted on the Tribune's site but no evidence it was published in the paper; News-Sun is plenty reliable on its own Yes ✔ 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}}.
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 CGTN (TV channel)#CGTN Europe. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 22:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CGTN Europe[edit]

CGTN Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially a poor copy-and-paste of parts from China Global Television Network and is not even about GCTN Europe per se. Everything here is already covered in the main CGTN article. Amigao (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accurin[edit]

Accurin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional spam. Fails GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix/improve Article may now contain some advert like wording, eg the section on the promoting company, but that can be fixed without deleting the article which has been around for 7 years before a flurry of large edits this year. (It seems I made the original stub). They could be mentioned in nanomedicine, but like all the other applications mentioned that is just a summary referring to a separate article page. We can't dump everything about 1000 different nanomedicines in that one article. Since accurins have reached clinical trials they seem notable, even if they subsequently fail to be approved. - Rod57 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How many therapeutics make it to CT before being rejected? Where is the coverage about accurin in media? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does making it to clinical trials mean a drug is notable? Can you explain? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge Fully agree Rod57, anything useful and backed by proper sourcing is better served at nanomedicine. Whether anything is usable will require someone with relevant experience. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nanomedicine is not in good shape and can be expanded with details about "Accurin". This article is just promotional and lacks enough peer-reviewed studies. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure if this material should be in Wikipedia anywhere or not, but it probably shouldn't be here. Accurin isn't used as a term in the scientific literature; it's a trademark - effectively, branding - for one particular company's products. The general idea of layered nanoparticles to modulate drug delivery isn't unique to this family of products. The company itself went bankrupt in 2015, and its remains were bought up by Pfizer in 2016. It looks like a couple of their products made it into early-stage human trials, but nothing got as far as Phase 3. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional, inadequately sourced for a medical topic, and badly written to an extent that the prose isn't worth salvaging by a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2022 (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. There is wide agreement that WP:BLP1E applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Karn[edit]

Mo Karn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E; not known beyond local coverage for this FOIA incident. Only additional hits in ProQuest were for passing mentions related to local activism. czar 18:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. czar 18:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP:BLP1E, an article on a BLP can be deleted if If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, if If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and if If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. This person meets all three criteria for deletion. This person is only covered in local news sources in the context of a single event, the FOIA incident. This person is likely to go back to being low-profile soon. Finally, the event itself is not significant, as it is only covered in local news sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLP1E. You find more hits for "Mo Karnage" than "Mo Karn", but they're the aforementioned local activism mentions and a handful of author credits that don't get to WP:NAUTHOR either. (nb: they're already "back to being low profile" - the event was 10 years ago.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLP1E. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage except for the FOIA incident. RicDod (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on additional 2017 article in Richmond Times–Dispatch highlighting later activities. The FOIA incident is the dominant incident for notability, but they pop up in a pre-FOIA article in the Times–Dispatch about Food Not Bombs and afterwards with the 2017 profile. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned that latter coverage. It's local and in passing. czar 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's local in that it's limited to the main newspaper of the fourth largest city in Virginia. It's also a full profile; they are the focus of the entire article, which doesn't seem to be a passing reference to me nor does it seem to meet the WP:LPI definition. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLP1E, per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all coverage is hyper-local in nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2022 (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. The consensus emerging from the discussion is that the sources found do rise to the level of significant coverage of the subject. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Shendi[edit]

Omar Shendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from ref 2, in his playing career he was part of the league winning team for eleven different seasons, before coaching the side he played for, with a coaching career in Saudi Arabia and another one in Kuwait. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What does this guy have to do with cricket? Seems to be an Egyptian footballer and they don't play cricket in Egypt! StickyWicket (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's Pharaoh-nuff... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Had such a prominent career that I am confident significant coverage exists - the fact we cannot seem to find it (because it is likely offline and in Arabic) should not impact. GiantSnowman 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searching Al-Ahram, I was able to find numerous references to his lengthy career, as well as an obituary on April 25, 1992 (page 12). I can't link because the service is subscription only, but I have a copy of the obituary (in Arabic) if anyone is interested in verifying. Unfortunately, Arabic sources tend to disappear from the internet rather quickly (see WP:BIAS), but I did find at least one archived. The title of that translates to "Omar Shendi, the first wizard of the of the Zamalek Club". Canadian Paul 02:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. The source provided by Canadian Paul does not appear to be significant or reliable; it's home page described it as "sports from the perspective of the zamalek fan". BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have !voted twice. Please strike the !vote on this comment. Canadian Paul 01:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canadian Paul: Apologies, I didn't notice. Please ping me next time though, as I don't watchlist every AFD I participate in. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG and BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Meets WP:SPORTCRIT with the link that Canadian Paul. Also lots of mention in books about Egyptian football. Examples one, two, three. I am concerned about these types of nomination of century-old players, who just looking at their accomplishments are undoubtedly going to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Paul's source appears to be a fan site, and there's no reason to believe any of those books contain significant coverage of the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog - not the best ... but who blogs about non-notable 100-year old players? I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2022 (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) Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Gibbs[edit]

Clifford Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canterbury representative cricketers per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep since the expansion that's been done, the location of additional sources, and the prospect of further sourcing being available too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the excellent nature of Papers Past, there's a reasonable chance that sources can be found for New Zealanders. I'll check later and see what I can find - per Alfred Hollings which was recently sent to AfD. In the interim, there is an obvious ATD here so I can't see anything worse than the redirect that Lugnuts suggests. It may also be pertinent to point out that the recent RfC proposal which was accepted noted that there should be some form of grandfathering in order to avoid a mass of deletion discussions. Although this case would always have been an edge case anyway, it's probably significant to point at that element of the RfC at this point given the number of recent AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A preliminary search for "C. S. Gibbs" cricket gives 172 hits. Just his name suggests he may have also been a golfer. No idea what I'll find when I delve into it, but it'll take a few days to do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw looks like at times he's being referred to as S Gibbs and I've found two mentions of Gibb rather than Gibbs so far. There are bits and pieces coming out - quotes that are usable for sure - but I probably won't be able to blitz this until Tuesday at the earliest, and it may be that work takes over and I really can't get to it. There's stuff there, but I'm not entirely sure how strong it'll be. Some patience may be in order here please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blue Square Thing: - thank you (again) for your help here. Did you manage to locate anything else? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts: There's bits and pieces, but it's not as strong - as NealeWellington suggests below. I've been ridiculously busy all week and have another one of those weeks to come, so I really don't know if I'll be able to get very much more done on it; it's possible, but... Paora's additions are similar to the sorts of things I'm finding, so this remains a bit marginal - of course, they may find a bunch more or have the time to do the work that I'm struggling to do. He played in what was described as a "young" Wellington team in the wooden spoon match in 29/30, opening the bowling for example, but it's a tricky search as there's at least one other Gibbs also playing cricket at a similar time! So overall I'm not sure. It might make a weak keep, but it's not as strong as Priest or Hollings which were clear cut in my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem - really appreciate you taking time to look into this. Don't worry about things on here over real life stuff. Worst case is it's redirected and the possibility of restoring it at some point in the future. Thanks again! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this stage I'm Redirect to List of Canterbury representative cricketers as a simple search isn't showing much to suggest a GNG pass, but I'll wait to see what BST can find and update my vote if sourcing is found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment taken an fairly in depth look through papers past and can find nothing to improve the article. He appears to have primarily played senior club cricket, was an auctioneer by trade, and played golf in later years. NealeWellington (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He is referred to as Cliff Gibbs in the history of the Burnside West Chistchurch University Cricket Club by Brian Adams. Paora (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Paora - tried that as well with only 8 hits in Papers Past and nothing of note. NealeWellington (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Redirect to List of Canterbury representative cricketers, as the article has been improved, but not enough to meet GNG. I think the article history is worth preserving though. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm happy with the expansion. StickyWicket (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I'm at keep given the expansion that Paora's added - and I would think there might be more to come. There's enough here to suggest he has notability. Excellent work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following latest additions demonstrating notability and significant coverage. Paora (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update vote to KEEP per the excellent work of Paora, there's enough here for a GNG pass now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after great work from BST and Paora the subject now meets WP:GNG.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 03:29, 9 May 2022 (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. While there was an early slate of delete !votes, none returned to clarify whether those still held true after the sources were identified, and those sources countered those that simply said they didn't meet GNG Star Mississippi 16:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guchi (musician)[edit]

Guchi (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional paid job on a non notable WP:TOOSOON Nigerian musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and do not meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. I’m an expert on Nigerian sources and I can expressly state that sourcing is absent in this article. Furthermore the article creator has been indicted in deliberately adding falsehood in their articles which was first spotted by Praxidicae & Timtrent. Please see AFD & this AFD. They are intentionally adding falsehood in their articles perhaps hoping it gets undetected. Celestina007 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my !vote entirely. I will analyse further sources before reaching a further conclusion 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I believe in Celestina007’s judgement on sources but these lined up sources tends to change my mind. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Those sources "you all lined up" are all press releases, which is churnslism, can you show any sources that satisfy RS? That is, that discusses the subject in in-depth significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: When I see musicians getting best new artist nomination less than 12 months ago, it is usually a case of WP:TOOSOON. Although neutral, but tending towards delete than a keep. I can expatiate further if need be. HandsomeBoy (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: Even though it is probably WP:TOOSOON, I have to say that nomination is one of the WP:NMUSICIAN aspects, as it states in point 8 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles that it needs to have won or been nominated to a major award. I am not familiar enough to the awards scene in Nigeria as to say if those listed are the major awards or not. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Note to the closing admin that no editor here has provided any reliable sources, what has been provided are press releases and mere mentions and nothing in-depth that discusses the subject of the article in significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero GNG type sources and does not meet SNG criteria. As a result near-zero content. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 10:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, as others have said. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC - before this article was nominated for deletion, a variety of sources were removed from the article [2], [3], including sources listed at the Wikiproject Africa Sources List, e.g.:
The Google search pointed to by Reading Beans shows further coverage from sources listed at WP:AFSL and WP:NGRS, e.g.
Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following the work above to identify sources by Beccaynr and analysys of those sources I find her just to be the right side of the borderline. The references are "just strong enough" so better references will be more useful. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Beccaynr's rationale, and sources. I am more concerned about Celestina's removal of content, and sources here. They removed entire section of "early life" (RS sourced), with edit summary "promotional". There were two promotional sentences, no need to remove entire section. They also removed some other sourced content with edit summary "false", thats unacceptable behaviour. The diffs to these edits have provided above by Beccaynr. Celestina also removed the section "Events performed" with summary "promotional to". This is a very common section for articles of musician. It was unsourced, but not promotional. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    update: I was on mobile when I posted my previous comment. In this edit, they removed the entire section of "early life" which was sourced, with edit summary "promotional material". There were two-three semi-promotional sentences, which should have been removed. Removing entire section was not called for. In this edit they removed the section "Events permormed" with summary "promotional to". However, the most concerning removal is this one, where they removed In 2020, she [Guchi] was granted as an ambassadorship for the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). A simple search "guchi anti drug ambassador" gives a lot of sources corroborating the claim. I am not sure why Celestina007 removed it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have just edited the article based on a re-examination of the version before the nominator's removals, adding material from existing sources and from one of the sources listed above by Beccaynr, Pulse (which supported some unsourced statements and enabled me to bring the account of her career up to date as of November 2021; the prose was otherwise stuck in early 2019. I did find unreferenced material that I had to remove, including her middle name and birthdate, and I threw out both articles in The Sun Nigeria, which appears to be affiliated with the British tabloid and in my judgement is therefore not an acceptable source—but everything was citable from other sources. The article was not very promotional in style, and the amplitude of coverage in the Nigerian press, its continuing for years after her debut song, and her getting a Top 10 Billboard chart position in my view are sufficient indications of notability. I restored the notability tag since the article is at AfD, but it's traditional to remove that when an article is kept. Many thanks to Beccaynr for lining up sources; I may come back to add more. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the WP:BEFORE work done by User:Beccaynr. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 16:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Chapian[edit]

