Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26 June 28 >

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 keep‎. I discounted a fairly considerable number of keep !votes that were not rooted in our policies/guidelines, but the more recent ones, which cite new sources not available at the time many delete !votes were cast, have gone largely unrebutted and are sufficient to push this into "consensus to keep" territory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invidious[edit]

Invidious (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 meet WP:GNG, non-primary coverage appears limited to tech blogs of dubious reliability and listicles. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Dawnbails (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invidious is backend of quite a few projects such as YouTube clients, Privacy redirects.Greatder —(talk) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Keep Invidious is a valuable open-source project that is used by many people. As stated by another user, it is a frequent component of so-called privacy redirect plugins. These plugins typically consist of Quetre, Libreddit, Imginn, Nitter, ProxiTok, and Invidious. To state that this project is not notable is absurd. JoeBo82(talk)
Can you point to...any...coverage in a reputable tech magazine or academic journal? The best we've got right now is passing coverage in makeuseof.com [1], [2], a source described as unreliable to marginally reliable the one time it was brought to RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326#Should_MakeUseOf.com_be_considered_a_reliable_source? signed, Rosguill talk 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: @Rosguill: Because of the name, it is difficult to sort through unrelated search hits. Because of the purpose (downloads from YouTube, owned by Google), search results could be...suspect. These are not as big and "reliable" as NYTimes - List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times, but they are independent and arguably reputable, if not magazines or academic journals: Described at Free Software Foundation directory, written by Craig Topham, "an administrator and bureaucrat of the Free Software Directory",[3] Instructions and app written up at archlinux.org, known for reliable documentation (in some circles),[4][5] Windows apps described in Softpedia (has editor? team)[6][7] -- Yae4 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those links look like a mix of database entries and user-generated sources , neither of which typically contribute towards establishing notability. The Softpedia coverage appears to be mere-mentions unless I'm misunderstanding something. signed, Rosguill talk 04:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where the precise line is between user-generated unreliable like Wikipedia, versus a tightly controlled or curated more reliable wiki you can give some trust, like The Free Software Foundation and Arch Linux wikis, but I do know I've found info' at the latter two to solve problems. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re MakeUseOf.com: At RSN in January 2021, I called it unreliable before Newslinger called it marginally reliable. If Newslinger called it marginally reliable, it's probably reliable enough. Compared with Youtube-dl (aka yt-dlp or others), Invidious is only one take-down notice away from fame and clearer wiki-notability. IMO, Wikipedia is a little worse without the article. WP:IGNORE. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned on AlternativeTo [8], ProPrivacy [9] and several other tech sites e.g. [10] [11] [12]. The topic is notable (significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources) and the article is a net benefit to the reader. Certes (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest, I've read through the linked sources here and from Yae4 and I'm not actually sure which ones are intended to be the examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I'm not sure myself; it's a matter of opinion. None of them alone would be enough to save the article but, in total, they may be. Certes (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a lot of blogs and UGC sites that mention Invidious, but the most reliable thing I've found was a passing mention in LifeHacker (via Yahoo). So, no, I don't think that'd be enough for an article. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i agree with all the reasons to keep this page. --XANA404 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — XANA404 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion. (AltheaCase (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    What? SWinxy (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep on IAR. Also, while I don't think a cease-and-desist notice would make Invidious notable under our criteria (NOTNEWS and all that) I have to admit the timing is pretty funny Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for mentioning the news. Google is a Major Benefactor ($50,000+) to Wikipedia, just saying. Follow the money. Adding: It will be interesting to see whether Invidious can raise a Streisand effect like Youtube-dl did, without being a [self-redacted] of Microsoft GitHub -- Yae4 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bruh, they're not going to inform the Cabal a week before they file a legal proceeding lol, Wikipedia is important but not that important. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP shows up on top of many searches, if there's an article. Coincidence? More coverage at AlternativeTo, FWIW. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TIL AlternativeTo has a news section. How reliable would that be? SWinxy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At a glance they say AlternativeTo is "user generated" but looks like they have a couple editors/screeners reviewing submissions. They knew enough to refer to GitHub issue[13] not self-hosted invidious mirror: "Our code is already mirrored on our gitea". -- Yae4 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a single source which clearly passes GNG. I don't think any of the blogs listed above in this AfD count towards GNG - they're not sufficiently secondary enough. I'm also hoping the closer discounts some of the poor !votes above when closing, as we're discussing whether there's enough reliable secondary sourcing for this to have a stand-alone article, not about ignoring rules or general agreement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should have cited RAPID instead then, given that (if I had at all) I probably would have !voted weak delete but for recent events. I'm not sure it will achieve GNG or NSOFT level of coverage, even so, but I'm inclined to at least wait until we see how this plays out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, but we can always recreate it if notability becomes obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to the closer - most of these keep !votes aren't well grounded in policy, and the sources that have been presented are still only blogs and not necessarily RS. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, mentions are not _significant_ coverage. Artem.G (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion of an Article on a topic which is increasing in relevance and public awareness Mattmill30 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The recent Louis Rossmann YouTube video cited by Mattmill30 would seem to be significant independent coverage by a notable expert, if given exception from WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Initiatives like Invidious are the only counterbalance to big tech's increasing impact on privacy. There is nothing on this page that is offensive, discriminatory, incites or victimizes criminal behavior. Google's take down order does not hold up under European law and thus can only apply to the US. Removing this page also means that everyone outside the US is affected by this measure. — 131.155.83.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC 06:48, June 13, 2023 (UTC).
  • Comment: And now there is more significant independent coverage at Vice.com Motherboard.[14] -- Yae4 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surrounded by significant (and well-covered) controversy. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SportingFlyer, I don't believe there is a compelling case why IAR should be used to override GNG in this case. While Yae4 gets the closest, in my opinion I do not find any of the 'keep' arguments persuasive here in the face of the argument presented that GNG is not met. (There are a large number of low-quality keep !votes which cite no policy at all...) Daniel (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going through the links provided there does not seem to be coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost every source is just a plain explanation of the product's features. The Vice article is interesting, but on its own isn't enough to establish significant independent coverage. CarringtonMist (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the last few days have seen a number of sources covering this software (see the most recent three references in the article). It may be wise for delete !voters to revisit their rationales at this point, since more sources exist now (and most, I claim, clear the bar). jp×g 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation and discussion of the newly cited sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Vice article is an ok start to a case for notability but collectively we're still far short from meeting WP:GNG. I can see the logic behind IAR-ing user-generated and/or primary documentation for subjects like this which exist in a media ecosystem where people primarily communicate through these crowdsourced platforms, but I'm not sure I'm quite convinced by it without an explanation of why the usual UGC problems don't apply here. signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haven't translated yet, but here is Der_Spiegel with what looks like fairly significant coverage.[15] -- Yae4 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Vice and Der Spiegel articles, along with this TorrentFreak article and maybe some of the prior less reliable mentions, seem like a good start, and there may be more coverage of this topic in the near future. I found this article useful for getting a brief overview with links and resources on what seems like a relatively important topic in a niche technology area where reliable sources are less common. I do feel like at this point, especially given the recent controversy, there is a benefit to keeping this article, at least for now. – notwally (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also saw TorrentFreak coverage, but had not done due diligence. They've been discussed at RSN (unclear consensus), and cited hundreds of times. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tutanota is a competitor in email services (is not impartial), and this has "blog" in the URL, but it looks like significant coverage from an independent (AFAIK) source, at least a little better than an average blog. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard of Invidious today for the first time, which might prove non-notability as of now, but was happy to find the article on Wikipedia. Yes, the article should be improved. Yes, Invidious will have to gain notability. However, if we delete it now it will be hard to resurrect it when it becomes notable. Please let's keep it and improve it. ale (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ghacks is how I found out about Invidious, then I saw it written about on other places, some of which others have already mentioned on here (AlternativeTo, Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel). The fact that they recently received a take-down notice from YouTube makes it instantly more notable than it was before. I think the page needs improving but we should keep it. Themidget17 (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far we only have one editor making a strong case that GNG is met. Everything else is on an IAR basis. It is possible to build an encyclopedia article on numerous sources that don't count towards GNG by themselves, but "it's important" and "it's useful" aren't valid reasons to keep if WP:V is violated by the use of unreliable sources. Re-listing because it appears that more sources have been and are being made available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:GNG not met. Keep arguments here seem lacking in substance. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the (post-listing) addition of dedicated coverage from Der Spiegel and Vice seems to push this comfortably over the line. -- Visviva (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @78.26: I made no reference to IAR in my above comment. I draw attention to this article in Der Spiegel, a very reputable international newspaper listed as such at RSP, and here in Vice, which has no conensus about reliability and bias, but whose coverage is pretty robustly held as conferring notability. I think it is often quite trashy, but there is not any consensus that Vice is unreliable, or that coverage in it does not confer notability. Both of these articles are in-depth coverage of the subject (i.e. about it exclusively) written by independent sources in non-specialty publications. Moreover, there are other news sites here; TechRadar is mentioned in RSN archives as being "generally reliable". I do not see that anybody has made an objection to these sources -- I don't like all of them either, but that isn't a deletion rationale. Granted, many of the !votes here were cast some weeks ago, before these sources existed; I would urge closers to consider this. jp×g 08:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Yae4 and I were the only people who explicitly referenced IAR. Myself, I don't believe that V was ever really an issue with this article (the claims in the article seem well within the bounds of what we'd allow use of ABOUTSELF or reasonably competent SPS for), rather encyclopedicity and NPOV, and that'd be why my !vote leaned more heavily on IAR than the consequences of the takedown notice. If focusing on the latter two, I don't personally believe the coverage since then transformative (though it doesn't hurt) but in my opinion the issues weren't insurmountable in the first place. I probably should have expanded on this in more detail in my original statement though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep 1 2Baratiiman (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Site has become notable since the listing thanks to the coverage from Vice, Der Spiegelm and TorrentFreak. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Kyaw Htwe[edit]

Aung Kyaw Htwe (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)

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any footballer to have their own article. I can find no evidence that this footballer meets the above guideline as I could not locate WP:SIGCOV in Burmese or English. The only relevant hits that I can get are database sources like Soccerway, which specifically does not confer notability per above. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Wolves Baseball[edit]

Enterprise Wolves Baseball (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 GNG and NSPORTS. In my WP:BEFORE search, only routine coverage shows up regarding game recaps; the article's actual subject matter – a Utah high school's baseball program – is non-notable. Enterprise High School is not a national powerhouse in this sport, either. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Utah and Baseball SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – parallel AfD discussion opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Wolves Basketball. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator Grahaml35 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article states names, dates, and information that is factual. The information is referenced to the Deseret News, which is the oldest continuously operating publication in the American west since 1850. It also references the Utah High School Activities Association, which is the governing body of Utah high school sports and keeps all the sports information and sports record book in the state of Utah. The article summarizes the baseball history of Enterprise High School in a clear and concise way. Enterprise High School has the second-most state baseball championships of any high school in Utah, and their coach has won the seventh-most games of any high school baseball coach in Utah. Yotejonga (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content might be factual, but it isn't a notable subject. High school sports association record books are primary sources and local coverage a local high school sports team is not really notability-lending. GPL93 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, couldn't find any significant coverage and / or mentions in independent news sources
Editchecker123 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator, we need to be getting rid of stuff that is clearly WP:FAN. User:Let'srun 20:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Wolves Basketball[edit]

Enterprise Wolves Basketball (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 GNG and NSPORTS. In my WP:BEFORE search, only routine coverage shows up regarding game recaps; the article's actual subject matter – a Utah high school's boy's basketball program – is non-notable. Enterprise High School is not a national powerhouse a la The Patrick School (NJ), Mater Dei (CA), IMG Academy (FL) etc. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Utah and Basketball SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – parallel AfD discussion opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Wolves Baseball. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator Grahaml35 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article states names, dates, and information that is factual. The information is referenced to the Deseret News, which is the oldest continuously operating publication in the American west since 1850. It also references the Utah High School Activities Association, which is the governing body of Utah high school sports and keeps all the sports information and sports record book in the state of Utah. The article summarizes the basketball history of Enterprise High School in a clear and concise way. People have said thank you for creating the page. Yotejonga (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be factual, but it isn't a notable subject. High school sports association record books are primary sources and local coverage of local high school sports is not really notability-lending. To further SportsGuy789's rationale, not even high schools like IMG Academy or Oak Hill have independent articles for their sports programs regardless of their success. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMG Academy and Oak Hill should have independent articles for their sports programs, as well as Enterprise. I don't believe there should be a limit on the number of independent articles out there. Wikipedia is a great online encyclopedia where people search for this kind of information. Why not have Wikipedia be THE Source for where ALL people can obtain the information and knowledge they are searching for. Yotejonga (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is very much not Wikipedia’s purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, what you are describing is a database of indiscriminate information, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s mission and against policy. GPL93 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator regarding GNG and is not notable otherwise. Seems to be some fandom going on here. User:Let'srun 16:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sha'ir[edit]

Sha'ir (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)

Sha'ir is simply the Arabic word for 'poet'—not a specific kind of poet. The article as currently written is really principally oriented toward a Dungeons & Dragons class. For the sources employed, it seems like what the article is meant to get at is the role of the poet in Jāhiliy Arab society. Arabic poetry#Pre-Islamic poetry already covers this in a more substantive way. It's not clear that the term sha'ir as such has a notability distinct from Jāhiliy poetry. Pathawi (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss as to why this AfD was brought to this location: the article makes no pretense of being about a religious topic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I probably made a mistake. Which location? I thought I put it under 'Fiction and the Arts'. Pathawi (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I see that someone else cross-listed it. Pathawi (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - probably could be merged with Arabic poetry per nom, but has additional notability from D&D which might be enough to let stand. Britannica also deems the subject notable enough to cover with a standalone article. - Indefensible (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Indefensible. The pre-Islamic sha'ir seems to have adequate coverage in tertiary sources, not least of which is course the above-mentioned Britannica. The fact that the word has broader meanings is no obstacle, since articles are not generally about word meanings. That said, I would have no particular objection to a merge. The D&D thing seems pretty peripheral to the topic. -- Visviva (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that the two sources linked here are actually evidence of notability: Neither is an article on the sha'ir—both mention shu'ara' in discussions of Arabic poetry. The Britannica entry does count, but its content is pretty meager. Together these don't seem to me to constitute significant coverage in secondary sources, which are among the criteria for notability. Pathawi (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As pointed out, it's recognized by another encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, as originally a poet having a supernatural connection. 5Q5|✉ 12:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. With socking and brand new users expressing opinions on this, I have looked closely at the arguments to find the consensus. Much of the keep arguments are assertive or polemic what is policy based has been well challenged. The preponderance of the argument is with delete supported by source analysis that I don't really see as having been refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Rhea Debussy[edit]

Dorian Rhea Debussy (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:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The only biographical information comes from magazines published by universities Debussy has attended or worked at.