Marie Chapian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. Been on the cat:nn list for 10 years+. BLP that has never been referenced. scope_creepTalk 10:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, Christianity, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some digging around and learned that she publishes as Marie Chapian, Marie Jordan, and Maria Giordano. [4] The later two names are common enough that sourcing is a challenge. I am unsure about notability as a number of books are co-authored with her as second author and the newspaper articles focus on the lead author (e.g., Cathleen Mae Webb,Gary Dotson,Gavin MacLeod. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. I feel she meets WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of her books; the reviews are now in the article. I did reduce the long list of publications to focus on those that have received attention from others. However, while her work has been reviewed in multiple publications, I find little about Chapian/Giordano/Jordan herself. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of references to multiple reviews of her books including the New York Times, Star Tribune, Publishers Weekly and others so that WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 (c) is passed, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep My analysis is the same as User:DaffodilOcean's - there's not much to form an article here, it's entirely focussed on her writing, which doesn't get a lot of attention, but I think it is enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR CT55555 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that it seems to have been improved. I think it is just enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2022 (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 are questions about sourcing, which may take more time. But with no one arguing for deletion, this discussion does not need to continue. Star Mississippi 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Rubinstein[edit]

José Rubinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Chess player article been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years. Unable to locate coverage. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage of him is likely available in Argentine print media of the 1960s,especially from the Tucumán area. A few such local news reports are reproduced by the Ajedrez historico site and cited in the article. See e.g., this compilation of the extensive coverage in local media sources of his 100% score at the 1961 Tucumán provincial championship. The books on the 1961 national championship and Mar del Plata 1962 tournaments may also have significant coverage. For the last 22 years, the Villa Martelli chess club has organized an annual tournament in his memory, which also speaks to the subject's notability. Cobblet (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That all seems to be primary sources at the moment. Where is the secondary sources. There is not one thing I can grasp that would validate the article. scope_creepTalk 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear neither you nor I have access to a library in Argentina. I do not see the point in asking for coverage in secondary sources when we cannot access said secondary sources. Based on the sampling of coverage in primary sources we can see, the popularity of chess in Argentina (especially during the relevant time period), and the fact that modern-day events continue to be held in honour of this person, I'd say it's likely that notability could be established in such secondary sources if we knew what they were and could access them. Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cobblet: None of that addresses the problem. Your keep doesn't count for much, as you have not proven your argument per WP:V. The form at Afd is put at least three references that are secondary to prove the individual is notable. The references you have put are either primary or Non-RS.
    • The first ref you put is a blog. It is WP:SPS source and is Non-RS.
    • The second ref you put in an auction site. It is unreliable and Non-RS.
    • The third ref you put up is an event listing. It is unreliable and Non-RS.
    The article refs:
    • It is wikipedia, and illegal link and Non-RS.
    • The 2nd is malware link, or drive-by malware. It is Non-RS.
    • The 3rd article is ref is machine generate listing with no context. He came in 10th in 1962, which makes him mediocre and is unreliable source. Making it Non-RS
    They are junk refs. The article has been on the cat:nn with no sources for more than 10 years. That is no coverage otherwise it would already be in the article. scope_creepTalk 19:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first ref I linked to is a blog post, yes, but one compiling several contemporaneous news reports of a tournament José Rubinstein won. I do not see any of the concerns with this source that would make WP:SPS relevant, since I see no reason why we should not trust the veracity of the quoted news reports. The other two auction sites I linked to demonstrate the existence of books documenting major tournaments José Rubinstein participated in. You have not given any reason why said books would be unreliable. Your comments regarding the references in the article make even less sense, but that's a moot point, since none of them would constitute significant coverage of the subject, so I will not discuss them further with you. Cobblet (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found a better reference for his finish in the 1961 Argentine championship. I found a cross table of the Mar del Plata 1962 tournament in Chess Review, July 1962 (won by Polugaevsky, Robert Byrne got a GM norm), but Rubinstein wasn't in it; the KIM tournament (what does that stand for?) and the Latino-Americano tournament in the same year in the same city were not mentioned in Chess Life or Chess Review in the United States. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That link you put in non-rs as its unreliable. It is worse than the last one. It is more of the same. Very poor or non-existant references. scope_creepTalk 18:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The link cites the October 1961 Revista Ajedrez, a well-respected and long-running Argentinian magazine. You have provided no reason to doubt the correctness of the citation or the crosstable itself. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this. This website gives credit to Revista Ajedrez. It would be possible for me to follow through with this, by finding a copy of Revista Ajedrez, looking it over, and citing it instead of citing the website. The drawback of this would be that for both me and (most of) our readers, the website is much easier to access than the 1961 print magazine. I don't know the best resolution of this dilemma. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no dilemma. Indeed it would be ideal to track down the original magazine and give a full citation with page number from it. But even if we were to do that, it would still make sense to also cite the website, for precisely the accessibility reasons you state. We give multiple citations for a single fact all the time. Cobblet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    KIM is short for Kimberley, a chess club that may have been related to or affiliated with the sports club Kimberley de Mar del Plata. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the editorial control section on the site? It is listing of information, making it a blog and its WP:SPS source. It says at the bottom of the wordpress page. It is non-RS. I have a sneaking feeling you folk that write these Chess don't really know consistutes a real secondary sources per WP:SECONARY. I understand that chess is a bit of a closed world. I was in the primary school, high school and university chess teams, so I've some understanding of it, but this is an encyclopeadia and the notability guidelines state for a BLP, there must be secondary sources to validate the article. So far it fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 22:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The blog is quoting a well-respected chess magazine which is a secondary source for the player's tournament result. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid, and comment on content, not on the contributors. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More "comment", rather than "keep" or "delete", because I have questions to which I don't know the answers.
I have added a source for Mar del Plata KIM 1962, which is the same source we are using in Hector Rossetto. However, 365Chess is not a reliable source. I have found errors in 365Chess tournament reports, and I don't know of a way to get them corrected. So this is not a good situation.
I have found references to the victory in a Fischer simul in chessgames.com and in YouTube. But these are not reliable sources either. Beating Fischer in a simul is not the kind of thing that instantly confers notability, so I wonder what the big deal is, or was. Perhaps part of the notability arose from the fact that a player strong enough to compete in the national championship condescended to be one of the "customers" of the simul.
Ideally, for coverage of his 5th place in the Argentine championship, one would like to see more than just a crosstable. But finding this will probably involve looking through a lot of Spanish-language material, and since this is English Wikipedia, it might not happen right away. WP:N does not say that notability is a language-specific construct, but this kind of situation makes me feel like it is. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A news report would be ideal. Translate news or the another suitable term into spanish and then search on that term. DeepL can be used to do the translation. Currently the article has no secondary sources. They are very poor profile and machine generated data pages, references and a 404. That are junk. The blog is just that. The best that can be done for this is Draftify it, became at it doesn't meet WP:V to meet WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. When a do a WP:BEFORE. There is nothing there. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source giving the crosstable for Mar del Plata 1962, and a source for the win in the Fischer simul. The second source is unambiguously a secondary source. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: There is a script which shows you what references are unreliable. Its worth getting. References 2,3,4,5,6, 8 are unreliable and must come out. Once you get the script you will see it. It is used by the afc/npp folk, articles reviews to reviews references. It is very helpful. scope_creepTalk 05:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of a source can only be determined by competent editors examining the source, not by any automated script. A source can be self-published and yet still be reliable: there is no blanket rule against using self-published sources in an article that is not a BLP. As I have already explained to you multiple times, the blog you take issue with is directly reproducing reliable, non-self-published sources, such as articles from La Gaceta. And we are citing the blog not for any sort of analysis or synthetic claim, but only for specific facts regarding Jose Rubinstein's tournament results that are not open to interpretation. Moreover, said facts are corroborated by reliable secondary sources where those are available (e.g., Di Felice's Chess Results, a standard reference for chess historians which I have now also cited), which speaks to the blog's reliability. Therefore the use of this blog for this narrow purpose is justified, and allows people who don't have access to Di Felice to independently verify the claims made in the article. Again, please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, particularly the section "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid." Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: I've removed the 365Chess source and cited di Felice instead for the Kimberley club tournament, as well as the blog. Cobblet (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken them out. They are unreliable. I review article as part of AFC/NPP. All the script is formalise those rules. Di Felice's Chess Results is an not a reliable source. Find something better. It is primary as well. I'm not seeing any attempt to try and find better sources. scope_creepTalk 07:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not cited a single scrap of policy or guideline that supports your contention that this blog cannot be used. Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works yet? Calling Di Felice a primary source is absurd and suggests you have no concept what a primary source is. How was Di Felice close to or directly involved with chess tournaments that happened in Argentina 60 years ago? Why do you think Di Felice is unreliable? Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the wrong one, didn't I. Ref 2,3,4,5 and 7 and 8 are unreliable. I took them out. That is probably sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO now. scope_creepTalk 07:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not explained what makes you think the Ajedrez historico blog is unreliable. No policy on Wikipedia states that SPSs are inherently unreliable and cannot be used under any circumstance. The reasons why the blog is cited have been laid out above, and you have not responded to them at all. Carrying out an edit war when a discussion is taking place is unacceptable behaviour. Using an automated script is not a substitute for critically evaluating a source. Cobblet (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have found several more reliable sources that discuss Jose Rubinstein (in Spanish). I am not sure the proper etiquette to share them to add to the discussion. Wether to share them here, or to contribute to the article. There are many articles about tournaments in his honor organized by one of Argentina´s biggest chess clubs, as well as an article from La Gaceta de Tucumán, the biggest newspaper of the area, discussing the simul against Bobby Fischer. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Cobblet. The RS that prove his notability are there. Ok that in the WP article, a number of citations are via a blog that scanned them, but this doesn't invalidate them. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2022 (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) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Samuels[edit]

Kevin Samuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a non notable YouTuber with little to no reliable sources, all while written in the POV of a fan. Cheers. WimePocy 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Cheers. WimePocy 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep Subject wasn't notable enough to have an article (no doubt created by a fan) while he was alive and his death doesn't magically change that. Very little legitimate third-party coverage outside of the few sources in the article, some of which were removed for being deprecated. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 15:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that he is notable enough, but deletion is not a way to do it. MarioJump83! 02:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote as seen above. I guess he does pass notability guidelines, but the article itself was fan-created and needs work to sound neutral in tone. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like many of the non-notable/deprecated sources have been removed. Also found a New York Times obit which helps cover some of the claims. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Probably the article should be up for improvement, but not deletion. This person was notable enough, and proof of that is that his death became a worldwide trending topic, as well as coverage on sites such as New York Times, NBC, and more. It should be probably semiprotected because it can be either troll edited or fan edited. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject with reliable sources to support notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Weak keep I found this article from ITN, and in my opinion the subject isn't really that notable. But I believe that this can be at least be improved since there are some reliable sources that cover the subject. Thus I believe that draftification is the best course of action, for now. MarioJump83! 21:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not remotely a fan of Kevin Samuels and yet I was disappointed to learn that Wikipedia didn't even have an article for him until rumors of his death started circulating. During his life, Samuels garnered a modicum of significant coverage (e.g. Essence, Yahoo News, Parle), but he has now far surpassed the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:BASIC with "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" including the New York Times, NBC News, The Root, Complex, The Daily Beast, and NPR. I think as Wikipedians we have a healthy skepticism about so-called "influencers", but let us not be so jaded as to not recognize that Samuels easily meets our notability requirements. gobonobo + c 02:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly, well put! I was also surprised to see that Kevin Samuel did not have an article created until recently. Seems to be the case for many such controversial black "influencers", such as Dr. Umar Johnson.
    While they might only be online personalities/influencers, I believe many of these people are driving cultural forces in the black community. Very influential, and as you've pointed out, the ample coverage in various reliable sources throughout the years helps Samuels fulfill Wikipedia's standards for notability. Mooonswimmer 14:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mooonswimmer so you're saying we should keep the article in order to fulfill WP's standards for notability for the black community? Seems like WP:RGW, if you ask me. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying we should keep the article because there's enough press coverage to fulfill WP:GNG. Also, we're supposed to assess things on a case per case basis. It's easy to dismiss these types, but they are not your average teenage Tiktok influencers. These are the black counterparts to all the "notable" alt-right personalities and conspiracy theorists who are also not as well known to more traditional institutions of public intellectualism and political activism, but have a huge hold over their commmunities.
    Not quite sure how you made the WP:RGW connection. Mooonswimmer 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not, we can ignore race and still see that Samuels has an impact on a community. It's not pandering just because they happen to be black. June Parker (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per gobonobo Mooonswimmer 14:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reliable sources referenced by other editors are all referencing his untimely death. The subject was not notable enough to have an article while alive, and likely would not have been covered by organizations like the New York Times had he not died prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBA Fan44 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep ... very clearly meets notability guidelines, with several articles on several credible sources. Acekard, 17:55 May 8 2022
  • Weak keep. Before his death, he was covered by BET [5], Newsweek [6], Complex [7], and HipHopDX [8]. While there just barely wasn't enough proof of his notability at the time, the heavy coverage of his death by multiple, multiple major media outlets speaks to how polarizing, controversial, and ultimately popular his platform had become by then. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Comment I find it a bit odd how this article talks broadly about him being a "Misogynist" when most of his misogyny was directed towards black women, but being phrased in such a way to imply he had it out for white people. This page has sources that dub him as actively Misogynoir and I feel like that term would make the article more consistent. June Parker (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep the content is clear. Where, and under what name, is an editorial conversation with third opinion, if necessary to mediate. Star Mississippi 16:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Oricum[edit]

Siege of Oricum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a siege (creator himself couldn't find any evidence that this is one) or notable event. Was deprodded on a promise of good sources and content (why this couldn't be added anywhere else other than an article about a spurious event is beyond me), but the only reliable source added doesn't give any details, and the others are unreliable and primary (those don't add significant details either). This is just a routine and ordinary surrender among many others that took place during the period in question, and there is no reason to have an article about it. Avilich (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as the editor who spent time remedying the nominator's failure to do WP:BEFORE yet again. One would think that the advance of an army on a city and its subsequent surrender during one of the most important wars in antiquity would qualify as "notable". Certainly it was notable enough for Appian to discuss it, notable enough to be discussed in classical encyclopedias, and if Wikipedia doesn't have room for it, I don't know why. The nominator doesn't think anything written in antiquity is a reliable source, which is absurd; clearly WP:PRIMARY has not been read and understood. And it's not clear which of the two modern sources he considers unreliable, but he's wrong either way, as both are perfectly reliable for their contents. Additionally, WP:BEFORE expects editors to look for sources before nominating articles for deletion based on inadequate sourcing; once again that was not done, since reliable sources could have been located with even the most cursory of searches—and the nominator is too well-acquainted with the sources available to have been unaware of that; he simply chose to disregard WP:BEFORE, leaving it to other editors to do what he was supposed to do in the first place. The argument about the event not being a "siege" is not relevant to AFD; it's an argument about the best title for the article. I suppose the original author couldn't think of a better description; maybe "Surrender of Oricum" would be more fitting, and I used it in the lead when rewriting the article. But that's not relevant to this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't confer notability, notability is not inherited, content forking is a reason for deletion, and a single-sentence mention of a WP:ROUTINE event in a source from 2 centuries ago (the one you added) is not significant coverage. You know all of this already. Avilich (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to synthesize unrelated policies and guidelines to sound like something else. The first question is whether the topic is notable, not whether "primary sources confer notability", which is not under discussion. But as we seem to be going down that rabbit hole anyway, if you were at all familiar with WP:PRIMARY, you would be aware that 1) primary sources are not excluded from use in Wikipedia, provided they are used appropriately; 2) Appian is not a primary source, as neither he nor anyone he knew was either a participant or a witness to any of the events described. His history is by definition a secondary source independent of Caesar.
Notability not being inherited has nothing to do with this article; there is no claim that "everything that Caesar did" is notable, but the capture of a city by a daring night march and the unwillingness of its inhabitants to resist the authority of a Roman consul at the head of an army is notable, and certainly does not become non-notable because the consul was Caesar. You may also have missed this warning at the beginning of WP:NOTINHERITED: "Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy. Nor does it apply to speedy deletion or proposed deletion, as they are not deletion discussions. It only applies to arguments to avoid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." [emphasis supplied]
This is not a discussion of content forking. That would be a valid matter to raise in a merger discussion, but this is a deletion discussion. The article has been nominated for deletion, which means that all of the content and its sources would be deleted from the encyclopedia, not merged into another article where they might be covered instead. Your argument is that the subject is not notable, that it is "routine" and not deserving of being discussed anywhere—so describing it as a content fork is a complete non-sequitur.
Your blatant misuse of WP:ROUTINE should be obvious to anyone who reads the guideline, but to save others searching for it, here it is in its entirety:

Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories).

The capture of a strategically-important city by Caesar during the Civil War—however quickly or bloodlessly—is not "routine" in the sense that a wedding announcement, sports score, crime log, or bear-in-a-tree is "routine", and no reasonable person could possibly think that WP:ROUTINE is describing such events (although according to your argument, the fact that the city was captured by Caesar during the Civil War makes it less notable than if it had been captured by an obscure person, with no relation to other events).
Wikipedia doesn't have an expiration date for sources—a particularly important thing to remember in the field of classics, where much of the best scholarship occurred between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries. There needs to be a better reason for excluding an apparently reliable source than the date of first publication—and it's hard to see what reason there could possibly be to object to the account in "the source that must not be named". Is it supposed to be biased or confused in some manner, or proven incorrect by subsequent discoveries? If not, then there is no argument for excluding it.
You've adopted an interesting strategy: come up with enough arguments to eliminate this source and that source, and then you can claim that there isn't significant coverage because you've eliminated all but one or two sources. "This source doesn't count because it's primary. This source doesn't count because it's Roman. This source doesn't count because it's old. This source doesn't count because it's a passing mention. This source doesn't count because it's a bear-in-a-tree. Only one source remains, so there's no significant coverage." I wish I could treat this line of attack with dignity. No, I don't. It's a mess of outcome-driven arguments with little or no merit. Someone thought this article shouldn't be deleted, so now it's imperative to attack it with every weapon in the arsenal to try to get it deleted—just throw everything against the wall and see if anything sticks.
I'll ignore the "you know all of this already" because it's a transparent retort to my claim that you were well aware of where to find reliable sources on this topic when you proposed deleting the article and then when you started an AFD, without bothering to look for any. Instead you based your argument entirely on the state of the sourcing already in the article, in direct contravention of WP:BEFORE. But in either case, the burden is on the nominator to make a good-faith effort to determine whether there are (or are likely to be) reliable sources to support an article that lacks sufficient sources, and in each case you have avoided that and demanded that unless other editors find and insert them, the article must be deleted (of course, when reliable sources were inserted, you then argued that all but one of them was unreliable, and therefore the article should be deleted because it has only one source, which means that there is no significant coverage—a mind-boggling feat of reasoning), and that the topic isn't notable and therefore ought to be deleted even if there are reliable sources, which supposedly there aren't.
But to return to WP:BEFORE, if you feel that the sources in an article are inadequate, then find more. If you think they're too old or outdated, find newer or better ones to supplement or replace them. Don't just assert that because the existing sources are no good, no further effort need be expended on discussing or improving the article—don't try to shift the burden to other editors to do what you should have done in the first place, and then do your utmost to dismiss their work as irrelevant when they take the time and effort to improve the article. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before is automatically met if the nominator has an idea of the external sourcing available. In this case, the original sources only say that 'person A immediately surrendered this city to person B', and, for this reason, no secondary source is ever going to have significant coverage of the topic. The mere fact of one town surrendering, among a dozen others, is not by itself notable, and the fact should instead be mentioned as part of some other notable topic. If you had noticed that the surrendering governor's article already indeed mentions the fall of Oricum, you might've improved that one instead and saved us both some time. In fact I would do that straight away if I were you; I won't be able to 'dismiss' your work as irrelevant if you do so because there are no grounds to delete that article. The only thing that matters here is that there is not enough information about this ordinary town surrender that it needs its own page: it's a content fork that adds nothing useful. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This idea that the best scholarship occurred between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries seems little more than a dismissal of the last hundred years of scholarship. Views have changed substantially over that time.
The racially-motivated ideas for the origins of the plebs in Niebuhr (along with his idea that ballads transmitted Rome's early history) are no longer accepted. Cornell, Beginnings of Rome (1995) pp 12, 116, 242. Mommsen's History is now recognised as highly polemical: eg Rebenich, "Theodor Mommsen's History of Rome and it's political and intellectual context" in Arena, Prag (eds) Companion to the political culture of the Roman republic (2022). Mommsen's conception of a highly legalistic republic also are rejected in favour of flexible theories of republican practice. The most annoying are the primary source claims that the Gracchi's efforts were always in vain when we keep finding boundary stone after boundary stone with the agrarian commission's names on it. See eg Roselaar, Public land (2010).
Sure, there is no "expiry date". There is also no reason these days to be going first to long-aged material which is known to be relatively uncritical when we have access to the latest edition of the entire Oxford Classical Dictionary in the Wikipedia Library. We can even follow bibliographies in the OCD relatively easily because we have access to lots of recent books through Wiley, Oxford Scholarship, and DeGruyter (also on Wikipedia Library). We should prefer newer sources not because of some perverse fetish, but because we can do it easily and without difficulty and without falling into their pitfalls. Ifly6 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nonsensical argument. We do not stop using or citing authorities because the views that they held on topics other than what they are being cited for are outdated or even offensive to modern sensibilities. The examples provided are completely irrelevant to this discussion; the article does not cite Niebuhr or Mommsen, but if it did cite them for simple factual statements that are nowhere disputed and for which there is no evidence of obsolescence, then there would be no legitimate reason to excise those citations; in fact it would be extremely bad scholarship to disregard the opinions of experts merely because their opinions on unrelated matters are obsolete. This article does not discuss, nor touch upon in any way, racial attitudes of the 19th (or 20th, or 21st) century, or abstract concepts of legal formalism.
Nobody here contends that anything in the article—or in any of the sources cited—is inaccurate, except whether the article has the best title, which is not really relevant to a deletion discussion. So to insist that the sources need to be deleted or disregarded even if they are accurate and reliable as to the facts for which they are cited, serves no useful purpose other than to justify the deletion of the article on the grounds of insufficient sources—itself a dubious notion in articles about classical antiquity. If you want to add more recent sources and their analysis, fine, do it, especially if they have something useful to add to the topic. But if you don't have any, if there's no evidence that what's cited to the extant sources is in some way wrong, inaccurate, or misleading, then don't attack those sources out of sheer prejudice—the belief that their authors must somewhere, somehow, have held wrong beliefs about some other things, and therefore cannot be regarded as reliable sources for anything that they ever wrote. P Aculeius (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to insist that the sources need to be deleted or disregarded Sources which you yourself added in the past two days! ; which you can simply copy and paste elsewhere; and which you made a point of adding in the trashiest of articles rather than actual legitimate ones which genuinely need improvement. They are not being deleted or disregarded, they were never there to begin with; if you insist on adding them to the worst place possible then the problem is a different one. Avilich (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Fall of Oricum, obviously. It's not the main subject of any of the sources, but in my view there's enough detail in enough scholarly sources to merit a brief article.—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Can you share some of those 'scholarly sources', and while you're at it, explain why 'person A surrendered this city to person B' is notable enough for an article? Avilich (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing (and adding) some material to what I rewrote yesterday, I think the original title is okay. It seems that there were two interconnected events—Caesar's bloodless capture, which is sometimes referred to, perhaps dubiously, as a "siege", and then Pompeius' retaking of the city from Caesar's deputy Acilius, which was definitely a siege, and so described in scholarly sources. So either way, "siege" seems to work now. P Aculeius (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above. There's a decent chunk of information in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1), plus the ancient sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'decent chunk', the source for which is already in the article, consists of "the governor, delivered up the keys of the fortress to Caesar". This fails SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE. GNG requires sigcov in multiple secondary sources, and none of what you said fits that description. Avilich (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "decent chunk" of information in DGRG (which imo is not a reliable source) is verbatim Caesar, after he had disembarked his troops at PALAESTE ... marched to Oricum ... The Oricii declared their unwillingness to resist the Roman consul; and Torquatus, the governor, delivered up the keys of the fortress to Caesar. It is not notable:

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

Ifly6 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — provides important context to Julius' campaign in the future Illyria Graeca. The deletionist arguments do not hold water.XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, do you have any opinion on the sources or the fact that this is already covered elsewhere? Avilich (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The idea that this topic is WP:NOTABLE, especially in terms of significant coverage, is laughable. Appian's entire description can be summarised, almost without losing any content other than names (because Appian writes verbosely) to Caesar went to Oricum. He then took the city without a fight. The defenders fled to Dyrrhachium. Caesar followed them. The depiction in Caes. BC is similarly short once you summarise it: Caesar landed troops and went to Oricum. The guy there wanted to resist but the Greeks refused "to fight against the imperial power of the Roman people"; (which is a NPOV description if I've ever heard one) the town surrendered; Pompeian commander was spared.
A short survey of Goldsworthy's at-least-acceptably-regarded books do not mention Oricum at all in books on the topic: Goldsworthy, Caesar's civil war (2003), mentions the city not at all. In the name of Rome (2003) says only On the night after he had landed, Caesar force-marched to Oricum ... and forced its surrender. Caesar (2006) says, on the "siege" itself, verbatim, only On the night after the landing Caesar marched against Oricum, which quickly surrendered when the townsfolk turned against the small Pompeian garrison. He then spends more time discussing BC's characterisation of the reasons the Greeks surrendered than the battle itself. The fall of this city is not notable; the city itself is, and the content here should be moved, probably there. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now believe this should be merged to Caesar's invasion of Macedonia. Ifly6 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source, which is the very first found by a Google Books search for this title, has far more than a single-sentence mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is quite relevant, although it actually refers to the attempt by Pompeius filius to retake the city following its capture by Caesar. That probably ought to be discussed in this article too, but I was a little confused about the sequence of events yesterday, and didn't have time to work out exactly what happened while rewriting it—glancing at the various sources some look like they said Pompeius took the city by storm, others that he tried and failed—I need to review them carefully to be sure of what they say. I may take a stab at it later on. Thanks for the find! P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the article a bit with what Pompeius did after Caesar departed, which actually seems to have been a siege. The two events were clearly interconnected, and ought to be discussed together. Thanks to the source you found, I was able to make better sense of the other materials, and improve the article! P Aculeius (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do quote the relevant excerpt, as the only thing I'm finding is "Caesar did capture Oricum" with no elaboration whatsoever. The subsequent mention is completely unrelated to this topic. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps renamed -- A neutral name might be Oricum in the Roman civil war. The objection to Primary sources in dealing with a historical subject is stupid: they are inevitably the best sources. Secondary sources can only provide a commentary on events. If there is a conflict between primary sources that should be expressed and discussed using secondary sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary sources for the Roman republic are in fact terrible sources, not "inevitably the best". Caes BCiv is obviously partial; absolutely nobody should believe what Caes BCiv says when it "objectively" recounts that the town surrendered because they didn't want to oppose the dignity of a Roman consul. App BCiv is not a "primary source" except for us; it is an anachronistic amalgam of then-existing sources written almost two hundred years after the events themselves. Primary source errors abound in the corpus. That does not mean there is no value to those sources (as P Aculeius seems to think Avilich thinks) but it does mean they need to be analysed critically with the support of modern scholarship and are surely not "inevitably the best". Ifly6 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only thing wrong here is that it needs renaming to a more appropriate title. The event is covered in detail by Caesar himself in 48 BC, by Appian in the second century, by George Long in the nineteenth (Decline of the Roman Republic vol. 5) and by Richard W. Westall (Caesar's Civil War: Historical Reality and Fabrication ISBN 9004356150) in the 21st century. How long does something have to be discussed and written about before it counts as lasting notability? SpinningSpark 15:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several sources have been put forward here but nobody it seems has bothered to ask the important questions, so here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. II Yes Yes No Trivial mention: "Pompey placed him [the governor] in command of Oricum" ✘ No
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, vol. II Yes ? old and probably outdated No Trivial mention: "the governor, delivered up the keys of the fortress to Caesar" ✘ No
Meijer, History of Seafaring in the Classical World, p. 200 Yes Yes No Trivial mention: "Caesar did capture Oricum" ✘ No
Richard W. Westall, Caesar's Civil War: Historical Reality and Fabrication Yes Yes No Trivial mention: garrison "expelled ... upon receipt of the news of Caesar's arrival" ✘ No
George Long, Decline of the Roman Republic Yes ? old and probably outdated No Trivial mention: "Pompeius hearing of the capture of Oricum" ✘ No
Appian, Civil Wars Yes No primary source value not understood ✘ No
Caesar, Commentaries No No primary source value not understood ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
None of the sources count toward GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that the sources seem to write so much more than your alleged summaries. And so does the article. SpinningSpark 16:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not telling the truth about the article, and you're not telling the truth about the soruces either. I'll just leave it like this until you can come up with a proper argument and source analysis. Avilich (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: my attempts to improve the article so that it is sufficiently detailed to justify its existence, includes all of the relevant and verifiable facts, and is appropriately titled—as mentioned above, it seems there was a siege, which the previous version of the article omitted to mention—have been reverted twice by Avilich, the person who nominated it for deletion on the grounds that it is too short and lacking in detail to justify its existence, and that no siege occurred. And he insists that I can't re-add any of that material before a decision has been reached about deleting the article, unless I can justify it on the article's talk page, which I have attempted to do, although I am not optimistic of convincing him. As for the so-called "source access table" shown above, it is the pure invention and opinion of one editor, and neither reflects any policy of Wikipedia, or a consensus among editors with regard to any of its claims—it masquerades as something official, and as such should be stricken from this discussion in its entirety as an improper attempt to influence the outcome. P Aculeius (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is relevant, and I also agree that it is improper that the AFD nominator is doing the reverting. I would have added this material myself, but chose to wait till the AFD closed to avoid wasting effort. The retaking of the city by Pompey's son is not the same event as Caesar's capture of the city (obviously) but it is connected and immediately following. It is just as relevant as Caesar's landing on the coast and approach to the city. I still think siege is a misdescription (although it is the word used in some sources). This was a naval (or amphibious) action and was part of a larger naval blockade of the entire Adriatic to try and prevent Caesar from resupplying and reinforcing. SpinningSpark 10:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, it would deserve mention in an article on Caesar's initial eastern campaign during the civil war. Ifly6 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there such an article? There is nothing on the Illyrian actions beyond what is in the top level article, Caesar's civil war. Arguing that an overseas deployment of seven legions under hostile conditions is not notable is really a failure of WP:COMMONSENSE. SpinningSpark 14:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if such an article exists. If it doesn't, it perhaps should. (Though, frankly, such an article should probably be more of a timeline rather than a narrative; the source material is otherwise too sparse.) Your preempt seems to imply that you think that I think that Caesar's initial eastern campaign in this war shouldn't have an article? If the content were to be put somewhere, I think it probably shouldn't be the main article (Caesar's civil war): that precedent, if applied generally, would make that article far too long. Ifly6 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no article on the Eastern campaign exists to merge this to, you think it should exist, this is the only article we've got on the topic, and yet you are at delete. <sarcasm>That makes a lot of sense</sarcasm>. SpinningSpark 15:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about the topic, so your point is moot. The right thing to do would be to put this in a prelude section at Battle of Dyrrhachium (48 BC) or add it to Caesar's civil war (despite what Ifly6 says, it may fit); or perhaps an entirely new article dedicated to the campaign, though this should only come about as an article split. What makes no sense is to have an article whose content amounts to 'this town surrendered' + background/aftermath filler, as the keep and move side wants. Nor do the sources support a grouping of only two specific captures of one specific town to the exclusion of everything else in the same campaign: the common sense thing is to mention these events as part of the campaign itself, not separately. Avilich (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the right, common sense thing to do would be to merge this elsewhere. Deleting it would not allow that to happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the common sense thing to do is for the editor who added the content a mere two days ago to add it to the right place instead of shoehorning it into a page that is not compatible with said content, while a would-be straightforward deletion discussion is taking place, and thereby unnecessarily confusing the topic being discussed and just wasting a lot of time. Avilich (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The common-sense thing to do would be to stop obstructing work to improve the present article as Wikipedia's AFD policy encourages, on the grounds that it's "repurposing" the article by including accurate and relevant details relating to the article's initial contents. There is no policy that "significant changes should not be made to the content of articles while there is an ongoing discussion about deleting them"; that is the opposite of the actual policy. Articles should be deleted because they can't be improved, not because one editor keeps reverting all attempts to improve it. You might be referring to the article's talk page, although it's really tied up with this because you're the one who demanded that the material couldn't be added during this discussion unless discussed on the talk page—which you didn't want to do until I started the talk page discussion at your demand. And simply disagreeing with the material being added—in part because there's an AFD going on at the same time—cannot be used to justify keeping it out—much less deleting it three times, although at least two experienced editors here believe it belongs in the article. An AFD in progress cannot be used to justify preventing the improvement of an article, nor can a content dispute in the article—or a dispute about its name—be used as an argument for its deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I try to oppose the purely administrative and procedural decision of having a standalone article for this topic; it has nothing to do with the amount of content which I allow. If you feel obstructed that's just because you insist on adding stuff here and not the several other actually notable articles which need improvement and where your content additions would fit better. Avilich (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll accept that deletion is hasty (though, given the current article is based entirely on App BCiv, Caes BCiv, and MRR, this isn't that big of a deal) and amend my position. I now believe that the content here should be merged to Caesar's invasion of Macedonia. Ifly6 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you created—today—for the sole purpose of winning this deletion discussion and controlling the narrative of the article, along with the complete collection of sources. I hope you appreciate the irony of creating a content fork in order to justify the deletion of this article as a content fork of an article that didn't exist yet. But the creation of the new article doesn't make this article obsolete: the article nominated for deletion has a much narrower focus and more detail than is in, or would reasonably belong in, an article about an entire campaign. Just as modern wars have articles that are overviews of the entire war, focused on separate theatres of conflict, specific campaigns by each side, and individual battles occurring during those campaigns, there can be no fundamental objection to having articles about individual confrontations, provided there's enough detail to justify an article. And pretty much any time there is more to say about a conflict than reasonably fits in an article about a broader topic—such as an entire campaign—there is room for such an article.
By all means, develop your article—it could use more sources, including lots of citations to Greek and Roman historians, as well as other scholars that people might have access to instead of or in addition to the two very recent books you've cited for nearly all of the contents. But don't demand that your article clear the field of all other articles, such as the present one, that treat one particular episode or topic that fits within the scope of the one you've written about. If you want more sources, or some of them offer new and different perspectives, feel free to add them to the present article. You've chosen a broad topic to write about, and there's plenty of room for topics about various aspects of it. P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your non-topical conclusory accusations, I see no irony. This specific surrender does not meet your standard: provided there's enough detail to justify an article. SpinningSpark convinced me that deletion would be worse than moving it somewhere else. As to the article I created and your feedback, I'd appreciate it if you could move it to the in-progress article's talk page. Ifly6 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the arguments above except those of nominator. That source analysis table in particular is a very poor attempt at motivated reasoning. Atchom (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the nominator keeps reverting my attempts to improve the article ahead of the closing of this discussion—this is the fourth time he's reverted to a previous state during this discussion, although multiple editors there and here seem to think that they're productive. Having abandoned his argument that changes were prohibited (1) during a deletion discussion, (2) until there was a talk page discussion, and (3) while a talk page discussion was "ongoing" (i.e. unless he agreed to the changes, even though nobody had said anything for days), he's now arguing that it's OR:SYNTH and that the burden is on the editor wishing to make improvements to prove to the satisfaction of the objecting editor that they're justified. Going to take this to ANI if it continues, but before that I thought it was relevant to this discussion, because if participants only see the reverted version, it might affect their decision about deleting the article. P Aculeius (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pointed out this editor's ownership behaviour in the past, which gives the impression that they are the only classicist on Wikipedia. It needs to stop or be stopped. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2022 (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 Beckley, Oxfordshire#Amenities. viable ATD, but there's no consensus that the content is suitable for Beckley article. Star Mississippi 16:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beckley Church of England Primary School[edit]