Other mention of this person in reliable sources are essentially "work related".

Sports Illustrated reported that this person quit their job, writing, "Dorian Rhea Debussy stepped down from their volunteer post at Division III’s LGBTQ One program."

Other sources are just "sound bite" quotations, because this person is Director of External Affairs with Equitas Health, and part of their job is to publish their company's opinion about issues.

Another source, The Buckeye Flame, is cited often, though this is a niche LGBTQ publication serving a small geographic area.

A thorough search yielded little to indicate this person meets our notability criteria, and almost no biographical information in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bibliographies, and Sexuality and gender. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree. What coverage there is is minimal and local, and the list of articles (look for it in the history: I removed it because it's basically resume information) does not suggest notability as an academic (look at this, for instance: this does not compare to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal), and so NPROF isn't met either. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--I:I disagree. I'm based in northern Ohio and the Buckeye Flame is a state-wide newspaper for the LGBT community. This makes it seem like it's a local or niche source, when it isn't, and it's a super trusted news source. (I'm also surprised they don't have a wiki page.)
    I think many of the concerns brought up in the deletion request really just need to be edited in the article, which it looks like others are starting to work on. There are definitely things to clean up here, but deletion seems hasty, as making edits seems to strike the better balance.
    Also as someone who is part of the LGBT community, this person is more well cited than the average trans person with a wiki page. It sort of feels like this request came out of frustration related to the concern about COI editing... 2600:1009:B028:BD24:0:40:BC9A:1001 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's the established editors like Magnolia677 who are frustrated; I think the two or three now-blocked users are frustrated, which caused Bradv to semi-protect the article. Whoever the closing administrator for this discussion is, they are likely seasoned enough to see if any comments came from blocked editors who evaded their block. As for the article, the problem is there are no in-depth sources from reliable secondary sources, and there really is no indication that the Buckeye Flame is of more than local relevance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Drmies, I'm not sure this matters, but I protected the page in response to a request by Magnolia677. – bradv 18:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also the one who reported all the socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politicalnooby/Archive, including several IPs from Ohio. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article also provides links to verifiable sources, such as GLAAD and Athlete Ally, which offer more information about the person. As for the "local" news sources, these are state-wide news outlets like the Columbus Dispatch and The Buckeye Flame. If these do not qualify as reliable sources, they should be dropped rather than deleting the article. This page should not be deleted; it must be given the opportunity to be edited correctly, seeing as past attempts have been made to do so inappropriately. MaxPG88 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a shame, isn't it MaxPG88, that so many edits are made inappropriately. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources 1–6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are non-independent Red XN. 11 (Columbus Disp. 1) and 18 (ABC) do not mention them Red XN. 15 (SI) is coverage of a press announcement (WP:NOTNEWS) that doesn't provide sufficient independent material on the subject themselves Red XN. 21 & 27 (NBC4), 22 (BF), 23 (10TV), 24 (Fox28), 25 (OCJ), 26 (Columbus Disp. 2), 28 (WDTN), and 29 (BF) just contain quotes from them in their function as an Equitas Health spokesperson Red XN. 31 (ACLU) is a primary interview Red XN. That leaves only the Buckeye Flame content (sources 7, 8 (non-RS guest commentary Red XN), 12 (non-substantive interview Red XN), 13 (ditto Red XN), 16 (passing mention Red XN), and 32 (passing mention Red XN)) which does not meet the "multiple pieces of SIGCOV in independent secondary reliable sources" requirements of GNG. Also, all independent coverage that isn't trivial is related to their resignation, so fails BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think this article meets the WP:BASIC criteria. While some of the secondary source articles in activism section are associated with her policy work, that’s kind of what many activists do. This could be addressed in editing. This is also in line with other activists who meet the WP:BASIC criteria for that same reason, so it’s not an option to apply a different standard here. The WP:BASIC policy also says that primary sources – as used in some instances here – can also support content {but should not contribute to the grounds of notability}. Also, I think this article meets the WP:ANYBIO policy. This person has been nominated for a NCAA inclusion award multiple times – first in 2019 and again in 2022 after a Google search. Their work on trans athletics also made a “widely recognized contribution” by criticizing the NCAA’s changed policy in 2022, which resulted in multiple media references from reliable secondary source articles. There were multiple other secondary source articles in the archive for the page, but it seems like someone deleted the sources when they deleted a sentence in that paragraph. Other secondary source articles include multiple national and international LGBT sources like PinkNews and Them, in addition to other national sources like Fox News. Regarding names, people are saying older articles, like the one from ABC News and the Dispatch, don’t mention this person. It looks like those articles DO, in fact, mention her, via her former name. {As a reminder, this is a trans person; the former name isn’t mentioned in the article, because of MOS:DEADNAME. However, those secondary source articles can still stand.} Info on that former name could have been determined with a quick search; here’s an article {not cited in the existing article} that shows her change in name: https://www.knoxpages.com/news/first-lgbtq-non-profit-organization-coming-to-knox-county/article_af7c501e-ebdc-11eb-8819-f7b34b40178c.html However, I do NOT think this article meets the WP:PROF category, because of the publications, and I do agree with some of the other folks here on that front. BUT and as mentioned above, I DO think the WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO policy apply here. After looking at the edit history, I think password protection should solve issues with disruptive editing, so the article should be allowed to undergo edits. As a potential solution for the closing administrator on this thread, I’d suggest 1) keeping the page {with password protection} and 2) tagging with Cleanup and/or More Citations Needed to get it fixed. But and since Wiki policy deems “deletion as a last resort”, I think the best overall solution for the closing editor on this thread would be as follows: 1) Revert this article back to the last clean version {02:55, 11 June 2023 seems like a viable option}, 2) Clean up the publications area given that WP:PROF does not apply and adjust as needed because of that, 3) Move this article back to Drafts for editing {that will still stop disruptive edits from IPs}, 4) Let folks work on it {if they’re actually interested, then they can proceed with an account & if they aren’t, then it will be auto-deleted in 6 months anyway}, and 5) Allow it to move through the article approval process anew {which will still ensure another administrator has eyes upon it and which will allow others some well deserved time away from the article}. For what it’s worth, I think it’s important to get this article right, since there are lots of anti-trans folks trying to erase trans people from physical and online spaces this pride month. Hoping folks like the idea of moving back to drafts for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketfiend (talk • contribs)
Basketfiend, I see you are a new editor, and wrote on your talk page, "Finally stopped editing from my own IP which I’ve also done for a long time to start an account. Mostly wanted to comment on a deletion thread since it’s a kinda interesting article." Then 10 minutes later, you commented here. So, the only reason you opened your account, was to vote in this discussion? You could have done that as an IP. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the AfC reviewer who accepted this article: please don't send this back to drafts for more editing. I accepted it when it was languishing at the back of the AfC queue. It had at that point already been declined twice and then totally rewritten, and no reviewer wanted to pick it up. Something that complicated or borderline should go to AfD for a wider consensus if necessary, and it has - the time for a decision either way is now, not at some unknown future date when the article is improved. If she isn't found to be notable, no amount of editing will make the article mainspace-ready. If she is found to be notable, and the only problem is the state of the article, please consider stubbing it instead of re-AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basketfiend, which sources from the history do you think contribute to GNG? I will say that the nomination for the NCAA Division III LGBTQ Administrator/Coach/Staff of the Year award is definitely, 100% not of the "well-known and significant award" calibre expected for ANYBIO (this is for things like Oscar nominees), and anyway internal awards (as an employee of the NCAA) are basically never accepted as sufficient (pinging Pumpkinspyce here too). However, if there is substantial IRS coverage of her in the article history that isn't related to her resignation, she might pass WP:SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: see below on other thread Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the weakness of the sources, being mainly local. However, the number is high, so we are not talking about a single mention, and (barely) sufficient bio information is provided. The article is in good shape. I see no reason to delete at this time. Lamona (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona, the issue isn't that the sources are local, it's that they're mostly either trivial coverage or non-independent. None of the articles that merely quote her can contribute to notability at all, for example (otherwise we would have BASIC articles on every single organization spokesperson and local authority). Which secondary independent sources do you think are actually sufficient? I think source #7 might meet that criterion, and possibly SI, BUT they're both in the context of her resignation, so that would fail the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the question here, and we'd definitely need to look into other sources for this.
    I just did a search for other items, and I placed several (8 total) national and independent sources for the sports activism into the article. Sources now include the previous content (which was weak as noted above and in my original comment) and newly sourced articles from: Fox News (US based national news site), Swim Swam Magazine (international swimming magazine), them. (US based national online LGBT magazine owned by Conde Nast), PinkNews (UK based international LGBT news site), INTO (US based national LGBT online magazine), and others. I also found some smaller sources from a regional NPR station and Columbus Dispatch by googling her former name (which is mentioned in a source above), and I'll add those in a moment.
    With these additions, I think the article definitely meets the WP:BASIC guidelines. For WP:SUSTAINED, this article doesn't only have "reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event," and there has been coverage outside of one event. Also, WP:NTEMP mentions that "the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline ... does not need to have ongoing coverage"; however, this person has had ongoing coverage which satisfies the requirement for sustained coverage in WP:SUSTAINED and not temporary notability in WP:NTEMP, so the criteria for WP:BASIC are met. So, no reason to delete right now. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To meet SUSTAINED, there must be SIGCOV that is not related to her resignation. All of the secondary independent sources you added are about her resignation. Fox News and The Daily Beast are also not acceptable sources for a BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it meets WP:BASIC and WP:SUSTAINED outside of coverage related to the resignation. I don't have further thoughts tbh, but happy that we're working through the process by sharing insights. I also placed a request for edit help on the article's talk page and on the living bios noticeboard, so that will hopefully generate fixes for the article and discussion here. (Time for me to move on though - not trying to get caught on just one larger project right now.) Pumpkinspyce (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pumpkinspyce, what is the coverage "outside" of that related to her resignation? You don't get over the requirement for SUSTAINED coverage by cobbling together passing mentions and NOTNEWS pieces, nor do those meet BASIC. I don't see a single article that even has SIGCOV at all, let alone one that has substantial coverage unrelated to her resignation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article should be kept per WP:ANYBIO. I worked to clean up neutrality issues. While some sources are weak, it meets coverage requirements. No reason to delete right now. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pumpkinspyce: I notice you are a new editor, having made just 26 edits, but you can only vote once. I have also restored the talk page messages you removed from the article, regarding how most of this article was probably written by one person, as well as the COI notice. Not sure why removing this was so important to such a new editor. I'm also not sure how all the low-quality sources you recently added to the article will make this person more notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment here @Magnolia677. New to using an account, but I've been editing Wiki since covid lockdown. (I've also done 65+ not just 25.) I took off that bolding and wasn't sure if I needed it for the comment to "count," but I appreciate you letting me know, so I could remove it.
Thanks for also letting me know about the talk page comments. I thought I was supposed to take those down if the issue was resolved, but I appreciate you catching that. Per WP:TEMPREMOVE, I removed the coi maintenance template, because I think I reasonably fixed the issues. (I'll ping on the talk page for more suggestions on why you want to keep it, but I think @Liz can help adjust when deletion discussion closes.)
RE: You saying this was "so important to a new editor" - my interests are on my userpage. Please take several seats before trying to imply I'm overly interested in any article. (I've been editing for other issues like that in other pages and nominating non-notable things for deletion too.) Please realize folks are just here to edit WITH you (NOT against you). Pumpkinspyce (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GNG seems met based on the sources in the article. The nom's argument appears to depend on excluding RS coverage that is "work related", which does not seem to have any basis in policy and indeed would seem quite counterproductive. Moreover, I am unable to locate any grounds in the above discussion for considering The Buckeye Flame to be unreliable or lacking in independence from the article subject. The claim above that this newspaper is of purely local "relevance" strongly suggests that this is yet another attempt to establish a standard of significance rather than sourceability for articles. Such a standard has no basis in policy and is indeed fundamentally inimical to our reason for being here. The intricacy of the above wikilawyering in favor of deletion, attempting to peel off one RS after another on increasingly tendentious grounds, speaks rather eloquently for itself: if such elaborate reasoning is required, the extraordinary remedy of deletion is almost certainly not warranted. (As a bit of a side note, it is nonsensical to say that an article "fails" ANYBIO, since WP:ANYBIO simply provides a brief list of extraordinary circumstances that may afford a presumption of notability to a biography even in the absence of GNG-compliant sourcing.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Top 3 notable things about Debussy are: Has had jobs (but what makes them notable?) Signed a letter? Gotten degrees? Everything significant is "things done as a college student". This should be information on Linkedin or a Resume. It doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. Denaar (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To elaborate further - look at this entry Richard_Bellis. Bellis has been nominated for 3 Emmys, he's was head of the Union for Television and Film Composers... and it's hard to find good sources for the article because he lived his life before the internet. That's what WP:ANYBIO is about - making some room for people who are clearly notable in what they've done, even if we can't immediately find sources for them.
    Debussy, in contrast, is currently most famous for resigning from a volunteer position in college. The reason we have lots of small references for Debussy is she went to college during a time where everything is online - that doesn't make her notable. Denaar (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely agree with @Visviva about WP:GNG, since presumption, significant coverage, reliable sources, secondary sources, and independent sources are met. They mentioned that this seems like an" attempt to establish a standard of significance rather than sourceability for articles," which is important to consider. RE: the argument from @Denaar: 1) Debussy did these things AFTER college; she worked at a college starting in '18, which is I think where your confusion is. Basically, your argument that she had significant "things done as a college student" isn't valid; these sources are all after that & 2) There are more than just local sources, including Swim Swam Magazine (international swimming magazine), them. (US based national online LGBT magazine owned by Conde Nast), PinkNews (UK based international LGBT news site), INTO (US based national LGBT online magazine), ABC News (US based national news source), GA Voice (Southern state-wide LGBT news source) Fox News (US based national news source though lower reliability on wiki scale), Sports Illustrated (US based international news source), OutSports (US based national sports source). Pumpkinspyce (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a news story is covered and repeated in 100 stories, and then... it isn't covered again and reanalyzed and continued to be discussed, it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:Event. So far, I see an event that got a lot of mentions in many sources, but wouldn't count as notable on it's own.
    Where is the significant, in depth coverage of Debussy in multiple sources? Something that's beyond her name in an article, or a few sentences mentioning her, but where she's the topic of the article?
    The only place she is the topic of the article is when she resigned. And that's not a notable event, despite all the coverage, because it was a "one and done" mention in the news. Denaar (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized... when you say "presumption, significant coverage, reliable sources, secondary sources, and independent sources"... you're under the mistaken idea that this isn't describing one source having all these features. "Significant coverage in a reliable, secondary, intendent source" - more than one - is the requirement. This topic doesn't meet that criteria. Primary sources never give notability - and the links to things like "instagram" - primary sources, not secondary -isn't helping here. The in depth coverage doesn't meet "independent". Denaar (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I got tagged back in here, I'll take the liberty of breaking my own "one and done" rule by commenting here again. The first point that jumps out at me from the recent discussion is that what makes her notable already rests on a mistaken equation of notability and significance. Notability is not, has never been, and as long as anything that can rightfully be called Wikipedia endures will never be, a question of significance. It is about whether a stand-alone article should exist, which in the most general case is about sources. On that note, the GNG expressly does not require that the article subject be the topic of the [source] article. In fact, the guideline expressly states that the article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Here again I can't quite shake the feeling that notability is being used as a stalking horse for significance. Finally, playing notability whack-a-mole by applying the notability criterion for events to one event within a biography is expressly excluded by WP:N, specifically WP:NNC. -- Visviva (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See: WP:SINGLEEVENT WP:PSEUDO - "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event... The general rule is to cover the event, not the person."
    Denaar (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found this from the academic deletion sorting list, but WP:PROF does not seem to be in play; instead it is a case for WP:GNG, so we need multiple sources that are in-depth, reliable, and independent. Sources from employers and former schools do not count as independent. In addition, per WP:BIO1E, we need the subject to be notable for more than one thing; it would be ok to have a single in-depth reliable independent source about each of two things, but multiple sources that are all about the same thing are not good enough. The refbombing of the current version of the article with low-quality sources has made the good sources hard to find among all the others. There do exist in-depth reliable and independent sources for one thing, the resignation in early 2022, among which Sports Illustrated clearly meets all criteria. But almost all of the sources that are not about that one thing appear to be non-independent (from employers or former schools), or not in depth (only quoting or briefly mentioning Debussy rather than having in-depth content about her). That is true even if one includes the several sources that refer to Debussy by her deadname, which we cannot use without clarifying in our article why those sources are relevant to Debussy. Of the remaining sources, the only two that look at all promising to me are the last two: one stating the existence of a profile by the ACLU, but with a link target page listing many videos and not mentioning Debussy, and another about some local award given to Debussy, but with no depth of coverage. If there are better sources (maybe a transcript of the relevant ACLU video from which we could judge depth of coverage without having to go through many other irrelevant videos) I might be willing to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 49 sources! And the ones I looked at (I admit that I didn't look at all 49, my eyes started glazing over) are non trivial. I can respect the reasoning of the people who say that some of those sources
    • aren't independent - but they're school papers, which just isn't the same thing as a corporate paper writing about an employee, there are plenty of traditions of school papers being quite critical of faculty
    • other school papers seem even more independent, for example, https://today.uconn.edu/2021/03/brave-space-timothy-bussey-and-christine-sylvester/ is reasonably indepth and was published when the subject was working for a different school, no longer associated with the school except as an alumnus
    • or don't cover a huge area - but Ohio is a state of 11 million, similar to Belgium, twice that of of Holland, surely we'd accept a national newspaper from either of those
    • or are about one event - but that one event got coverage from national, independent sources that would meet the above two issues
    • or are mainly of interest to the LGBT community - but if they were trade magazines or of interest to another community, say, politicians, or video gamers, or computer programmers, we'd accept them
The main thing is that there are so many non-trivial sources, and since each one needs a different rationale to reject it, after a certain point you have to say "come on now", it's time for WP:IAR. It's pretty clear that "the world" - many different parts of "the world" - know a fair bit indepth about the subject, and as Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of the world's knowledge, we are not improving the Wikipedia by excluding this knowledge. --GRuban (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article you referred to, published in Debussy's university newspaper, is a promotional puff-piece: "hey, look how successful one of our former graduates is!" It even quotes Debussy's dissertation advisor, who is still employed by the university. This source is hardly independent of the subject, as required by WP:REPUTABLE. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GRuban, a large number of the sources do not mention her at all (7), are passing mentions (3), or are just quotes/interviews from her (13 refs). Note that all but one of those refs in the last group are quoting her as a spokesperson for an organization she is in and do not provide any independent coverage. The one that doesn't is a straight video submission from her so is primary and non-independent.
  • School papers are never independent of people affiliated with the school, including alumni.[16] Non-independent media never count towards notability. That eliminates another 16 refs.
  • All 10 of the remaining refs are news pieces on her resignation. The fact that she has only been covered in the context of one event by (mostly primary) contemporaneous newspaper articles is precisely why we have BLP1E and NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond the impressive refbombing, I don't see enough significant secondary coverage beyond their resignation, which in itself was not a mayor event and was more a "minor news of the day". The page should had never been moved to the main space. Cavarrone 07:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through the article's history, you will see that I carefully removed many of the frivolous and duplicate references, in the hope that what was left might support this person's notability. It was only when I felt the remaining reliable source still did not support notability, that I nominated the article for deletion. It was unfortunate to see a new editor refbomb the article after it was nominated for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any reliable secondary sources here that are mainly about her, and for notability, you need at least a handful of those. What we have is sourcing that reliably, but merely, shows she exists. That isn't enough.OsFish (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — I don't want to see another LGBT person erased from Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part-time Lecturer, Equitas Health employee, withdrew from NCAA, etc., are all interesting but she's not notable by secondary independent coverage. Easily fails academic criteria, closest for DEI position, but she wasn't the lead in that position, obscure college, etc. We should spend this discussion time making and improving other LGBT subjects instead. What makes her notable above others? If this were included, we'd have precedent to include a billion other sub-notable biographies. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rodeo Boys[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Rodeo Boys (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 band is insufficiently notable, and the references either mention it in passing or in a hyper-local context. None of the members are notable enough to have pages, and they effectively played bar gigs for most of their existence, a very standard fair that is hardly qualifying for notability as a band. Further, the article does not have a single citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah (talk • contribs) 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Utah. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination and also due to the multiple issues TAG on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - See the recent AfD for an article on one of this band's individual members: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton Scrivner. While voting in that one, I looked into the whole band and found that they achieved some local feature articles: [17], [18]; and some local album reviews: [19], [20]. That's the only useful coverage I can find on them, then and now. Their coverage is purely local and they were not noticed outside of Salt Lake City, but they may barely (and I mean BARELY) squeak past #1 and #7 at WP:NBAND. However I don't think that coverage qualifies as "significant" at the more general WP:SIGCOV guideline. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. North America1000 10:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christianné Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christianné Allen (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 fails notability Thewritestuff92 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