Beckley Church of England Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGCRIT. No suitable coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the school exists but as with the vast majority of primary schools (and a number of secondaries), there is no assertion of notability or evidence of significant coverage. This was created 10+ years ago when I think the policy was softer, but the article is just currently a publicity outlet. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found two articles, but they just seem to summarise inspection reports, and they're both by the same source.[9][10]. The BBC link which @NemesisAT: mentioned in the deprod just seems to be a picture so wouldn't meet WP:SIGCOV.[11] I found some newspaper articles in the British Newspaper Archive but they're passing mentions, mostly about sports results. FozzieHey (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Beckley, Oxfordshire per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: Can you expand on this? I'm not sure there's much content here that would be appropriate for the Beckley, Oxfordshire article. So if you could say what you'd think would be worth merging, that'd be great. (See also: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMESSAYS) Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its already mentioned in the "Amenities" section so more about it could be added or it could be given its own section and the information on its history probably belongs there even if the other 2 section's information doesn't such as the grades. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I personally don't see much to add other than the establishment year (and maybe expansion information) and amount of students. FozzieHey (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't typical to go into much detail about primary schools on region/area article. Possibly could mention the construction year and intake number, though even just mentioning it exists is enough. Not really much of note on the article at present to otherwise merge. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 May 2022 (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 08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family Sized[edit]

Family Sized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At present, the subject does not meet WP:GNG. As it stands, this is not ready to move out of the draft space. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, at the very least is a case of WP:TOOSOON Pazguillermo (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2022 (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 Renu Kushawaha and I will protect momentarily Star Mississippi 15:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Kumari[edit]

Renu Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources. It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The previous redirect should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2022 (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 well this didn't end up being a speedy due to timing, but the reasons were applicable. Lugnuts' suggestion of a redirect target is appropriate, and I will do so following deletion as there's nothing to preserve. Star Mississippi 15:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aruban films[edit]

List of Aruban films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has very little to do with Aruban films. It's some strange collection of 1998-2006 action movies that occasionally had something to do with Aruba. The List of Caribbean films has a list of Aruban films already. Similarly, Barbados does not have a stand alone article; Aruba does not at this time need one either. OpenScience709 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with OP. Peachncream (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. Where is the information coming from that these are Aruban films? Like, I know it's come from IMdB, but where has their information come from? User contributions? The article for Control (2004 film), for instance, says it is a US production company and filmed in Bulgaria. How does that translate to an Aruban production? Not sure that we should not only delete, but not merge anywhere and remove the claim from the individual articles. Unless someone has some other sources, I'm inclined to call this misinformation. SpinningSpark 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like it was created by accident or by someone working by insane troll logic. Ergo speedy delete, there’s nothing worth saving, and only then redirect. Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2022 (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. "has appeared in multiple TV shows" is not a policy based argument, leaving this ripe for a soft delete. Star Mississippi 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bonavia[edit]

John Bonavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks third party coverage. Actor fails nctor and gng as none of his roles are significant.Khgk (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Agana[edit]

Bernard Agana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer that has only played in a WP:NOTFPL league with no indication of meeting WP:GNG. None of the cited sources show anything other than basic statistical data. Google News has nothing for him. DDG has a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors and GSA and Soccerway and other stats sites. The one hit in ProQuest is about a namesake. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE search shows that Agana is notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 promotion and CSD G12 copyvio SpinningSpark 14:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filparty[edit]

Filparty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. The only source used is the official website for Filparty, which is obviously not an independent source. Searches, such as this one failed to find even one example of significant coverage from a reliable source. I can only find social media and other content created by Jessica Nono, who appears to be the creator of this platform and also the creator of this Wikipedia article. Would tag as WP:A7 but I don't think cryptocurrency projects meet the criteria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per nom, this is blatantly promotional of a non-notable subject. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. G11 as promotional spam, G12 as a copyvio (the text of the article is cut and pasted from the whitepaper), possibly A7 as web content with no credible claim of significance (if you consider cryptocurrencies to be web content). This is totally unsalvageable: it is promotional, written entirely in incomprehensible crypto-speak and there is zero claim of notability here - this cryptocurrency has received no coverage at all as far as I can tell. The creator states that they own the image used as the logo [12] so there is obviously some heavy COI involved here. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm still not 100% satisfied with the sourcing here, but it's better than it started out (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

America's Most Talented Kid[edit]

America's Most Talented Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found only passing mentions in relation to the hosts. Got a couple press releases at its debut but nothing else; no news coverage of the host and network switch. Newspapers.com gave only TV Guide listings. Deprodded because it aired on national TV, but WP:NTV dictates that not all shows airing on national TV are automatically notable if sources don't exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not mentioned that all in sources, but probably deserves a stub because it aired on NBC and seems to be mentioned across the internet. I know it isn't exactly WP:N, but personally I believe it still deserves at least a stub. Seungri400 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Seems to be mentioned". WP:PROVEIT. Just being mentioned is not enough. What facet of WP:GNG or WP:NTV does it meet? Airing on NBC isn't an ironclad guarantee of notability:

    a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage or airs on a minor secondary cable channel.

    Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact it aired nationally on a major broadcast network in the US, for a full season, makes it notable. --Rob (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not read what I posted above? Presence of sourcing is more important than length of show or notability of network. Can you prove that there are sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was a current web series, I would expect multiple (many) sources with very substantial coverage, as its inclusion would depend entirely on GNG, and nowadays it's easy for for a random little creator to go viral and generate lots of Google hits. But, we're talking about a *complete* season on a major (top 3) broadcast US network in 2003. To make an analogy, if you come in last in a non-famous sport in the Olympics, you'll automatically get an article, just because its considered such an achievement just to be competing at that level. You don't need to show a huge coverage, but just need to verify you did the clearly notable thing. In addition to network status, the show has a dozen notable people involved (contestants+hosts) with their own articles. That's analogous to an unsuccessful band that had multiple members go on to become notable. Such a band would warrant an article, even if coverage of the band was limited to passing mentions in bios of its members. --Rob (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from notable people appearing on the show. That's like saying every song written by a songwriter who has a Wikipedia article should have an article too. And you're still dodging the issue that there are zero sources. Did you find any sourcing that I did not? Because WP:GNG and WP:RS supercede everything else, and this is clearly failing them both. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say that GNG supersedes everything else? GNG is not a founding principal of Wikipedia, which existed for years before GNG developed. After GNG gained consensus, it was not used to retroactively eliminate categories of things considered notable, such as Olympians, politicians of a certain level, and various other things deemed notable. Notability isn't inherited, so simply having one famous person on a show means nothing, but there is a cumulative effect of numerous things (notable hosts+notable contestants+major network). Maybe we should move to using GNG for everything, but that's a discussion for another place. As for "RS", there are reliable sources. The critical facts of the article are verifiable, although there is a lack of the indepth coverage that GNG entails, and citations should be (and can be) added for all facts. --Rob (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are reliable sources". Says who? No one in this AFD has proven that there are, and saying "but there are sources!" doesn't automatically make them appear in the article. Did you find sources? No. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I actually did add nine sources *before* your above comment. So, I'm not just saying there are sources. The current citations are unfortunately, just passing mentions, in articles about performers, who started on the show. These are what you get with a quick Google search. If you have access to ProQuest (free through Wikipedia Library) you can see that there is more substantial contemporaneous coverage, which I haven't had time to integrate into the article yet. There's a substantial article by Richard Dyer [13] that is a thorough critique of the show. I cited it just now, but haven't properly incorporated/used it. There are also several articles going into detail about the experience of specific contestants on the show (not just a quick passing mention). So, if you can read ProQuest (or other news service), please do. Now, if you still feel that the sources aren't sufficient, that's fine, and I understand/respect that position. But, please don't say there are no sources. --Rob (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the sources that do mention "America's Most Talented Kid" pertains to those that participated on the show, and do not pertain to the actual show itself. Fails WP:GNG strictly in terms of sourcing, but probably can still be mentioned somewhere as far as any articles on those that participated in the show.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you counting this article (which requires a ProQuest account to read), that is cited. Not yet cited in the article, is this piece, which admittedly focusses on a couple contestants, but includes general show info such as:
      The show features kids from 16 cities across America competing in a talent competition. Each week, the candidates are scored by a panel of celebrity judges headed by 'N Sync's Lance Bass. They pick a winner from the three kids in each age category (3-7, 8-12 and 13- 15). The three finalists from each show advance to the final round to compete for the $50,000 cash prize.".
    • It's unfortunate, when this Wikipedia article was made, there were no citations to the available contemporaneous sources, which largely dropped from Google. Results still in Google tend to be more recent stores, and therefore have absolute barebones mentions of the show. The results in ProQuest are better. They give enough to have a fully cited complete article. --Rob (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have a ProQuest account, so my deletion rationale wasn't counting anything from there. But if what you provided satisfies Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, perhaps they can be added to the article? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still not convinced that this passes GNG, as of all the sources added, only one is actually about the show. The others are fluff pieces on former contestants that just mention their participation in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. While no one is going to argue that "America's Most Talented Kid" is a household name or key to the cultural development of the world, it still seems notable enough to keep as an article. It's release in 2003 during still early-internet days means it will likely have disproportionately low currently available sources compared to similarly notable shows in more recent years. A MINOTAUR (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2022 (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. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riptide (The Chainsmokers song)[edit]

Riptide (The Chainsmokers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably too soon to have an article on this song. I do not believe "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" exists at this time. dannymusiceditor oops 16:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No it wouldn't, not really, because none of those sources say anything more than "the song has been released" and one line stating what the song is about, which are all suspiciously close to each other in wording that it sounds like the writers all copied the same press release – in fact, the last source IS a press release from the band/record label themselves, so it's not an independent source either. It's not about whether there are any mentions of the song in sources, it's about whether those sources are any good, and in this case they aren't, so I don't see that a one-line description from any of them are enough to make this pass WP:NSONG. But I'm going to wait and see if this song charts anywhere in the next week before making a final decision about it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the amount of sources available are minimal, finite even. The Rolling Stone source describes it as being "[an] emotive track [that] is a reflection on the need to embrace time spent with a significant other", EDM.com says "it's a classic Chainsmokers record in terms of its emotive songwriting", KS95 notes it's "about wanting to be with someone, even though it's unsure they'll stick around for the long term", and "shimmering new song". There's almost certainly enough to merit a stub article (minimal as it may be), and, given it's now charted (as you've also noted below), it should be kept in order to encourage article development. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Sean Stephens. They're in-depth and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of your votes appear to be WP:PERNOM and so are fairly meaningless. NemesisAT (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Chainsmokers are a very successful act and we can see this article already has a substantial number of views. Thus I think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to keep this article, rather than delete it only to have to recreate it later on, creating extra work for editors. Meets WP:GNG with sources listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NemesisAT's comment. If we don't choose to keep this page, it should be redirected to The Chainsmokers discography instead of deleted, so we can easily recover the content should it be recreated. EDM fan 2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty sure Rolling Stone is a notable source. Weird hidden agenda against this group 5 years past their peak for whatever reason. 68.134.159.54 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are confusing "notable source" with "in-depth coverage". The Rolling Stone article is simply an announcement of the song's release, along with a 17-word sentence stating the song's theme. Nobody can seriously describe that as "in-depth coverage". The same goes for the other sources presented above, they say nothing more than that the song was released and one line saying what it's about. That's why some editors are voting to delete, nothing to do with any imagined vendetta against the group. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on charting on a couple of specialist charts, but it's not convincing. Richard3120 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No real claim of notability here, and in this state, doesn't warrant its own article. Not to veer into WP:OTHER territory, but this is honestly just one of the many song articles that stay in mainspace despite little to no notability that barely passes the WP:NSONG guidelines, an unfortunate precedent. And if the argument is that this article should be kept because the Chainsmokers are a notable act – well, notability is not generally inherited. AshMusique (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep also a Billboard article on the song being in the top 10, but the paywall hides it from me [14], another in Broadway World [15]. Even with these stubs, I think it's gotten enough traction already to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Maciejovsky[edit]

Boris Maciejovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Faulty nomination statement appears to examine only WP:GNG, the wrong notability criterion, and then claim without support that this examination applies to WP:PROF. But it doesn't. And the article doesn't appear particularly promotional to me; it reports neutrally on the subject's career milestones and research topics, as most articles on academics do, and includes some minor awards that I might not have included (the Raymond S. Nickerson Award is merely a best paper award, and I would not usually list a teaching award from the subject's employer), but that could be down to the preferences or inexperience of the article creator. Maciejovsky's citation record appears to pass WP:PROF#C1, but I'm putting it down as a weak keep because I think this is a high-citation field. The awards are insufficient for #C2 but we only need one criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Regarding notability, there is, of course, room for subjectivity; however, it seems that the profile of the academic meets the bar of "week keep," as outlined by David Eppstein. The academic and his work are featured in independent and objective sources, his teaching is evaluated publicly (ratemyprofessor), his work is moderately highly cited (google scholar), and his network is firmly established with other researchers (and their wikipedia pages). Notability for academics is met, for instance, by WP:PROF#C1. "The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure," which the article subject meets, as he was granted tenure at an R1 institution. The TED talk is also something that is rare and impactful (6,900 views on youtube) Gooseberry487 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Gooseberry487 is the article creator. TedX talks are legion, and 6,900 views for a YT video is nothing special. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The deletion process states that 'everyone including you [the article creator] is welcome to contribute to the discussion.' Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The weak keep above is by me, not Spiderone. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you! Fixed it. Gooseberry487 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree. The article is well researched and provides ample sources of notability. It′s in alignment with thousands of articles on impactful academics. VeritasOM (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only activity for this account has been to vote in this AfD. The repeated use of "impactful" suggests that this may be a sock of the article creator, Gooseberry487. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you mentioned me, allow me to clearly state that I neither wrote nor encouraged the vote above. Thanks Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The citations in Google Scholar appear strong: nine works over 100 citations -- even in a citation-heavy field -- seems adequate to meet WP:PROF to me. Also, while the creator does not appear to have edited very widely, the article was accepted by the AfC process. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if improved the citations are high enough, and are mostly in very good journals. ( not merely the minimal ">100" -- they are 331, 324, 216, 212, 204, 124, 107......) But many of the claimed academic appointments are appointments are as a post doc or fellow, not as a member of the faculty. An article that avoids specifying this does not give me the impression of being competently written, especially because it omits the details of the citations, which is the strongest part, as we judge WP:PROF. I would normally say, return to draft, but it's been extensively edited since its been there. I would not have approved it at AfC, because as is obvious from this nomination, it does not make the notability clear enough. So, given the actual underlying notability, I am in process of rewriting according to our usual standards. I'll finish that tomorrow this time--i cant work any further tonight. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as the article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGSB University[edit]

AGSB University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A commercial educational institution, supposedly a university, but not accredited by the authorities of the country it is located in, Switzerland. No apparent notability (WP:GNG). A Google News search reveals no coverage, and the article cites no third-party sources. The article appears to have been written for promotional purposes by the organization itself, see the talk page and the history. Sandstein 10:36, 7 May 2022 (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 Dangal 2. ✗plicit 08:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr 10 Movies[edit]

Enterr 10 Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Possible redirect targets are Enterr10 Television Network or Dangal 2. MarioGom (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 16:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loktantrik Samajwadi Party[edit]

Loktantrik Samajwadi Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political party. Very old prod declined without comment. Doesn't even have an intro, just a random list of crap. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Note that there is a party in Nepal with exactly the same name which is notable, Loktantrik Samajwadi Party, Nepal. I'm surprised that no reliable sources seem to exist for a party that held a seat in a regional parliament. A search in both English and Hindi returned no sources, and the Wikidata item indicates no other language version exists. Curbon7 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - here a reminder of AfD basics is necessary. AfD is not the place to complain about the quality of articles. If the article is missing intro etc, please improve it. The key point here is notability, which per WP:NPOL is easily confirmed with the party having held a seat in state legislature (which btw, is sourced). --Soman (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Improve it with what? The sources that Curbon7 (talk · contribs) just proved don't exist? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Political parties operate under WP:NORG, not WP:NPOL. NORG explicitly states that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools". Curbon7 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the representation in state legislature, this is sourced. You can also find the election result here https://ceorajasthan.nic.in/List-stat.htm Party is mentioned https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/fissures-over-symbol-divide-janata-parivar (as part of Janata merger process), Lohia anniversary celebrated by party https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/state-editions/---lohia-dedicated-his-life-to-fight-against-discrimination---.html , another ref on 2008 Rajasthan state legislature https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/gehlot-wins-trust-vote-bsp-backs-govt-36517-2009-01-03 , https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/bjp-says-ram-jethmalani-is-party-rs-candidate-from-rajasthan/story-KOC4lUYlUr5q1oEimXy0iL.html , party website http://www.lspindia.org/ , glimpse of party flag https://thehinduimages.com/listing-page.php?searchTerm=searchImage&searchKeywords=LOKTANTRIK%20SAMAJWADI%20PARTY , alliance in 2008 Chhattisgarh election https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/left-gives-us-an-idea-of-third-alternative/articleshow/3715322.cms?from=mdr , founded in 1994 by members of parliament https://books.google.at/books?id=VLShQ-Zq8TMC&pg=PA31 , 1999 protest against NATO bombing Serbia https://books.google.at/books?id=B6aqciIXBdQC&pg=PA113 , roots in Janata Dal, led by Raghu Thakur https://books.google.at/books?id=ViZuAAAAMAAJ (p. 126), " In July 2006 , Chhattisgarh State General Secretary of Loktantrik Samajwadi Party , Ashok Panda" https://books.google.at/books?id=jwgNAQAAMAAJ (p. 32), " A court in Jabalpur on Oct 24 issued arrest warrants against Union Labour Minister Sharad Yadav , president of All India Loktantrik Samajwadi Party Raghu Thakur and 67 others in connection with a case of “ attempted murder ” ." https://books.google.at/books?id=dXtDAAAAYAAJ (p. 962) --Soman (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Key word "mentioned". Those all seem like passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some Hindi references https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/sidharth-nagar-12480465.html , https://www.bhaskar.com/news/MP-OTH-MAT-latest-bhind-news-043003-1284625-NOR.html , https://www.raigarhtopnews.com/national-president-of-loktantrik-samajwadi-party-raghu-thakur-will-also-reach-kharsia-from-bhopal-to-pay-tribute-to-bhakta/ , https://halehulchal.com/memorandum-submitted-to-collector-regarding-5-point-demands-in-democratic-samajwadi-party/ , https://www.naidunia.com/madhya-pradesh/sagar-sagar-news-188617 , https://sathisandesh.in/?p=38800 , https://www.pragatimedia.org/2020/09/Madhya-pradesh-breaking-pm-news.html , http://cnin.co.in/single.php?id=6705 --Soman (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soman: if you have all these sources, please put them in the article yourself rather than on the AFD page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Note that it is perfectly acceptable for sources to be denoted in AfD discussions. The provision of said sources is often crucial to demonstrate topic notability, or lack thereof. North America1000 09:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think we should endevour to have articles on all parties that have had seats in state or national assemblies. There is something on its founding in this book (which involved three sitting MPs (all notable enough to have WP articles). It's a stretch for NORG, but at least its enough to write a meaningful stub which is better than the random list of factoids we have now. SpinningSpark 14:22, 8 May 2022 (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. There is no point in belaboring this outcome. BD2412 T 01:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Griffith[edit]

Chris Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography, written by the subject, and sourced exclusively to pieces written by the subject. There does not seem to be independent coverage meeting WP:GNG/WP:JOURNALIST. MarioGom (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be undergoing revisions so please wait - Chris Griffith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisgriffith (talk • contribs) 10:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that what we achieved in Australia in the mid 1980s with PC coax networks and multiuser applications was at the cutting edge of what was available with Novell NetWare networks but you may not regard that as notable - hard for me to judge Chrisgriffith (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish information about yourself. The fact that the subject created it is something that compels us to delete it. If an indepdent editor then wants to come along and build an indepdently sourced article, that can be done, but we cannot have an article created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mr Griffith, if you are reading this: I wouldn't put it as strongly as John Pack Lambert, rather autobiographies are "strongly discouraged" (see WP:AB) because of the obvious likelihood of conflict of interest which impacts on Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality. To meet Wikipedia's basic requirement of being notable requires evidence (citations) from reliable sources-- please see referencing for beginners. Pages should not read like a CV, which Wikipedia is not. Please familiarise yourself with WP:GOLDENRULE. Given I am certainly aware of Griffith and his tech reviews I was surprised when I went looking (via Google and Newsbank) to improve the page that I could not find any WP:RSs about him in the hope of fulfilling WP:JOURNALIST. While he may be a long term journalist at The Australian, he still needs to meet WP:JOURNALIST and unfortunately I couldn't find any material to support that. Cabrils (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless I really appreciate the effort that you went to Cabrils to improve the page. That's really appreciated. Chrisgriffith (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting platform for vanity spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2022 (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) 17:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Putin Coalition[edit]

Anti-Putin Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While some sources talk about "an anti-Putin coalition" [16], sources do not seem to support a formal "Anti-Putin Coalition" organization, with formal membership (which is unsourced here), etc. There's obviously a coalition in the conflict, but this article gives the appearance of a formal organization that does not seem to be supported by reliable sources. There's a significant amount of original research and WP:SYNTH here. MarioGom (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. MarioGom (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is a possible redirect target. MarioGom (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, no formal alliance, ie "a military-political union", exists. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Full of wild misinformation. The first sentence begins "The Anti-Putin Coalition is a military-political union..." A coalition is neither a military nor a political union. The second sentence is "On February 24, 2022, the Russian declared war on Ukraine". While all right-thinking people know what Russia is doing is war, they have never formally declared a war and continue to deny that is what they are doing. So at best this is a WP:TNT case and at worst it is WP:POV and WP:OR up to and including the title of the article. SpinningSpark 13:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from "Zelensky: we talked to Western leaders, we are starting to create an anti-Putin coalition", there is nothing that can be credibly sourced. Orientls (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not clear what this actually is. Is this an actual formal military alliance? If so, it does not exist. Is this an informal organization? A vague alignment of principles? It feels like WP:OR creating a concept that is not adequately documented in secondary sources.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is quite rambling. The phrase about the declaration of war is simply not correct. KhinMoTi (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2022 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Bailo[edit]

Dávid Bailo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-pro player who made 4 cameo appearances totalling 38 mins then had some short spells in the amateur divisions. Nothing from searches of Hungarian sources in Google News, ProQuest or DDG comes even close to showing the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:08, 7 May 2022 (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.