— WP:INVALIDBIO

Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage.

— WP:1E

An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.

— WP:PSEUDO
Thewritestuff92 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there is a valid reason to include coverage of her in either Rudy Giuliani or Giuliani Partners. (In which case, merge per nom.) Neither of those articles currently mention her, and I don't think that shoehorning one BLP into another purely for the sake of retaining content is really a great practice. Absent some indication of encyclopedic significance it might just be better to let this one go. -- Visviva (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not sure why she received so much attention but sources appear to give her enough coverage for notability. - Indefensible (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choilodon[edit]

Choilodon (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)

First, the 1888 source by Filhol is really the only source on the internet that treats the genus Choilodon as "valid" (mammal indexes are not reliable sources because they don't closely diagnose genera/species). I have not seen any 21st or 20th century article from Europe that would suggest the validity of the genus (otherwise, I would be able to see the genus name in the 1926 source "üBER DIE TRAGULIDÆ UND IHRE BEZIEHUNGEN ZU DEN üBRIGEN ARTIODACTYLA," which reviewed some true tragulids (Tragulus, Dorcatherium), names that are now synonyms of true tragulids (Cryptomeryx is now a synonym of Iberomeryx), and taxon names that are now their own family (Lophiomeryx is now its own family, the Lophiomerycidae). [21] If the taxon was still valid, I would definitely be able to refer to any dozens of articles that extensively studied the Paleogene ruminants, which does not seem to be the case here.

Second, according to the 1891 source "Geological Magazine, Volume 3; Volume 8; Volume 28," edited by Henry Woodward, Frederick F. H. Hatch stated instances of Filhol's "carelessness" that he considered embarrassing based on prehistoric taxonomy. In addition to other instances of taxonomic errors by Filhol, Hatch argued, "It may also be mentioned that in 1888 Dr. Filhol described a Mammal from Sansan under the name of Choilodon elegans, although no such specific or generic name occurs in the present work." [22] While he doesn't explicitly state that the genus name in question is inherently invalid, there's very few if any sources that argues for the validity of the genus name, even on Filhol's part. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' but change wording to something like: Choilodon is an obsolete taxon and a synonym for ... Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a synonym, it gets redirected, not kept as a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the right solution. Athel cb (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it's valid or not, it shouldn't be deleted if it's a validly published name, but either redirected to whatever it might be synonymous with or stated if it's a nomen dubium. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it sounds as if there is support for turning this page into a Redirect but we need a target article specified. Can we call on any of our taxonomy experts here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctantly delete. In principle, I'd like to redirect, but I haven't been able to find any sources that treat Choilodon as a synonym of another genus, and I don't think redirecting to Tragulidae would be an improvement. The article creator is responsible for the massive disambiguation page C. elegans (disambiguation), and created many articles for obscure species names that can be abbreviated as C. elegans and many of them have turned out to be regarded as synonyms. I did a Google search for elegans+Filhol which reveals that Filhol described several species with the epithet "elegans" (some of which were also ungulates), but no others were described in 1888. I was hoping to find that one of Filhol's other ungulate "elegans" might be a synonym of Choilodon elegans with a misattributed date (for either Choilodon elegans or another species), but that doesn't appear to be the case. The original description of Choilodon elegans can be seen here (it starts on the previous page), and apparently was published in 1888. Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think, per Plantdrew. The nom's summary of the situation seems to be accurate (based on my lay understanding and limited research). If we could say that in text we could have a reasonable case for redirecting it to some superordinate article that could briefly mention Choilodon and explain the problem. But we can't do that without violating WP:NOR, because there aren't actually any sources that say it; it's just implied. Ultimately, it seems to be the case that we can't say anything accurate about this putative taxon. And in that case it's better to say nothing at all. -- Visviva (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the genus name no longer exists and likely was never valid, and there's not even anywhere to redirect to, it's hard to see what else we should do here.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) SaurabhSaha 09:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yokota, Shimane[edit]

Yokota, Shimane (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 sources after BEFORE Iljhgtn (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Okuizumo. The history of Yokota and Nita, Shimane can be added to the "history" section. Conyo14 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under WP:NPLACE, which states that "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" and continues to note that "notability encompasses their entire history" whether or not they still exist. This was a separate populated, legally recognized place with its own local government, etc. for all but one year between 1889 and 2005. Further, WP:BEFORE asks us to "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet", which is the case here. I doubt any search in Japanese has been carried out—try "島根県横田町" for these. I see quite a lot of hits on Google and Google Books, some of which are academic. Dekimasuよ! 02:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Dekimasu's clear explanation of the rules for formerly legally recognized places. ::--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Korean article suggests it was formerly a legally recognized place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the Korean article, there is evidence to suggest that it was previously recognized as a legally established place. As per WP:NPLACE, which states that "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". SaurabhSaha 08:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. North America1000 10:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Houston[edit]

Lambert Houston (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)

Roles appear trivial, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Wu, Yaxiong 吴亚雄; Jiang, Bo 蒋波, eds. (2018-07-05). "美籍华人、青年演员蓝波儿的"中国梦"" [The "Chinese Dream" of Chinese-American and young actor Lambert Houston]. 东北新闻网 [Northeast News] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via People's Daily.