Result was delete. Article was deleted by Paulmcdonald after I tagged it with WP:G4. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Genocide of Ukrainians[edit]

Genocide of Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ukrainian genocide was deleted at AfD, and this translation of a POV-full Ukrainian Wikipedia article is not any better. Probably eligible for speedy. Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't really see any reason to delete it. If people have improvements they can suggest them on the article's talk page. The article can be optimized or become more stable over time. Shari Garland (talk)
See WP:ILIKEIT. 106.214.120.46 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tun Lin Soe[edit]

Tun Lin Soe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG as cannot find multiple instances of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Google News hits have no relevance to football. Google search yields little. DDG also doesn't yield useful hits. Has a Soccerway profile but this only shows him sitting on the bench for a few games and Soccerway isn't significant coverage anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Chan Moe[edit]

Aung Chan Moe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer; article cited to a preliminary squad listing and nothing else. The one source is only a passing mention in a squad list so does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Now that WP:NFOOTBALL has been deprecated, I can't see any claim to notability, even if he has played professional games in Burma. Searches in English yield only database websites like Soccerway and Tribuna and searches in Burmese script yield only social media pages. The Myanmar Wikipedia article also doesn't help us here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:14, 7 May 2022 (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! 06:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyes Dendene[edit]

Lyes Dendene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about non-notable footballer, who may have played one season in the Algerian top division (plus two late substitute's appearances four seasons earlier), but there are no reliable online sources to verify this (only unreliable transfermarkt.com). Regardless, there is no significant coverage in online English or French-language sources, and essentially no coverage at all resulting in a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG. Also, to the extent we ultimately verify that he did play for RC Kouba during the 2008–09 season, it's pretty clear he didn't make an impression especially as Kouba finished dead last in an unusual season where they were the 17th club admitted to the division. Jogurney (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2022 (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. Technically ineligible, but this has run two weeks without anyone contesting deletion and I don't see an additional relist bringing input Star Mississippi 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Adrian White[edit]

Dante Adrian White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has collaborated with many artists, but not notable on his own. Deprodded right under the wire due to previous prod in 2010 that Twinkle didn't catch. Zero sources found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:26, 7 May 2022 (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 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Mishra death case[edit]

Abhishek Mishra death case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as per WP:NCRIME, also a highly localized event. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:NCRIME, this is not a breaking news. A simple google search could tell the notability of the case. It involved students of a reputed college and Chief Minister and Cabinet Minister of government of India. There was political uproar over it. Neither is the news localized, it involves pan India individuals and central ministers. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
these are some National newspapers who have covered this incident, its not a localized event.[17] [18] [19] [20]. Also need to take into consideration this is a 2006 incident and there was limited coverage in backland areas like Bihar, still this reached national news. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This [21] a book which covers this , and this[22] is India Today international magazine which covered it in 2006 on page 39. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources suggest it is more than the run of the mill crime and has met the notability and sourcing thresholds we require. Atchom (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Millions of crimes get investigated, doesn't mean they require an article here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of low profile crimes that only attracted local coverage. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emrush Suma[edit]

Emrush Suma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure how a random and somewhat obscure Albanian militant would meet WP:BIO. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reedsy (organisation)[edit]

Reedsy (organisation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable by way of WP:COMPANY, and feels more than a little promotional/peacocking. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt. It has been deleted twice before at AfD after considerable analysis of sources. There are a number of sources in the current article which were not analysed previously but they're worse than what we've seen previously. Since this is a company/organization, NCORP guidelines therefore apply and we require references that discuss the *company* in detail and with "Independent Content".
    • This BBC article is a mere mention-in-passing (under a picture) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • This is The Guardian relies entirely on information provided by the company and the CEO, Nataf, fails ORGIND. It also only provides a summary of the company - nothing in-depth, failing CORPDEPTH.
    • The Forbes piece is not considered a reliable source as per WP:FORBES. It also relies entirely on information provided by the company and the CEO, fails ORGIND.
    • An Interview with the CEO is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
    • Blog posts are not reliable sources and fails WP:RS, article also relies entirely on information from the CEO, fails ORGIND.
    • Fast Company article includes a few quotes from the CEO but there is no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
There's nothing here that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Given this topic's third time at AfD, I recommend the topic is salted to discourage further articles with this company as the topic. HighKing++ 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a very well-done in depth analysis.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2022 (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 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Marie Griggs[edit]

Joyce Marie Griggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself: the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates must either (a) show that they had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, such that even if they lose it would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. This shows neither of thise things, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that are not support for notability at all and purely run of the mill local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate always gets, thus not marking her out as more special than everybody else.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day in November if she wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:21, 7 May 2022 (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 01:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leinender[edit]

Leinender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musician/DJ without significant coverage. Not notable. PepperBeast (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Insufficient sourcing to pass the WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. None of the current references in the article are from reliable sources, and searches did not turn up anything else. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2022 (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! 03:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exherbo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Exherbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability, as a software project it does not seem to have gained significant attention. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There are about 40 to 70 developers (a lot because they encourage "user as developers"). It is not an "extra theme distro". The distro is uniquely encouraging distributed development. Their model of development is by nature only suitable for minorities, thus no "significant attention" which is probably not important. Like a lot of experimental programming languages in history, no many users, but still influential. Distros today are all centralized, this one is like the one cool kid in the class. slbtty (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Denmark. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - @Shenlebantongying: brings up reasons why this distribution is potentially interesting but none that establish that it is notable. There appears to have been a few mentions here and there, but nothing that would lead me to suspect it was deleted in error after the last AfD. PianoDan (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Mayes[edit]

Tessa Mayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- you don't make a journalist notable enough for a Wikipedia article by referencing it to sources where she's the bylined author of coverage of other things, you make a journalist notable enough for a Wikipedia article by referencing it to sources where she's the subject of content written by other people.
But the sources here are the former, not the latter, and the article says nothing about her that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show the latter. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did my best to improve this article, but basically found nothing that infers notability. CT55555 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find decent secondary sources that confirm she was notable. I was looking at it just now, she has written a lot in a lot of venues, but very little of its been reviewed. The references are primary or passing mentions. scope_creepTalk 15:32, 9 May 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Klima[edit]

Zack Klima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, likely COI issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:17, 7 May 2022 (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. This discussion also shows that the page needs to be moved to Shaku Atre. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakuntala Atre[edit]

Shakuntala Atre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and most of the references are rather collateral. The overall notability is not substantiated by the article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional opportunity to find coverage under the name "Shaku Atre" as noted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not my area but leaning keep. Assuming the subject is indeed Shaku Atre, there's high citations for two books and an article in Google Scholar, perhaps sufficient to meet WP:PROF (977,310,168), though their other publications appear to have only modest citations. There's also a great many news/interviews hits in Proquest quoting the subject as an expert, going all the way back to the 1980s. Book reviews would be nice if anyone can track them down; ETA: WorldCat[23] shows Data base : structured techniques for design, performance, and management : with case studies (held in 770 libraries, 27 editions), Business intelligence roadmap : the complete project lifecycle for decision-support applications (462 libraries, 33 editions), Distributed databases, cooperative processing, and networking (168 libraries, 14 editions), Data base management systems for the eighties (94 libraries, 4 editions) as well as some other less widely held books. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: More indept coverage (from Proquest search, which has 183 hits for "Shaku Atre"): Stoltenberg, John. Turning Problems into Profits. Working Woman; New York Vol. 13, Iss. 5, (May 1988): 63 (can't access article but 4pp article, abstract reads "Janice Schooler, Trisha Garrity Warringer, Shaku Atre and Vicki C. McConnell each built businesses that teach employees how to use high-tech computer software and hardware.") Also five paragraphs in Radding, Alan. The Education of an Expert. Computerworld; Framingham Vol. 22, Iss. 18, (May 2, 1988): 74. [24] (long before she became a columnist there). Also Snyders, Jan. Create That Opportunity Infosystems; Wheaton Vol. 31, Iss. 10, (Oct 1984): 104. (one-page profile, can't access). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Espresso Addict: Publishing a couple of books is nowhere near enough to meet NPROF unless they can be showm to have made a major impact in the field. Can you please link to where you found these "high citations". My own search of gscholar turned up only two citations, both for the Spanish language version of her book. One of those is to a Master's thesis, which unlike a PhD, is not considered part of the peer reviewed corpus and hence not relevant for establishing notability. SpinningSpark 12:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: As I said above: GS search for "Shaku Atre".[25] Espresso Addict (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly looks a lot better, but for me that is still not enough to get past NPROF. Even counting the iffy citations and publications, that only amounts to an h-index of 9, which is low. Nothing else has been offered with the in-depth coverage needed to pass GNG, but I'm less hostile to keeping this now and am open to persuasion. SpinningSpark 09:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could take another look, Spinningspark, in the light of the coverage found by SusunW. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW's argument is not entirely logical. She says we should not be assessing Atre under PROF but then goes on to say she has written a lot of stuff and is cited a lot. That's an NPROF argument and still does not get past the guideline. To meet GNG we need independent, in-depth discussion of the subject. SusunW, in amongst a lot of irrelevant stuff, has offered an "about the author" blurb in one of her books, a similar thing in the agenda for a conference (almost certainly written by Atre herself), and an interview. None of that is considered independent. Still, if we had at the beginning what we have now I would probably not have commented on this AFD at all. I'm striking my delete to neutral. SpinningSpark 08:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually her writing and citation isn't an NPROF argument at all. It is an argument in favor of CREATIVE, #1 and #2, which I am clarifying for whoever closes this. And as for the non-independent sources, they're allowed as long as they are only descriptive statements of facts and notability has been verified by reliable secondary sources. In-depth discussion of the subject is not required to be contained in a single source, but rather can be combined from information in multiple sources, which is what we have here. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral. Fails NPROF - very low citations, no evidence of any substantial impact, and holds only a minor professorship. SpinningSpark 12:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral per abpve discussion. SpinningSpark 08:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is detailed coverage of Shaku Atre here [26]. Google Scholar does show some high citation counts for some textbooks. I haven't found any reviews in JSTOR. TJMSmith (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper article is useful: "wrote one of the first books on managing databases", which sold 150,000 copies, translated into 3 languages, used as university textbook. Also mentions (in future tense) her writing a column in Computerworld. I couldn't find anything on JSTOR either; not sure where computing textbooks were reviewed in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; first, per Espresso Addict, as an early and - by sales - influential author on databases which, let us remember, were obscure and in their infancy in 1980 - so, a pioneer in this field; and then, second, 25-years or more of exposure as a columnist and as a repeatedly cited database expert in mainstream trade publications, for which see https://archive.org/search.php?query=Shaku%20Atre&sin=TXT and, especially, https://archive.org/search.php?query=according%20to%20Shaku%20Atre&sin=TXT --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the further discoveries mentioned above but the article needs to be expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comment of @Ipigott, and draft would be a good option rather then delete. Fade258 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the logic of this nomination makes no sense to me. Why are we examining an "adjunct professor" as an academic? The very nature of that title infers that she lectures because of expertise and work in another sphere. Clearly that field is business development and clearly specifically in the use of technology in business. So, 1) do we have evidence of a claim to verified notability. Yes, the clip TJMSmith found says she was a pioneer in database management and wrote an influential book about it. Her definition of business intelligence is cited in numerous publications in a variety of languages.[27],[28],[29],[30], she apparently developed a system for analyzing data (not my area of expertise)[31] and she was often referred to as a consulting expert.[32] While at IBM, she was a referee for the selection of articles to be peer reviewed, i.e. indicates she was an expert in the field.[33] 2) Is there sufficient media over time to confirm that we can create a reasonably complete and detailed biography? Yes, and she meets at the very least WP:BASIC and probably also WP:CREATIVE. Besides sources cited above:[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40]. Obviously a lot more out there under Shaku Atre and that should probably be the title of the article. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we should move to the name the subject has worked under. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Atre is quoted in her capacity as an expert on DB business news fairly often, but unfortunately these are largely in publications that are not independent of her. These include Computerworld, where she has written multiple articles since 1982, and DBMS, where she has been an editor. Any magazine advertising the Atre Group also cannot be considered independent, which would eliminate all Computerworld citations (ads started appearing in at least 1983, and some of her "articles" there are actually contained within "special advertising supplements"; her group later seems to have even partnered with the magazine). I would honestly be skeptical of any trade mag, since "expert consultancy" in those is a widespread marketing tool and her group explicitly notes it contributes writers/experts to them. But counting those, her opinion is cited nontrivially in around four magazines:
Software Magazine, MIS Week, Infosystems, and Network World.
However, despite the case for NPROF C7 being rather weak, she does appear to meet GNG through her profile in Working Woman and the interview in Infosystems, which provides just enough independent commentary to count. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: As a matter of transparency, I should note I was brought here by an arguably non-neutral alert at WiR. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those JoelleJay. I'm working the sources shown on this page into the article, though discussing her "12-step approach" to analysis and planning is beyond my abilities and expertise. If anyone wants to take a crack this and this could be used. Do you want to add your info or should I come back to it tomorrow and try to work those in? SusunW (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW, it takes me about three hours two write a paragraph summarizing even things I am extremely familiar with (hello, PhD dissertation...), so I'd say even if I tried tonight to incorporate info from those sources into the article you'd probably do a quicker and more competent job starting tomorrow. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm on it. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I can do. Hopefully someone with a better grasp of technology than me can discuss her works. When this closes we definitely need to change the title to Shaku Atre to comply with WP:commonname. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BOBA Network[edit]