      The article notes: "蓝波儿是欧亚混血儿、美国国籍、1991年07月19日出生于奥地利维也纳、身高180cm、体重70kg、职业是演员、主持人，毕业于美国西北大学、联合国高中，精通英、中、德、文,法四国语言。目前全身心的在影视圈发展，他的梦想是做一名优秀的演员。 蓝波儿，也是一个小童星,从小学习芭蕾舞的他曾多次登上纽约林肯中心的大舞台,参加的都是世界芭蕾舞名剧《天鹅湖》、《唐吉歌德》等,"

      From Google Translate: "Lambert Houston is a Eurasian, American nationality, born in Vienna, Austria on 19 July 1991, with a height of 180cm and a weight of 70kg. He is an actor and host by profession. He graduated from Northwestern University and United Nations High School. He is proficient in English, Chinese, German, Chinese, French four languages. He is currently devoting himself to developing in the film and television industry, and his dream is to be an excellent actor. Lambert Houston is also a child star. He studied ballet since he was a child and has appeared on the big stage of Lincoln Center in New York many times. He participated in the world famous ballet dramas "Swan Lake" and "Don Quigothe"."

    2. Wang, Mengzhao 王孟召, ed. (2016-09-27). "中美合拍古装喜剧《大话仙宫》热拍 好莱坞演员蓝波儿倾力加盟" [China-U.S. co-production of costume comedy "Dream Palace" hits filming. Hollywood actor Lambert Houston joins in] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The article notes: "帅气十足的演员蓝波儿毕业于美国大学排行前十的美国西北大学，与按部就班的人生相比，他无比是幸运的，经过努力的学习中文，他如愿参与了《前任攻略》《开罗宣言》《挽救飞虎队》《爱情也包邮》《大轰炸》《小王子的奇幻之旅》等优秀影视作品，为展开中国的演艺生涯开辟了一条阳光大道。2015年在电影《第三类事件薄之浮华》里更是挑战塑造了一个中国土生土长的东北汉子形象，这对出生成长在美国的蓝波儿无疑是很多的挑战，不惧艰难的蓝波儿接受了这次的考验，吃苦耐劳的蓝波在拍戏间隙学习当地方言，最终出色的完成了一个美国人到东北大汉的锐变。"

      From Google Translate: "The handsome actor Lambert Houston graduated from Northwestern University, one of the top ten universities in the United States. Compared with his step-by-step life, he is extremely lucky. After studying Chinese hard, he participated in "Predecessor Raiders" and "Cairo Declaration" as he wished. Excellent film and television works such as "Saving the Flying Tigers", "Love Also Free Shipping", "Big Bombing" and "The Little Prince's Fantasy Journey" have opened up a sunny road for the development of China's acting career. In 2015, in the movie "Third Type of Events: Pompousness", he even challenged to create an image of a man born and bred in Northeast China. This is undoubtedly a lot of challenges for Lambert Houston, who was born and raised in the United States. Lambert Houston is not afraid of difficulties. After accepting this test, the hard-working Lan Bo learned the local dialect between filming, and finally successfully completed the sharp change from an American to a man in the Northeast."

    3. "美国男演员蓝波儿内地拍剧 加入功夫元素" [American actor Lambert filming in mainland China Added kung fu elements] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2016-10-28. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The article notes: "小鲜肉演员蓝波儿毕业于美国西北大学，年仅20来岁的美国大男孩蓝波儿，一口流利的普通话，其实小时候就是一名童星，从七岁开始学习芭蕾舞，曾无数次登上世界最高林肯中心的大都会歌剧院，参演《天鹅湖》《堂吉柯德》《胡桃夹子》《麦克白》以及在百老汇舞台剧《罗密欧与朱丽叶》等世界名剧。"

      From Google Translate: "Little fresh meat actor Lambert Houston graduated from Northwestern University in the United States. Lambert Houston, an American boy in his 20s, speaks fluent Mandarin. In fact, he was a child star when he was a child. The Metropolitan Opera House in Lincoln Center, the highest in the world, participated in world famous plays such as "Swan Lake", "Don Quixote", "The Nutcracker", "Macbeth" and "Romeo and Juliet" on Broadway."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lambert Houston (simplified Chinese: 蓝波儿; traditional Chinese: 藍波兒) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion could benefit from review of sources found during the AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was one of the key characters in "Resurrection Factor" and I have added the citations to his film and television . He was is actually other productions as well, beyond what is listed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Sole delete argument refuted. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 02:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tashika ni[edit]

Tashika ni (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)

NN single. Fails WP:ALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single went to #15 in the national Oricon chart in Japan in 2007, per Oricon, so this does pass the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Direct coverage (including interpretation of the composition and discussion of the commercial indicated in the article) includes this and this. I'm sure there is more out there, so inclined to keep. Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The song went to #15. The single is distinct from the song. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Oricon does not distinguish between the song and the single. The normal version of the song and an instrumental version of the same song were the entirety of the single, and this was before songs were generally being sold alone online in Japan. If you want the article to be edited so that it is made clear what satisfies WP:NALBUM/WP:NSONG, that doesn't seem like a problem. As far as the deletion discussion is concerned this seems like a distinction without a difference. Dekimasuよ! 12:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Dekimasu's analysis above. Also, Oricon introduced its digital sales charts only in 2017 and the combined chart (which sums digital and physical sales) in 2018, i.e. the 2007 charting only belongs to physical sales, i.e. the single. --Cavarrone 07:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ – Cunard's source analysis has gone unrebutted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OneConnect Financial Technology[edit]

OneConnect Financial Technology (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)

English language references are routine mentions associated with any publicly listed company therefore doesn't pass WP:CORP. Article was originally created by a now blocked sock puppet. Uhooep (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please consider the Chinese-language references. Even if you do not read Chinese, you can use Google Translate to evaluate the Chinese-language material, and populate the trans-title field for those references with an English translation of the reference title. Ignoring the Chinese-language references seems very much like deliberately ignoring WP:BEFORE. I would normally expect a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange and that is a component of the FTSE Global Equity Index Series to probably be notable. Additional references might be found in the corresponding article in the Chiense Wikipedia at zh:金融壹账通 . Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have translated the Chinese references and believe they also constitute routine mentions - appointment of a director, application for a banking license, etc. Uhooep (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

    There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

    Analyst reports

    https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/OCFT/price-target/Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

    Date Brokerage Analyst Name Action Rating Price Target Upside/Downside on Report Date Details
    8/18/2022 Citigroup Lower Target $18.50 ➝ $15.90 +32.50% View Rating Details
    8/18/2022 HSBC Reiterated Rating Hold View Rating Details
    3/14/2022 JPMorgan Chase & Co. Downgrade Neutral ➝ Underweight View Rating Details
    8/5/2021 KeyCorp Lower Target Overweight $240.00 ➝ $100.00 +84.50% View Rating Details
    8/5/2021 CLSA Lower Target Buy $210.00 ➝ $110.00 +102.95% View Rating Details
    8/4/2021 Morgan Stanley Downgrade Overweight ➝ Equal Weight $190.00 ➝ $75.00 +0.54% View Rating Details
    11/5/2020 Smith Barney Citigroup Initiated Coverage Buy $280.00 +21.74% View Rating Details
    2/21/2020 The Goldman Sachs Group Downgrade Buy ➝ Neutral $133.00 +2.47% View Rating Details
    1/7/2020 Bank of America Initiated Coverage Buy $180.00 +65.75% View Rating Details

    Additional sources

    1. Shen, Anbei 沈安蓓 (2022-05-30). Wang, Qian 王茜 (ed.). "平安壹账通银行获评香港地区第一 全球数字银行第45位 科技赋能普惠金融发展" [Ping An OneConnect Bank Ranked No. 1 in Hong Kong and No. 45 in Global Digital Bank Technology Empowers the Development of Inclusive Finance]. Yicai Global [zh] (in Chinese). Shanghai Media Group. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, TAB Insights, a research arm of The Asian Banker, launched the world's first comprehensive assessment and ranking of global digital banks based on ... Among them, Ping An OneConnect Bank (PAOB) ranked 45th among global digital banks and ranked first in Hong Kong. In terms of specific ranking scores, Ping An OneConnect Bank scored a full 10 points in the two indicators of revenue growth (Revenue Growth) and loan base rate (LDR), representing professional institutions' recognition of the company's business model."

    2. Schulte, Paul; Sun, Dean; Shemakov, Roman (2021). Digital Transformation Of Property In Greater China, The: Finance, 5g, Ai, And Blockchain. Singapore: World Scientific. p. 135. ISBN 978-981-12-3379-1. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "OneConnect is based on the same core technologies that ensures the success of Ping An's other subsidiaries: AI, blockchain, and big data analytics. This year that company has become one of the largest commercial blockchains in the world, operating 44,000 blockchain nodes for more than 3,000 financial institutions, running almost 50,000 transactions per second. It is this blockchain tech that is currently being used to "establish core port logistics data standards and platforms" in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area."

    3. Dollar, David; Huang, Yiping, eds. (2022). The Digital Financial Revolution in China. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-81573-955-5. Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "For example, Ping An OneConnect developed a new business model to transfer Ping An Bank's technology capability, financial products, and operational expertise to other small and medium- size banks. OneConnect has helped forty-two small and medium-size banks develop direct banking and mobile banking. Helping small and medium-size banks establish direct banking is only the first step, as the relationship also includes subsequent product design, operation, and maintenance. OneConnect brings not only competitive financial products but also the marketing and product capabilities from Ping An Bank to these small banks. By the end of 2019, their clients covered 99 percent of city commercial banks in China."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OneConnect Financial Technology (simplified Chinese: 金融壹账通; traditional Chinese: 金融壹賬通) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion could use evaluations of newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above, sufficient referencing coverage to establish notability. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of explosions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Paris explosion[edit]

2023 Paris explosion (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:NEVENT, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. Gas explosions occur every day all over the world. A building got destroyed and a bunch of people got hurt. One fatality. The coverage started fading within the first 48 hrs and would probably never have existed if it had been anywhere other than Pairs. Just because something happens and gets some short term sensational coverage does not mean it merits an article. What is the long term significance of this event? AFAIK the building was not independently notable. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of explosions. Not an encyclopedic topic with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I added the suspected cause and a better source to that list, so I think it now covers everything that Wikipedia needs to say about this particular incident. It looks like there are a lot of non-notable explosions on that list with their own articles, we might consider redirecting some of them as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The event is very similar to the 2019 Paris explosion, that one (and several other gas explosions) still hold water. Keep in mind that it happened recently, and new information may still pop up.
FatCat96 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWith one dead, 50 injured and an exclusive school destroyed, this article meets notability. For a notable event such as this, it is too burdensome to send people off to search through a list. I’m also a little uncomfortable with the idea that so many explosions such as this, many of them notable in their own right, are shuffled aside and truncated into a list. This was a major event in a major city. The article should stand.Juneau Mike (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the things you cited are part of the criteria for establishing notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m quite certain that they do. Try not to be condescending just because your AFD isn’t going well.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Juneau Mike here as I too think that the article meets notability. Just because it's a gas explosion does not mean it's not notable. Some gas explosions may not be notable, but this explosion occurred in a major city, left one dead, 50+ injured, and received WP:SIGCOV. Gas explosions that happened 10-20 years ago still receive attention. FatCat96 (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are quite clear. The event needs to have long term significance, and the coverage needs to be sustained. Neither of those conditions appear to exist here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that this event has long term significance. A school was destroyed in the middle of Paris, one dead, 50+ injured (six seriously), and it received significant coverage that lasted more than 48 hours. The event happened less than two weeks ago, new coverage may still pop up. FatCat96 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FatCat96, just let this run its course. Three editors agree with his AfD nom (one who gave no basis for his agreement) and two of us spoke up strongly against deletion. There is no consensus for deletion. Ignore the condescending comments. It does no good to keep arguing. We know it’s notable. This process will play out, and the nominator for AfD doesn’t get to decide. Clearly there is no consensus, and that is likely how it will be decided. I hope you are well.Juneau Mike (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One should not take these things personally. I have been in my share of AfD discussions, and have experience being in both the winning and losing side of the debate. Beyond that I would point out that AfD is not a vote. It is based on the weight of P&G based argument. That said I would gently point out that there is currently a 2:1 margin opposed to keeping the page. FWIW, I'm fine with a redirect which seems like a reasonable course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fang Liufang[edit]