BOBA Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be WP:SPIP. Wikipedia:Notability_(cryptocurrencies) would suggest this is not a notable project. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking through Boba Network's coverage in WP refs yields an article in Reuters (republished in Yahoo Finance) about how a bunch of random investors invested in this project, five press releases, a podcast episode, and a FORBESCON article. (Google News hits are no better, being almost entirely cryptocurrency-centric publications.) This topic fails WP:GNG/WP:NCRYPTO. Duckmather (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2022 (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. Anyone willing to merge can request at WP:REFUND for the content be restored under a redirect, without reference to me. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina[edit]

List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a topic separate from List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina, this fails to satisfy WP:GNG. The individual highways have their own separate articles that should discuss the projects in the works, and the main list should have notes and other content briefly summarizing it as well. That means this article, which appears to be a copy/paste without proper attribution from the individual articles, is not necessary and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and North Carolina. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above and because some of it borders on speculation. --Rschen7754 01:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After editing all the 100 counties in NC and keeping them up to date. I found the article "List of future Interstate Highways" lacked sufficient data on many Future Interstates in NC, which is why I made the this wiki page. This is a problem for counties with multiple future interstates (like Nash with three FI going through it). Adding multiple pages for each interstates to the "See also" section or any section on that county page would not be useful, especially as the part talking about said interstates is buried in some articles. To bring up an issue Rschen7754 brought up, most of the FIs in this state have been fully planned out by the NCDOT (except for I-685 which is quite a new official proposal). To also address to main issue of deletion by Imazadi1979, I added the information from those pages as a teaser to show give people to basic information attributed to the FI and the ability to learn more on the parent page. If I incorrectly quoted those pages, I apologize and will try my best to quote them correctly, I am planning to add more information about each FI in the future if this page is not deleted. Thank you for your time and I apologize again if I made any errors (I'm still quite new to Wikipedia and all it has to offer). DiscoA340 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –Fredddie™ 03:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Content can be incorporated into the state list or the main Future list, but the blurbs are far too long. SounderBruce 06:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with SounderBruce. the main list of Future interstates is for much larger and longer term interstates. There are currently 13 FI residing in NC and only 2 of them are mentioned in that article. Adding the other 11 routes would basically make the article almost solely about North Carolina. The main purpose of "List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina" is to make a better list for FI in NC as some information about each route is only a paragraph long and made without much context or more information about that route in some articles. I have made the removed the copy-paste material and there is still lots of information about each route you wouldn't find on the articles that briefly mentions it. I believe that the article will get longer in the future as other people with possibly more information about a route would add to this article. I would find it extremely disappointing if you still decide to deleted this article as the point of this article is to list the FI in our state, not to trying to eclipse the dedicated article like I-74 and I-73 as that is not the point of this article. It will also alert people to the FI in our state as not everyone knows where some small information about each route is located (Like U.S. Route 264 for I-587). I will be happy to fix anymore errors you point out but I think this article has good potential and shouldn't be deleted. Thank you for your time. DiscoA340 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DiscoA340: You are allowed to vote only once.  ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I read was a comment, not a vote. Why are you harassing a new editor? Is your objective to make them an ex-editor? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioKAOS: at the time the above comment was made, there was a case that looked like double voting. That was corrected in the very next edit. Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Note there are multiple more "delete" votes above which are really statements in support of "merge". I don't see why this can't be included in List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina or as a section in List of future Interstate Highways or kept separately, it doesn't make much difference to me. But there is sentiment, if not overall consensus, in the statements above that this material is encyclopedic, relevant, and should not be outright deleted, counter to the impression one can take from the number of delete votes. The issue is really about editing, i.e. about the appropriateness of splitting it out from List of future Interstate Highways which is what happened, or merging it back in, not about deletion, and IMHO should be continued as a discussion at a Talk page, probably at Talk:List of future interstate highways. It seems not a question for AFD. No one disputes the validity of the topic of future/proposed interstate highways in the United States, and it is just a matter of editing preferences whether or not the North Carolina should be split out or not, as a matter of managing article size. --Doncram (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to be clear that I do, in fact, desire for this list to be deleted. The information already exists elsewhere and was copied here without attribution to those pages. There is nothing to merge. –Fredddie™ 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think deletion would be better as well. I checked the individual pages and they all have the information contained in this page easily. This page serves no purposes as to list the exact same information already available elsewhere. Agree with Freddie Shirsakbc (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of this page is to list all of the new corridors in the state, not try to be a new page for each one. If someone is trying to find I-587 information, it is unlikely they would know to look in the US-264 page with a small section about it near the bottom. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet where does Interstate 587 (North Carolina) redirect to, at this time? I know that if I were looking for that, the redirect would get me to the right place. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point. Really, the main point of this wiki page is to combine all official not yet complete corridors in NC. When looking for information about said corridors, it was always cumbersome to go halfway down a page about another topic just to find meager amounts on that route. Which is why I made this article. It makes finding that information on them a lot easier to locate. If that does not meet the criteria for being a wiki page I apologize. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't taken a very strong look at this but I would imagine most of the information is either in another article or could be placed in said other article. This includes the aforementioned List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina or the various pages. I don't see a compelling reason why a separate article is needed. The vast majority of these Interstates already have their own page which can be expanded if needed. The remainder have sections within preexisting pages (ie. I-42, I-885) which are often underutilized and should be expanded if the purpose is providing more information on these future North Carolina Interstates. I will also echo some of the speculation concerns and if any merge were to happen, that information shouldn't be included.--Ncchild (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my last sentence, this especially goes for the information about any sort of I-30 extension, I-X40 to Boone, etc. Essentially all the information at the bottom of the page. Almost all of that is sheer speculation and others just thinking of ideas. While I can understand "this was proposed in 2018" per the Jacksonville route, that really belongs under the future section of the North Carolina Highway 24 article with a reputable source to confirm it's proposal.--Ncchild (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my last comment, I removed all of the copy-paste material from this page. The maps, county lists, and info boxes are my creations. To address an issue Ncchild brought up, the section "other proposals" is speculation as it is currently unconfirmed by the NCDOT. But everything above that section is official as it has been designed by the NCDOT and other credible officials. Also, I believe the point of the article "List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina" is to give a list of currently completed Interstates in NC. This article is meant to give a list partially complete and future interstates in NC and to go into more detail about them that some of their parent articles do not go in. Doncram has also changed my mind on idea of merging articles, but I still think "List of future Interstates" should be left alone as it seems that the article is mainly about Federally designated Interstates and not about other proposal by local and DOT officials. Instead, I propose making an article like this one but for all proposals across all 50 states. After posting this comment, I will add a new post to talk about this issue. DiscoA340 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think another article is needed. For one, 90% of the routes in this article aren't really future highways at all. Maybe they are partially completed, but they are still signed Interstate highways. We have an article for the Congressionally mandated or seriously proposed highways, which is List of future Interstate Highways. We could add auxiliaries, but I'd question if that would really be a good idea given that they are shown on pages such as List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina. I also would keep in mind that proposal's by DOT or local officials are only proposals until they are approved by AASHTO or the FHA. Writing about all of them would be a bit of speculation as well, as people say they want a new Interstate XX all the time, but these highways may never be seriously considered. Further, I'm not sure we can write about a sheer proposal except maybe in the future section of a preexisting article. Ncchild (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, while the AASHTO does approve of Interstates, that does not stop DOT's from building the route under other names (like NC-74 for I-274). All the routes except for the bottom are currently being built or are planned by the NCDOT which you can find on their STIP plan and current projects list. List of Future Interstates is incredibly lacking in many Future Interstates (Like I-11 and I-69) due to the fact that are technically designated already even with a majority of the route to be constructed. I-11 is officially proposed by congress and you can find the Interstate on the map in the same page, but due to the fact that a small section in Las Vegas was designated, it means that it is not considered a FI even with possibly hundreds of mileage to go. This Wiki page is meant to show all the FI in the state but it is not meant to be a new wiki page for the same route. I have added a question to the talk section on the consideration of adding other states to this list with the same issue. DiscoA340 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about your idea of creating separate articles for each state. I'm from Alaska, which is alone among the 50 states in having Interstates that exist solely on paper. What good would such an article do when these so-called Interstates are two-lane roads with no Interstate signage, and it's been that way for many years with no attempt to upgrade the roads to Interstate standards? People already give far too much weight to things which exist solely on paper. As for your other comment about signage, I took the long way back home to Kings Grant from RDU yesterday afternoon. There are "Future Interstate 42" signs at every county line along US 70. That's significant. Should we give the same weight to roads which haven't yet been built? I don't believe so. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per your last comment. I do not plan to make an article like this for every state. , I’m sorry if I did not make that clear. To address your main concern, just because work hasn’t been done on a designated corridor does not mean the project has been stoped in any way. These roads are no different from construction on buildings. The point of this article is to inform people of these roadways, if a corridor is cancelled (which rarely happens) or is completed, it will be removed from this article. I do believe there is merit in discussing merging this page with another like it. But it should be discussed in the talk section of the page as it will get lost in this discussion. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina. Softly falling rain (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What sort of merge are you proposing? I looked at that list. It's a series of pretty tables meant to get you to click on other content, but doesn't have a whole lot of substance in and of itself. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina (or similar). Softly falling rain (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2022 (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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 01:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baranavichy Ghetto[edit]

Baranavichy Ghetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable stub seemingly taken verbatim from Baranavichy#20th century. Noahfgodard (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @GizzyCatBella: Admittedly only a cursory search, but I don't think there is enough coverage to establish notability for the ghetto in its own right. It's true, though, that I should have modified my claim of non-notability, as it could certainly be disproven; it's simply my position given the article's current sourcing and my own looking around. --Noahfgodard (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sourcing from Scholar and Books can be located under the name "Baranovichi". Extremely unlikely a Holocaust ghetto would be non-notable. AusLondonder (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there is clearly scope for expansion here, especially with respect to the activities of the Jewish underground resistance. Covered in depth in [In the Shadow of the Red Banner: Soviet Jews in the War Against Nazi Gemany, The Holocaust in the Soviet Union and Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. SpinningSpark 17:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft space. There is clearly way insufficient sources in the article now to justify its existence as a stand-alone article. Funnily enough, people keep saying there is a wealth of resources to be added. Well, they could be afforded a chance to make of this a worthy entry in draft space. Otherwise, just delete. XavierItzm (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NEXIST. SpinningSpark 08:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still of the mind that the coverage available (and I am aware of WP:NEXIST) seems to warrant a section on the page for Baranavichy, rather than a separate article. That said, I did initially underestimate the coverage, as I hadn't been looking under "Baranovichi", so I'm fine to lay the notability question to rest. The still-unaddressed issue is that the article was initially copied verbatim from Baranavichy#20th century, so if the AfD is resolved as a keep (which seems appropriate given current consensus), the article at least needs better attribution per WP:CWW. --Noahfgodard (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of sources in google and google scholar. Softly falling rain (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_7&oldid=1088655945"