Fang Liufang (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)

Scantily sourced BLP. Fails WP:NPROF. UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and China. UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - anyone with more expertise comment on Co-Dean at Chinese-EU University of Law? It appears to be close to a WP:PROF pass as the highest ranking officer at a significant institute of higher education. I don't know enough about legal academia to be a judge; visiting fellow at Harvard Law is not enough to pass the academic notability guideline, but it is generally a hint to dig deeper. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's held a lot of prestigious appointments at his university, including the deanship of the "Chinese law" side of the China–EU School of Law, dean of the Graduate School of Law, and vice chairman of the Academic Committee. I'm not familiar with the administrative structure of Chinese universities – where I only worked for a single year – but I don't think the positions the subject has held quite meet criterion 6. He's also been an expert on several temporary committees, including one for the World Bank and one for the Beijing (as a prefecture level city, not the national government). He's written a couple books, but seems more involved in education than publication or research. Folly Mox (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do remember that "vice chairman" of whatever is the highest ranking subject matter expert / professional in the group, because the "chairman" is always a party official, but I don't think that affects the overall analysis. Folly Mox (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you believe this BLP article should be Kept, I advise you to locate sources that can verify the information and claims in this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have sources that demonstrate passing WP:NPROF. Folly Mox (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abcde[edit]

Abcde (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 only coverage I've been able to find relating to this name minus the two sources is of the Nov 2018 coverage relating to the Southwest Airlines employee apparently mocking a child. Source #1 is dead (though I've fixed the article to include an archive). Not too much merit here. Dawnbails (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Interesting, surprising, and some may think alarming, but this doesn't come anywhere near to being notable in Wikipedia's terms. JBW (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is very limited and cumbersome, but it is not very important. --Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not meet anthroponymy standards on Wikipedia AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failure to comply with WP:GNG.JTZegers (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Field (Australian pastoralist)[edit]

William Field (Australian pastoralist) (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)

Only a single source here can be considered to have any significant coverage. All the rest are passing mentions of some kind. NN, fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, United Kingdom, England, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You have the book Cattle King of Van Diemen's Land, William Field (1774-1837), as well as the articles in The All-Time Australian 200 Rich List and the Launceston Historical Society. That adds up to notability. I agree that the court documents don't count for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastman, with one exception that I think the Court documents are still relevant to the article and should be kept even if not specifically counting to notability. Deus et lex (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Court documents should be kept as well.BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Filmgoer's Companion[edit]

The Filmgoer's Companion (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)

Completely unsourced. NN book. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Academic journals, Bibliographies, Film, and Products. UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep All I can find are copies of the book for sale. There are some old reviews of it [23], [24], [25]. I suppose they're ok. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a longrunning major reference work in its subject, and has gone through more than a dozen editions. I'm finding it referred to as "essential", "the standard", etc. I think Oaktree's reviews could make a pretty decent stub for it. We should probably move the article to Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies, leaving this original title as a redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 02:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Stockall[edit]

Nancy Stockall (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)

NN bio - fails WP:NPROF UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per citations found by Eastmain which seem sufficient in a medium citation field; full professor at reputable institution. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dus Bahane 2.0[edit]

Dus Bahane 2.0 (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 song hasn't been a bit hit (Hindi songs can receive a billion views) nor has it won awards or had many independent articles. Songs with a billion views like "Cham Cham" have no articles (views alone mean nothing). No independent notability. The only information about the song is that it is a remake of another song. Propose to merge this short article to Baaghi 3#Soundtrack.

These song articles created by the same user should also be deleted and be merged to their respective films.

The reason why they should all be deleted because the songs don't have independent notability. Half of the sources are from YouTube. Other sources are from unreliable sources. None of these songs won any awards. There are 5 to 6 songs+ per film and we can't have a Wikipedia article on a song simply because you like the song. DareshMohan (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the songs have sufficient notability to be kept. A reminder to the nominator: If you want additional articles to be deleted, you need to add the appropriate AfD notice to each of them. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Postscript: I added the AfD notice to the three additional articles because the nominator hadn't. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Nominator is reminded that every article that is being considered needs to be tagged as being part of this discussion. Also, I don't see how an article can "be deleted and be merged", I think you have that backwards. It would also be helpful if, when you make a nomination, you use the tools available to do some deletion sorting so that editors interested in this subject can be aware of this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to 2007 Cricket World Cup#Warm-up matches. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches[edit]

2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches (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)

These were a series of non-ODI matches that don't have sustained coverage to justify inclusion as a separate article. Lots of the text and sources in the "Preparation problems" section is mostly about the WC in general, with only tangential references to the warm up matches themselves, the largest coverage being complaints about a pitch in one warm-up match: [26]. Being listed as an FL in 2008 is not a valid reason to keep this article, when it doesn't meet the current standards WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Selective merge to 2007 Cricket World Cup#Warm-up matches would be acceptable in my opinion, as we did for CWC Qualfier warm-up match articles previously. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend towards delete or a very partial merge to the parent article. There's really not the coverage of this sequence of matches as a united whole for me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to relevant parent articles I'm not sure these articles should exist as main articles, and the majority can be covered in a small section on each relevant page, however some of the detail in here should be included in the main articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here just a variety of opinions so far. Considering how many editors we have here who focus on cricket, I'm surprised that there isn't more participation in discussing this article and what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buck breaking[edit]

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

I've tried searching, and as far as I can tell, other than the cited MEL source, there are no reliable sources that cover the concept of "Buck breaking" in anything more than a passing mention. I could either see a redirect to Tariq Nasheed, who made a (dubiously accurate) film regarding the concept, or to Treatment of slaves in the United States#Rape and sexual abuse, but I am not sure either is better than outright deletion. Unreliable sources seem to use the term "Buck breaking" to refer to a doubtfully historical practice of ritual sexual abuse of male Black slaves for which there is no historical evidence, but there are no reliable sources that seem to elaborate this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a hoax [27]. I suppose you could have an article about the hoax, but I don't see the point, as there is no coverage of this "thing" anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Treatment of slaves in the United States#Rape and sexual abuse or delete. If I were writing a textbook about bad Wikipedia articles, this would be chapter one, page one. From the lead, it seems we are in a state of extreme confusion: Buck breaking, or buck busting, is an internet meme used by the far-right to refer to the sexual abuse of male Black slaves by their white male masters. So is it, uh... a historical practice? An alleged historical practice? A hoax? This doesn't matter, apparently: it's a "meme", so we are to examine it exclusively from the perspective of what types of people on the Internet use this particular phrase. How absurd is that? It's as if our article on Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon called it a "narrative motif" and you had to get halfway through the article before it mentioned whether or not it actually happened. In this case, yes, it seems this form of sexual abuse did indeed happen, and furthermore that nobody in any kind of serious literature calls it by this specific name, so it seems kind of pointless for us to have this article... it is a slang term, so a redirect might be justified. jp×g 00:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this version of the lead as I felt it reflected the limited actual reliable sourcing available from MEL magazine, which repeatedly referred to it as a meme. I agree that it's not great, but I really didn't have a better idea for an alternative. The original version before all the unreliable sources were removed was even worse imo. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's a concept exclusively covered in fringe sources and of no encyclopedic interest as it stands. Good Morning Captain (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Horror films of Cambodia#Themes. I've taken the liberty to refine the redirection suggestion by targeting the specific section. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 03:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Well[edit]

Secret Well (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 the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Blog sites such as WordPress are not reliable or acceptable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Cambodia. Dan arndt (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, considering it may meet this criterion for film notability: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this (Note: The article hosted by Word Press is supposedly taken from the The Phnom Penh Post). If not, redirect to Horror films of Cambodia.— MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 13:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is no collaborating evidence that the blog site information was taken from The Phnom Penh Post. The other cited source, appears to be user generated without any independent editorial oversight making it a highly questionable source.in any case all the information contained on that site is that the film exists and a brief publicity statement (នៅក្នុងភូមិគ្រឹះមួយ ហាក់ដូចជាមានរឿងអាថ៌កំបាំង ធ្វើអោយគ្រប់គ្នាមានការភ័យខ្លាច ព្រៀបដូចជាមានវិញ្ញាណខ្មោច ចេញពីអណ្ដូងមកលងបន្លាច។, which is translated as "In a mansion, there seems to be a mystery that frightens everyone, like a ghost coming out of a well to haunt.") and clearly does not contribute to its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. All I can find using the Khmer spelling is [28]. Each article appears unrelated. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option to Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Weird Villa[edit]

The Weird Villa (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 the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks any verifiable secondary sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Cambodia. Dan arndt (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, considering it may meet this criterion for film notability: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this (The one reference on the page when this discussion started (CInema Online) claims the film was a box-office success and places it among the best 5 Cambodian horror films of all time). If not, redirect to Horror films of Cambodia.—— MY, OH, MY!  (mushy yank) — 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, one of the general notability guideline's criteria is that coverage should come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. In this case there is no collaborating evidence that it was a box-office success and the statement that it is amongst the best 5 Cambodian horror films of all time is highly subjective and not the opinion of an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. Dan arndt (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ keep. NYC Guru (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patit Pavan Mandir[edit]

Patit Pavan Mandir (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 notable temple.

The only cited source is "Veer Savarkar" by Dhananjay Keer who himself said that he wrote this book by relying over content provided him to by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar himself. Editorkamran (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding more sources. Hold on! -- Kartik Mistry talk 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added one more source, meets WP:GNG. Offline sources can also be found. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added source etc -- Kartik Mistry talk 16:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The topic exists but even the newly added sources don't discuss the subject outside its founder. See WP:NOTINHERITED. At best a redirect to main subject (Savarkar) can be sole alternative. Dympies (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More review of newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Added sources passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that none of the sources discuss the temple without providing more significant coverage to Savarkar. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article now includes reliable sources, meeting the criteria of Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG). SaurabhSaha 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources provide passing mention to the subject at best. The coverage of the temple outside foundation by Savarkar is nil. I would be fine with a redirect as well. CharlesWain (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dympies. The vague hand waves of passing GNG are misleading. desmay (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. This is a historically significant template that is now a museum (which you can confirm on travel sites like trip advisor). The article needs work and better sources, the information needs to be verified better, but the people who can read the sources can't write the article, and the people who can write the article can't read the sources, and when it comes to something clearly significant but poorly sourced due to language... I lean to keep. There is a whole bit about religion and ceremonies I don't comprehend well enough to attempt to write.
I do want to convey to editors here to stop adding any reference with only a passing mention - we need sources that provide information for expanding the article. If they don't... it's not actually a source that provide "in depth coverage" - which is what the other editors here are looking for. My original comments are below. Denaar (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has a an article in another language that is fairly long. This is a source that is in depth in English they quote, though it's a commerical/tourist organization. [29] However, the other article has a bold claim - that this was the first temple built for untouchables, which if you're familiar with India's caste system, seems to make it stand out as important. I worry we're running into "Non-english hard to source" territory on this one. The other article is Ratnagiri by Walter Smith, it links to a locked page. But I found another article he wrote about temples, haven't had a chance to read it. Denaar (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentFound an alternative spelling: "The Patitpavan Mandir at Ratnagiri is a standing testimony to his indefatigable commitment to social reform." This in an in depth article about how this temple was built, and it also states it was the first temple built for untouchables. If Veer Savarkar's article wasn't already so long, I'd suggest a merge to there, but I'm surprised it's not mentioned there already under Restricted freedom in Ratnagiri.[30] Another site [31]. It seems like a culturally significant temple. Is is contested in some way - seen as a legend and not a true story? Denaar (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found a source, "Veer Savarkar and Patitpavan Temple" - in depth, focused on the temple itself - this is the kind of source I was looking for; published by a news organization, has an author, etc. Between this and the rest; I feel we've got a strong group of sources to expand the article now. Denaar (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update to Merge - User @Editorkamran insists the only in depth source we have on the topic is unreliable, therefore - the topic should be merged with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as the topic has not notability on it's own - it should be mentioned in context with Savarkar. Denaar (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update to Keep - I realized the person who removed all my sources... is the person who nominated this article for deletion. The first two articles don't translate well; but it's a celebrity that posted about the temple and the papers take them to task for talking about it in the wrong way and not knowing their history, I can't follow - but this temple is clearly SUPER IMPORTANT so some people... and an embarrassment to others. I don't understand enough of the culture to follow it. Denaar (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not entirely happy with the sourcing to establish notability. I agree there are issues regarding coverage of the temple outside coverage of Savarkar. However, I lean towards keep given that some sourcing focuses on the temple mainly, how long the temple has stood, and that it does appear to feature on places to visit.OsFish (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Princess Chelsea. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 03:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cigarette Duet[edit]

The Cigarette Duet (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 mainly sourced to an interview and two self published sources. In my opinion, the article shows no signs of passing WP:GNG. All sources I could find (in the article and during a WP:BEFORE search) only give the song passing mentions; I can't find any significant coverage of the song. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [32][33][34][35][36] are all brief mentions, yes, but they do all emphasize how big a hit the song was on YouTube (over 74 million views per that last page) which I think has to be worth something. Most coverage calls it her starmaking moment, so if she's notable then it seems consensus agrees it's because of this song. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, that seems like a reason to merge for me. There is no significant coverage of this song, so it might be better to include these notes in the artist's article? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think a merge to the artist is fine, some notability for the song, not enough for an article though. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devkota Memorial Higher Secondary School[edit]

Devkota Memorial Higher Secondary 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)

Was initially proposed for deletion based on being a copy of Deokota Memorial School but this was contested. This article still makes no claim to notability and shows no signs of passing WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The best source that I can find in English is Kaha6, which is a basic database page. In Nepali, I can only find trivial mentions like News Abhiyan (translated) and Edukhabar (translated). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deokota Memorial School[edit]

Deokota Memorial 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)

Not to be confused with Devkota Memorial Higher Secondary School, which is a different school according to a comment at Talk:Devkota Memorial Higher Secondary School. My searches in English and Nepali (देवकोटा मेमोरियल स्कूल) did not yield anything that counts towards WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The best that I can find is a trivial mention in Pokhara Post (see translated version). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Menudo Mix[edit]

Menudo Mix (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)

Notability tagged since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra Lingua[edit]

Mantra Lingua (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)

Notability tagged since 2010. NN company that fails WP:NORG. Possible that their product has more notability than the company. UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Been on the cat:nn list since 2010 and never been updated. References are woeful. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 18:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rassul Mamand[edit]

Rassul Mamand (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)

Notability tag since 2010. Non-elected politician. Fails WP:NPOL. UtherSRG (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Well, doing a google search turned up his Kurdistan Parliament biographical page which is sparse, but seems to indicate WP:NPOL as a member of a regional legislature. This article needs major revisions and some serious sourcing work, but I think he may meet WP:NPOL.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TulsaPoliticsFan, while members of the Kurdistan Region Parliament do pass NPOL, that is a different person from the subject; the subject was born in 1944 while that person was born in 1974. Curbon7 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I'll strike my keep vote. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not describe any activity that would get an "inherent" notability pass under WP:NPOL, but this isn't reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. As noted above, this also appears to be interfering with another person who has a stronger notability claim, and should probably be deleted so that the other person can be started. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. For the record, previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janaki Yugantar English Boarding School, Ramgopalpur-6, District- Mahottari. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janaki Yugantar English Boarding School[edit]

Janaki Yugantar English Boarding 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)

Previously kept 10 years ago in this discussion (I still agree with the rationale of User:LibStar, a decade on). The only basis for keeping was because of a presumption of notability for secondary schools, which no longer applies following a discussion that can be found at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The only supporting reference was the school's own website, which clearly fails WP:ORGIND. I can find no evidence of passing WP:NORG or WP:GNG in Nepali (जानकी युगान्तर इङ्लिस बोर्डिङ स्कुल) or English, I would expect some sourcing in the latter if this is a notable school as English is the medium used by this school. All I can find are Wikipedia mirrors and the school's own Facebook page, which seems to have replaced their website, which looks to have been shut down. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Richard Maloney[edit]

Frank Richard Maloney (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)

Notability tag since 2010. Fails WP:AUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United States of America, and Washington. UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Searches are somewhat complicated by a number of identically or similarly named people, but not finding any in-depth coverage in books or academia generally, or poetry anthologies specifically. It's possible that this person is notable, there are some passing references I can find, but nothing significant. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline (2002 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Borderline (2002 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Non-notable TV movie. The article doesn't cite any sources and I couldn't find any good ones. Baronet13 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A logline in this clipping (for its original HBO airing) is pretty much all PQ has on the subject (after typing in the title with the surname of the star Michael Biehn); more detective work required for WP:NFILM's sake. Otherwise, IMDb is our friend from this point on.
    "Late Night TV Highlights". Newsday. 2002-11-21. p. B29. Retrieved 2023-06-27 – via ProQuest.
--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources mentioned above, this review on FdB (in Czech) and this review on DVD Talk, among other things, attest notability.— MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)— 22:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC); adding: this review (German)(the film is a US-German-South African production) or this, the film was internationally distributed (versions in Czech, Turkish, Italian, Portuguese, etc.). Notability seems pretty clear. — MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)— 21:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: The Czech source is clearly a version of IMDB and probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source. The Newsday source appears to be a schedule of TV programs rather than coverage/a review. The Sunday Mail Adelaide is a local newspaper, which is not the best source to due lower standards for inclusion in local news compared to national news outlets. Baronet13 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is also a review in TV Guide here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am satisfied with the sources provided. I have added a few. BD2412 T 15:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A with acute (Cyrillic)[edit]

A with acute (Cyrillic) (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)

Cyrillic letters marked with the acute accent for syllabic stress (as used in dictionaries and readers) are not distinct letters or “stressed variants” of letters. The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG, but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter with Acute accent or Stress (linguistics).

(The sole exception may be U with acute (Cyrillic), because it appears to be a variant form of Short U (Cyrillic) used in Karachay-Balkar: please demonstrate it meets GNG if you think we should keep it.)  —Michael Z. 17:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Ye with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yery with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
U with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
E with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yu with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ya with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
 —Michael Z. 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on a draft on this subject, please come to my Talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Hope[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable organization. Not finding much on a google search. UPE creator. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top Dutch Joint Solar Array[edit]

Top Dutch Joint Solar Array (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)

TopDutch (https://www.topdutch.com/) is a campaign commissioned by the Province of Fryslân, Province of Drenthe and Province of Groningen. By using TopDutch as the primary economic brand for initiatives and networks, the campaign supports northern ambitions and the northern ecosystem.

According to this article, The "Joint Solar Array" was apparently part of a promotional campaign to attract businesses or investors to the area. See for example this tweet they made directed to Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/TopDutchCom/status/960592776927809536

It never was a real solar farm, only a promotional campaign. One of the many they may have done. The campaign seems to have ended and there is no longer any mention of it on the TopDuch website. It is difficult to find other sources even talking about it.

I am not really convinced a promotional campaign like this needs a wikipedia article. It is definitely not a solar farm like the article currently says. Jexio (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Osman I#Daughters. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Hatun[edit]

Fatma Hatun (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 book [40] does indeed state on p33 that Osman had at least one daughter, but that's it. No name. WP:GNG is very far away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And Lowry, Heath (2003). The Nature of the Early Ottoman State . SUNY Press. s. 73. mentions her by name, the name mentioned being Fatma bint-i Osman.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would expect the Turkish Wikipedia to have more but its article is also a stub with the same reference: tr:Fatma Hatun (I. Osman'ın kızı). Ping me if someone turns up more.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was able to find several sources in Turkish that mention Fatma as the daughter of Osman, @A. B., but none delve into the specifics of her life. Here, it writes that Fatma was only mentioned on a deed of endowment, which suggests any further search for more content will be futile. I am not against draftification, but if this article is deleted, it won't be difficult to recreate it given the small amount of content. Aintabli (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aintabli, if that's a good source, consider adding "only mentioned on a deed of endowment" at Osman_I#Daughters. Since there is no other Fatma Hatun on en-WP, I guess we could also redirect to that section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, will do. Aintabli (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about it some more, I think Redirect to Osman_I#Daughters is a better choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Caballero[edit]

Silvia Caballero (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 scientist, no references found, does not appear to have a high citation factor. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Biology. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See coverage by Time at https://time.com/collection-post/5718877/silvia-caballero/ and Technology Review (the second biography) at https://www.technologyreview.com/innovator/abhinav-kandala/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are not significant coverage of the individual, each is barely a paragraph, telling us briefly about her biography. We need more extensive sourcing of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oaktree b this is going to be continued to be improved upon as part of the sfsu collaboration with wikipedia. We're working on finding more sources for this article. After we've added some more sources, I encourage you to review the article once again. Lykourgos3444 (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lykourgos3444 and Eastmain: The quote, from the MIT source, "She played a key role in the creation of the world’s largest library of human gut bacteria and led a campaign to test thousands of species for their ability to kill those three menacing organisms." sounds interesting - but can you find more info on those achievements? PamD 07:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If "this is going to be continued to be improved upon", as you say (beyond the way in which this is true of almost every Wikipedia article), then please add the {{under construction}} template or work on it in draft, so that editors do not waste everyone's time bringing it to AfD within 3 days of it being created in mainspace. But, better, do not create an article in mainspace until you have included enough solid sourcing to demonstrate notability. PamD 07:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We encourage you to work in draft, where you will get a more meaningful review. Deb (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly? On what evidence? Relevant guidelines are WP:NPROF. Under which criterion/criteria do they pass? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, WP:SNGs are addenda to the GNG. Meeting the GNG always overrides any need to pass an SNG. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:NPROF. But the question is still: what is the evidence for the claim that this clearly passes WP:SIGCOV? I am not, at this point, willing to say I do not believe she does, but there is no evidence here or in the article that she does? Under what NPROF criteria is this academic deemed to be notable? The nom. says no references are found. Do you have references that, per SIGCOV, must be significant reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:NPROF - no, that's not the way it works. Please read the guidelines you're linking to. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that an academic need not meet NPROF to establish notability? or are you saying this person is notable for being something other than an academic? Again, what sources are you relying on? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously the former. They only need to meet the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not obvious to me. NPROF says: "This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements". The caveat in NPROF is about notability for something other than their academic achievements. However, as you clearly are not going to provide any sources to demonstrate notability under any guideline, I'll leave the meta discussion there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any topic only needs to meet GNG. It does not matter whether they're an academic, a cat, a restaurant, a pillow, or even a wikipedia controversy. If a topic clearly meets GNG, there is no need to worry about why they meet GNG or any SNG, it's beside the point. (Note I make no comment on whether the subject of this article does meet GNG.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and if this person meet GNG for some reason other than their academic career (e.g. because they have significant coverage for some other interest or activity) then they meet GNG and can have an article. But when it comes to evaluating their academic career, the relevant guideline is NPROF. SNGs specifically show how notability is achieved in that subject specific area. The NPROF guidelines reflect the community consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're mistaken. Again, it doesn't matter why they meet GNG. If they meet GNG for any reason then they're notable and can have an article. If they meet it because of their academic then what NPROF says does not concern us in any way. Although again the concept of someone meeting GNG for their academic career is fairly silly anyway. We do not evaluate why someone meets GNG because it's a completely pointless activity and sometimes people may meet GNG for a multitude of reasons and sometimes it may not even be that clear. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is meta and not really helpful. We do not agree, because as I said at the start (perhaps insufficently clearly) you cannot meet GNG for the academic career without meeting NPROF. It is possible for an academic to be notable in some other way under GNG or other subject specific guidelines, but the purpose of NPROF is to establish and spell out the community consensus "about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements." Yet while we disagree on semantics, I doubt we disagree in practice. I don't get the impression that you are saying that one can fail NPROF and yet still be considered a notable academic based on the fact that, say, they have x number of publications. If you are saying that, I won't discuss it further here but feel free to ping me to your talk page. If you are not saying that, then I doubt the semantics difference needs resolving, and we can leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is an award-wining scientist in the medical community with an extensive background of published research. I added the reasearch and citations, but didn't have time to inculude all published research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs)
  • Keep(struck) - per WP:NPROF, criterion 1 and, I think, 7. The number of publications remains relatively small, but these are highly cited. Scopus profile. The h index is 12, but the subject remains at a very early stage of their career. The inclusion in the TIME 100 NEXT list also indicates that the subject is having a significant impact in their field of study. This supplementary evidence should be caveated that this is having, not had, and that the sources added that are discussing the inclusion look like they are based on a press release that would not be independent, but this is still a significant level of notability that, in my opinion, meets criterion 1. That she is working in Vedanta Biosciences, developing therapies, could also meet criterion 7 but I will not consider that further as it is a keep per criterion 1. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about this, I think my own arguments here raise a question of WP:TOOSOON. The failure of anyone to present further sources beyond the impressive start to the research career that I found with Scopus, and the fact that the TIME 100 NEXT listing is itself about potential impact, rather than past impact may suggest we are not yet in a position to write an encyclopaedic article about the subject. I'll leave my !vote asis for now, but pointing out the weaknesses there for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my keep per WP:TOOSOON. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While she is close, an H factor of 12 is not notable, and she is not corresponding authors on any according to scopus. Her publications (over 10 years) are in general too low for tenure in most universities. It would help if there was a Google Scholar profile, awards listed, format corrected for refs etc -- see other faculty pages. If someone can improve the page quickly I might change my vote.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article by another WikiEd'er who doesn't seem to understand notability conventions. "X under X"-type awards like this one and the others noted in the article do not go toward notability. She certainly does not satisfy any general notability criteria. Her higher-cited contributions look as though they were from grad-student days and have large author lists, with her being neither lead nor corresponding author. And, her overall citations are pretty low relative to the high-citation field she has been working in. I would echo the point made by Ldm1954, which is that this is a record that would not generally satisfy tenure requirements at a research university. There is no compelling evidence that this individual is notable under the PROF guidelines. 128.252.154.3 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:NPROF. She may some day in the future be notable, but not now. We can’t build articles for an academic based on one or two short profiles. Thriley (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nowhere near the required evidence of notability. What's going on with this course? The student editors don't seem to be having their work reviewed by anyone experienced before they shove them into mainspace. Deb (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator, we need to be getting rid of these articles which are not up to the amount of WP:SIGCOV needed. Also does not meet NPROF. User:Let'srun 01:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5 ✗plicit 06:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schirin Thoma[edit]

Schirin Thoma (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 fashion model, all references are PR pieces. Acting roles are all bit parts, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged as G5. The page is created by a sockpuppet. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Patchogue, New York#Transportation. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patchogue-Village Transit[edit]

Patchogue-Village Transit (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 local bus company. Beyond confirming they exist, there is no coverage for this firm. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral's Arms[edit]

Admiral's Arms (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:NBAND and WP:GNG. Newspapers.com had no hits, Google did not have anything more than the briefest of passing mentions. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ redirect to Hanthawaddy Kingdom. Copyvio concerns flagged up by automated tools seem to be result of WP:CWW. —Kusma (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hongsawatoi Kingdom[edit]

Hongsawatoi Kingdom (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)

Unnecessary WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Hanthawaddy Kingdom that should be a redirect. Page also has multiple issues and potential copyvio. Hongsawatoi is an alternative name for the WP:COMMON name and main article at Hanthawaddy Kingdom EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Peacock[edit]

Pink Peacock (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 proposed by @Neil_McDermott, many of the verifiable, reliable sources are press reports on what appear to be largely caper-based/publicity stunt type events. The café has now closed permanently. It's only notability seems to have been the minor controversy surrounding some of the staff members actions Qcne (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThe Reader's Digest source used in the article seems ok, it has enough coverage for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Sexuality and gender, Judaism, and Scotland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless someone can show a WP:NCORP fail that isn't based on a No true Scotsman of what counts as a notable event. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources establish notability. --DH22 Mim (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article could be improved but sources such as Readers Digest, Glasgow Live and STV show sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. The fact that the cafe is now closed does not affect its notability. Mujinga (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly has significant coverage in reliable sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently sourced to keep. gidonb (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are enough reliable sources demonstrating this cafe's notability. Furthermore, notability is not temporary; a subject does not lose its notability just because it's closed. Epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Güven Çavuş[edit]

Güven Çavuş (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 former footballer who played a few games in the Eerste Divisie but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is a good amount of routine coverage such as contract and injury news or match previews and reports, but nothing in-depth that could be WP:SIGCOV. This from Voetbal International is typical; a match report that briefly mentions he scored a goal. PROD was contested many years ago when the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL was in effect. Jogurney (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Ogbueli[edit]

David Ogbueli (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 was first moved by Onel5969 last year. 11 days ago, Ritchie333 draftified it. I had already draftified it but moved it back to mainspace (because the creator will likely publish it back and I didn't know it had been previously draftified) for broader consensus. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Just a working religious man, no different than many thousands of others here and there and everywhere. Coverage is either routine or vaguely promo. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is also most likely COI/UPE in addition to not meeting WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 13:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are so many articles in the mainspace that is similar to this, it can be kept and improved as time goes on. And I have no connection with it if is not good enough then it should be deleted. Dannyjade (talk) 7:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
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. None of the "keep" !votes provided sufficient evidence to prove that the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards. ✗plicit 13:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Hasson[edit]

Seamus Hasson (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 local historian. Not recognised as a historian or expert by any authority, no training in the field either, edited and wrote for some super local magazines and appeared to have published a single non-notable book(Edit: striking through, he didn't publish a book, the "New Orleans McCloskeys" was just an article in a magazine). All coverage is passing other than some local area obituaries. Cannot find reasonable sources to define any notability. Half the content of the article still is only tangentially about the subject. The main reference is about the subject and their history, but is in the local magazine they edited and wrote for and appears to have just been narrated to the actual writer, so it's not in any way an independently produced source and may as well just have been written by the subject themself. I tried tidying it up, but couldn't find the notable or reliable sources to do much. (It's also worth noting that there is evidence of severe WP:CANVASing or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY on the article and talk page.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was a man who was apparently well-known in his local community, for several reasons, including his contributions to local magazines, but there is no evidence of more widespread notability. The cited references currently present in the article are:
  1. (http://www.thewindingroe.com/) - the web site of the publisher of two magazines that Seamus Hasson was connected to, including being the editor of one, and a member of the editing committee of the other. The full and complete text of the mention of him on the cited page is "1971 - Seamus Hasson edited the first Benbradagh Magazine".
  2. (https://www.derrynow.com/news/local-news/460560/tailor-made-to-be-one-of-a-kind-tributes-to-seamus-hasson.html) An obituary in a local newspaper.
  3. This reference links to he same web page as reference 1 above, but the wikitext of the reference gives a page number and an issue number of one of the magazines concerned. It turns out that it is a page in an article about the family of Hasson, one of the editors of the magazine. The information in the Wikipedia article which is cited to that page consists of such facts as that in 1950 the Hasson family set up a shop, and that later the shop was damaged by bombs.
  4. (https://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/education/2007mandate/minutes/2008/090527.htm) Minutes of a meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly's committee for education, in which the full and complete mention of Hasson is "The Committee noted correspondence of 16 May 2009 from Mr Seamus Hasson, Dungiven requesting information on the Education Bill. Agreed – the Committee would write to Mr Hasson to provide an update on the progress of the Committee’s scrutiny of the Education Bill to date."
  5. (https://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews/news/northernirelandnews/2019/07/13/news/brothers-told-of-francie-mccloskey-s-last-hours-1662179/content.html) A newspaper publishing an account provided by Seamus Hasson and his brother of the death of an injured man, whom the Hasson borthers tried to help.
  6. (https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/heathwood/static/1994.html) The page of result from a search on a web site which lists television programmes, and synopses of them. The synopsis of one of the programmes is 181 words long, and includes a 6 word mention of Hasson.
None of this comes near to constituting substantial coverage of Hasson, and some of them are not independent sources either. I searched for better sources, but found nothing significantly different in character from the cited sources. Unfortunately, the article gives no indication that Seamus Hasson satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, nor does there appear to be any evidence available anywhere else that he does so. JBW (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Please do not delete this article. Seamus was a well educated man and keen historian - his writings are important to mark events in local history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.159.95 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
90.240.159.95 has made no other edits. JBW (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I think this article should not be deleted as there is detailed interesting history within the content of this item. 146.198.186.198 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]
146.198.186.198 has made no edits other than about this article. JBW (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]


Unfortunately, Wikipedia's notability criteria don't include the subject of an article being well educated or keen, or there being detailed or interesting material associated with him. I suggest you look at the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people to see what kind of thing is needed, and then see whether you can find evidence that Seamus Hasson satisfies any of the criteria given there. JBW (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the other delete comments, I don't believe this article meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Local historians have their place and I've always appreciated local talks when I've attended but very few local historians would meet notability criteria. Knitsey (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seamus Hasson is a notable figure, having initiated the Benbradagh magazine and supporting the Winding Roe magazine which are journals, held in high esteem by Academics.
All editions of both the Benbradagh and Winding Roe magazines are held by The Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries in Edinburgh as well as the national libraries of the Anglo-Celtic islands, being:- National Library of Scotland; The Bodleian Library at Oxford University; National Library of Wales; Cambridge University Library and The Library of Trinity College, Dublin. This demonstrates the notability of Seamus Hasson due to the importance and value of the contribution which these journals, he was involved in and, compiled over a period of fifty years have.
Both titles are also held in the McClay Library, Queen's University of Belfast, the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin and and in the Legal Deposits of The British Library in Wetherby.
In addition to this, Allen County Public Library, Genealogy Center, Fort Wayne, Indiana hold both titles. All of these institutions are esteemed, illustrious institutions who subscribed to the receipt of each journal annually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenshane (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries does not hold copies of publications; it acts on behalf of the Bodleian Library, the Cambridge University Library, the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, the National Library of Wales and the National Library of Scotland to obtain copies of publications for them, and passes those copies on to the libraries. Those five libraries and the British Library, which you also mention, have an automatic legal right to a copy of every publication published in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, so it is far from true that the fact that they have the magazines "demonstrates the notability" even of those magazines, let alone of Seamus Hasson. I know nothing about the inclusion standards for the other libraries that you mention, but it isn't relevant anyway, since being a contributor to publications held in libraries is not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria. I echo my advice above to actually read the relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines and try to find evidence which complies with them. If you can do that then the article is likely to be kept, and I for one will support keeping it, but that isn't going to happen on the basis of ideas which may seem like reasonable indications of notability to anyone new to contributing to Wikipedia, but which are unconnected to anything in the notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heck I've got a book held in several libraries and I'm definitely not notable, and neither is my book. Canterbury Tail talk 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Seamus Hasson contributed his Dungiven local historical knowledge to 29 out of 30 Benbradagh issues. These magazines were then bound together and are now known as the Second Book of Dungiven. Seamus served on Benbradagh's editorial committee for it's entire lifespan of 30 years and then went on to contribute to The Winding Roe magazine until the year before his death in 2016. He bequeathed to Dungiven a great treasure of his writings that is well respected for its accurate detail, a perfectionist to many of us that have read his work.
Seamus Hasson has also been recognised by other writers in their research -
The Irish highwaymen by Stephen Dunford.
Matt a biography of Matthew H. McCloskey by Robert J Ehlinger. Owenbegpamela (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.KEEP I also wish to object to this proposal as I do not see anything controversial in this article 213.104.114.26 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farrar Corporation & Foundry[edit]

Farrar Corporation & Foundry (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)

NN company. Only sources are not independent. Fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no coverage of this enterprise in Gnews or Gscholar, might simply be a working business. No notability found and lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJ (Trainee A)[edit]

JJ (Trainee A) (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)

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG. KH-1 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Dekimasuよ! 13:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is kept, its title will have to change because Trainee A is a band in which he was briefly a member. A better title would be something like JJ (Japanese singer). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Charitably it is WP:TOOSOON, while none of WP's notability guidelines have been met. A search for his Japanese and Korean names reveals a fair number of hits in the media of those countries, but they appear to be universally unreliable gossip and self-promotional sites. JJ has done little of note beyond a gig as a backup dancer and his career is just getting started. Good luck to him as he promotes himself, but Wikipedia must not be part of that effort. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DWPM[edit]

DWPM (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 radio station. Inadequately sourced, and a search finds nothing better. Would have been happy to drafify this as possibly WP:TOOSOON, however it was previously draftified and moved back into main space past AfC, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT / WP:NRADIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Business, and Philippines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dratify AGAIN per nom. Restore it back for now via draft because days from now this station will officially launch and sources regarding this may be publish. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 'per nom', I'm advocating delete, not drafify; the latter is no longer an option. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Baycomms Broadcasting Corporation#AM stations, the owner of the stations frequency. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]
I have changed my vote from redirect to weak redirect since the station is currently under test broadcast. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless there are additional cite sources found, the issue must be settled whether the article has sufficiently enough to be eligible. Ekis2020 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's too early to say if an article on this AM radio station (now test broadcasting) should exist. For now, redirect may be the best option unless its notability be established. Circumstances (being Metro Manila-based; involvement of networks) may not be enough at this moment.—Raider000 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [Revised] Additional comment. I can't suggest on wherever this article be redirected (if that will be the case), it should be addressed first. Yes, Baycomms Broadcasting Corporation is currently the frequency owner (provisional authority); Prime Media Holdings & ABS-CBN are the operators (joint venture) yet the latter now can't operate it alone given that its franchise had expired. (The first two are the best choices.)—Raider000 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ABS-CBN cannot own a station or frequency since it doesn't have a franchise anymore, but can operate one via LMA. Therefore, operating a station is beyond NTC regulations. ASTIG😎🙃 00:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's noted. I thought, I might misunderstood these.—Raider000 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @DoubleGrazing: I added 1 source about the test broadcast of DWPM which is from The Manila Times. Is the notability okay or still not? ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's debatable whether that source provides significant coverage, or is just routine business reporting, but even if we give it the benefit of the doubt, one such source is not enough; per WP:GNG we need to see multiple sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely WP:SIGCOV, but we need more than that. ASTIG😎🙃 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Possible redirect(?) to DZMM. The background is this: DWPM is the new radio station that bought the 630 kHz frequency that DZMM lost as a result of the latter's loss of congressional francise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titopao (talk • contribs) I'm changing my vote to keep. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll neither vote to keep or redirect the article. Since the station was launched today, alongside the relaunch of TeleRadyo Serbisyo, I don't think this is WP:TOOSOON anymore. So, I'll expect more coverage for the following days. ASTIG😎🙃 00:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Overtime, the station as gained enough WP:SIGCOV, along with reliable sources added to the article and the comments below. That said, article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎🙃 04:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Station already officiated. Let's just wait for more details regards to this developing station. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 04:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the concern is the coverage, the possibility of this article being redirected (as what i've said in my earlier comment) may decrease over time, given that cited sources are being added. Deletion is less likely. Should the notability be established at least in the soonest, it's possible that this article should be kept.—Raider000 (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • GENERAL ADVICE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: there have been plenty of comments, which is great, but some of them don't make clear whether you are only commenting or also !voting, because of the way the way the comments are rendered. If you wish to argue for, say, redirection, please make this clear in your !vote; don't start the bullet point with 'comment' and then half way down the paragraph say 'redirect' – start with 'redirect'. Especially in a long discussion thread, it can otherwise be difficult to ascertain community consensus. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing, you are so right. As a closer, I consider all of the comments but having bolded "votes" also gives me a general sense of where consensus may lie. Some editors leave quite a lot of comments but never say, in brief, what they want to happen with an article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article passes the general notability guideline since Manila Times and Rappler are generally reliable secondary sources (my personal viewpoints on those outlets notwithstanding) and that their coverage of the station so far is significant, which may change if other reliable media outlets also report on the station. Also meets the notability guideline on broadcast radio stations since it was given the green light by the national broadcasting authority to operate in some form and that the said station has its set of original programs, although many were carried over from its previous incarnation. -Ian Lopez @ 10:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep already passes notability guidelines per Ian Lopez statement. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per others above. I'm not opposed on keeping this article. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG, WP:NRADIO, and WP:ORGCRIT Generally passed. Abrilando232 (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Anarchyte (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Harare Sports Club[edit]

List of international cricket centuries at the Harare Sports Club (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)

For the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at the Wankhede Stadium, and previous AfDs referenced therein. Fails WP:NLIST, noted in statistical databases only (individual centuries are mentioned in news reports, but the topic of centuries at this ground (or most other grounds) is not the subject of significant non-statistical coverage. Fram (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS trivial intersection— there is no obvious reason centuries (a fairly common event in the grand scheme of cricket) + place scored (every cricket game is played somewhere, obviously) is important, let alone why INTERNATIONAL centuries are more important than local ones (disclaimer: I’m not a cricket nerd, I just know the basic rules and terminology, but that’s arguably a case for “not a niche sports almanac”). Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and other commenters so far. WP:NOTSTATS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there isn't significant coverage about centuries at this ground to meet WP:NLIST. We don't need lists of centuries at every international cricket ground, only those where the list of centuries has significant non trivial coverage e.g. Lord's. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awantika College[edit]

Awantika College (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)

Unable to find sources for this to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Maxime[edit]

Lorne Maxime (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Rabbani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Faraz Rabbani (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 found in reference. Failed notability Ontor22 (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bellingham[edit]

Rebecca Bellingham (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 GNG and SNG. Achievements are insignificant; no coverage found online. Timothytyy (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paora Florentyna Notability is based on coverage, not achievements. Can you explain your stances in terms of SIGCOV? Timothytyy (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to my comments above, meets WP:NBAD as the winner of a pre-2017 World Grand Prix event, namely the 2005 New Zealand Open – see here. Paora (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paora NBAD, an SNG guideline, cannot supercede GNG. I.e. a subject without coverage does not warrant an article even if it passes SNG. Notability is not based on achievements. Therefore, please explain your stance in terms of SIGCOV. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothytyy, I was pointing out that the nomination is incorrect in its assertion that WP:NBAD is not met, when clearly it is met. I also believe the assertion in the nomination that her achievements are insignificant to be unreasonable, and the statement that there is no coverage online is clearly not correct. Paora (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any coverage? Timothytyy (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ResonantDistortion NBAD, an SNG guideline, cannot supercede GNG, which requires SIGCOV. An SNG-passing article without coverage should be deleted. The recently-added sources are nowhere near SIGCOV, so please provide some SIGCOV to explain your stance. Timothytyy (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a single good source exists in the article and two simple before search brought up no others. WP:NBAD is no longer an actual guideline. If sources are found, please ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NBAD is no longer a guideline. No citation impact of SIGCOV. CastJared (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is unclear why above !votes claim that WP:NBAD is no longer a guideline - as by following the link it clearly is. It has been demonstrated above (and technically by meeting WP:NATH with a podium finish in the Commonwealth Games) that Bellingham meets current criteria with achievements that mean Significant coverage is likely to exist. This does not obviate GNG but gives leeway preventing quick deletion, and as the guideline clearly states WP:THEREISNORUSH. This sportsperson is not contemporary - it's been well over 20 years for some of their successes - and non-internet sources are more likely than not. Consequently 'liberal leeway' supports a keep argument. ResonantDistortion 13:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you actively participate in AfDs, you will observe that users tend not to use SNG as a formal guideline to keep/delete, because GNG is the base of notability, and SNGs nowadays lack research to prove that the guidelines can prove the sufficiency of SIGCOV. The comments saying "NBAD is not a guideline" are wrong, but I just don't see any implications of SNGs, especially NSPORT. After all, notability is based on sources instead of achievements. Timothytyy (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ResonantDistortion, NBAD is not a standalone guideline; it is a subguideline within the guideline of NSPORT, which requires GNG be met for all subjects. Athletes must also meet SPORTSBASIC for subguidelines to afford any presumption of additional coverage, and if GNG coverage cannot be identified, meeting a subguideline offers no protection from deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG, which is the requirement for sportspeople to have articles. Meeting NBAD is irrelevant when the subject fails SPORTSBASIC, which further demands a SIGCOV source be cited in the article. Presumption of SIGCOV from NBAD is nullified if such a source is not found, and anyway it only affords leeway against speedying and for extenuating circumstances regarding additional sourcing; if the presumption is rebutted with a standard BEFORE, meeting the criterion is moot. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a couple of New Zealand Herald sources that do provide WP:SIGCOV, not substantially so, but enough to be borderline WP:NBASIC level. The fact that it apparently passes WP:NBAD, and the heavy use of pre-2000 print sources, heavily suggests that WP:NEXIST is likely met here. Has anyone actually examined the contents of the cited print sources? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lot of wrong statements here of missing coverage. In general it seems to me, that people are not searching correct, are not going to libraries, do not have access to the relevant sources (especially for older players and then thinking, that there are no sources). Easy to find are 32 participations in significant events on Wikidata as well as 9 identifiers there. Plus more sources in Kingston Gleaner, Johnstown Tribune Democrat, The Los Angeles Times, The Times, The Modesto Bee, Poughkeepsie Journal, Times Colonist, The Straits Times, Berita Harian, The New Paper, Today, The Asian Age, The Times Of India and and and. Florentyna (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:Striking double vote. Timothytyy (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Deleted my short first participation (also Keep). Florentyna (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis and comment on newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage of this person, there is an author/person who gives TED talks with the same name. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even limiting the search to .nz websites ("Rebecca Bellingham" badminton site:.nz), still only get confirmation of matches she played. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, As achievements are not given importance anymore in discussions unless the subject is Olympic or World medalist, I would like to read if some prose is available in source number 4 of the article, title of which looks convincing enough for significant coverage. Yes, I don't have access to that newspaper and will cast keep or delete on the basis of it. zoglophie 11:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 4 is a press-release (New Zealand Press Wire). It wouldn't count towards notability, only perhaps giving confirmation of personal info in an otherwise notable article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've accessed all but two articles. [1] is NZOC, not independent Red XN. [2] is BWF non-independent stats Red XN. [3][5][17][19][20][21][24] (NZ Herald) are passing mentions in routine results coverage Red XN. [4] is a print source from Radio New Zealand Newswire on the Bellingham/Gordon marriage announcement -- unclear if it contains SIGCOV or is independent ?. [6] "Badminton guns off to training camp in Malaysia" from Sunday Star-Times--no evidence it has SIGCOV or is independent, plus it is coverage of her youth career so even less likely to count Red XN. [7] (The Dominion 1) is a trivial mention in a routine press release Red XN. [8-10, 12-14, 18] are trivial and routine tournament results from The Press and Waikato Times Red XN. [11] (The Dominion 2) is a trivial mention in a routine press release Red XN. [15] (Medicine Hat News) is very unlikely to contain SIGCOV Red XN. [16] (WorldBadminton.com) is a trivial mention in routine results Red XN. [22] (Badminton Stats) stats Red XN. [23] is a picture for sale Red XN. [25] (NZH 8/The Aucklander) is a passing mention about the couple Red XN.
    Even if the Radio NZ and Sunday Star-Times piece contains IRS SIGCOV (very doubtful), the subject still would not pass GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO. Clearly lacks sources on the internet, but events took place well before news coverage shifted to the internet. Denaar (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Denaar, how does she meet ANYBIO? JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, winning a sporting event has been deprecated as an indicator of notability, and there was global consensus that athletes must meet GNG and have a source containing SIGCOV cited in their biography. I've got access to the NZ newspapers from that time (1996 on) and there is no SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC (to which NBAD is attached), sources are passing mentions or not independent. Avilich (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baakiyalakshmi[edit]

Baakiyalakshmi (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:GNG have added references from News18 India [42], The Times of India [43], The Times of India [44], IMDb [45], and Official Disney+ Hotstar Ott Website [46] and more coverage in Tamil language.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source 1 is from a self-published source whose expertise is unknown, and is only routine coverage on the serial starting
    • Source 2 routine promotional coverage on the serial starting
    • Source 3 is routine plot updates
    • Source 4 is routine updates on one actress' birthday
    • Source 5 is also routine plot updates (link 16)
    • Source 6 is routine updates on actress replacement
    • Source 7 is routine updates on actor announcing leaving
    • Source 8 is routine updates on actor leaving
    • Source 9 is routine updates on actor leaving
    • Source 10 is promotional coverage on an actress' Instagram posts
    This reply's link 17 is completely unrelated, link 18 is an WP:IMDB source, and link 19 is the serial's page on Hotstar. None of this shows how the serial is notable for Wikipedia Karnataka (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of Vijay TV’s top serials with a lot of coverage. look it up and there’s about 300 articles in english, in tamil probably the same if not a fair bit more Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the source analysis above, nothing else found we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Out of all the television series, you nominated this is actually a well known one. What kinds of sources are you looking for? DareshMohan (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It does cite it's notability. CastJared (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    please explain Karnataka (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While those advocating Keep are in the majority, they haven't done a good job refuting criticism of the newly found sources in the source analysis. We can't just rely on a subject being called well-known, we need evidence of their notability in reliable sources with SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft space, probably significant enough based on referencing coverage (even if sources are "routine") but article could use quality improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per prior relist comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftified.‎. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kings–Golden Knights rivalry[edit]

Kings–Golden Knights rivalry (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)

Welp if my last submission to create a rivalry page didn't get any traction, this one has far less to throw around PontiacAurora (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention another example, can you please link it for reference? - Indefensible (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t even think about deleting this page. There’s plenty of sources to prove they have a rivalry. If this page was created at the time of the Knights' inaugural season, then these conversations would stand, but it’s been 6 years, and there should be enough info to gather on the Kings-Golden Knights rivalry. Marino13 (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the previous discussion on this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Knights-Kings rivalry. Marino13 did not participate in this conversation. Conyo14 (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, California, and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4 (recreation of a page deleted in a deletion discussion). Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Knights-Kings rivalry which was closed with overwhelming consensus to delete on 24 June 2023. Frank Anchor 10:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4: I not only concur with Frank Anchor, Marino13 is due for a sharp reprimand for recreating this just two days after the prior AfD closed. They've received a few too many talk page warnings over the years to be unaware of our policies and guidelines regarding proper sourcing, as well as civility. Ravenswing 11:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible Marino13 was unaware of the recent deletion since the article was created with the team names reversed and this user did not participate in the previous AFD. However G4 applies whether the re-creation was disruptive or if it was made in good faith. Frank Anchor 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least I research the sources before I add them on to a page. Delete this page and will only be brought back as a draft. You should know better. Marino13 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to bring this back after being deleted twice in a week, and not only will this be liable to being salted, but you'll be courting a block. You should know better. Anyone carrying the attitude of "Screw what you all think, I'm going to do whatever I want regardless" is someone who doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 03:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas one only wishes to create and expand, I feel like there are those whose efforts to build a good page are being purged despite proof of valid, factual sources. It’s in draft mode now, so YOU don’t have to worry about it being incorrectly recreated. Marino13 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. At least the previous edition had one source meeting WP:GNG. Also, considering your behavior and threat of recreating the article, Marino13, this can get you on the WP:ANI. Conyo14 (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of arguing about it, maybe help out with the creation of this article. I am looking at various sources to keep this page up. And following the example of other hockey rivalry pages too. Marino13 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - exactly what G4 is for Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:G4. Recreation of a page deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Knights-Kings rivalry. Flibirigit (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article was moved to Draft:Kings–Golden Knights rivalry by User:ONUnicorn, who declined a G4 request with the rationale: decline G4 - this isn't "substantially identical" to the deleted version. That said, I will be moving this to draft. I HIGHLY suggest it go through WP:AFC, given the history. There doesn't appear to be anything more to do here, so I recommend a procedural close. I will not do so myself, as I am involved in the discussion. Anyone is free to open a WP:MFD discussion if they object to having a draft version. Frank Anchor 16:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have declined the WP:G4 as it was not "substantially identical" to the deleted version (different creator, different sources, different wording). That said, it had all the same problems as the deleted version (lack of WP:RS coverage). I have moved it to draft, and I suggest, since an article on this topic has previously been AFD'd, that the creator send this through WP:AFC rather than moving it to mainspace directly. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ONUnicorn, would you close this AFD discussion then? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I wasn't sure if I should or if I should leave it for someone else. I'll close it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 19:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield, Tennessee[edit]

Mayfield, Tennessee (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)

Geostub based entirely on GNIS data, which is not reliable, the only other source appears to be copying GNIS and isn't reliable either. Hut 8.5 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source search shows people were born there in 1878 and 1879. The 1860 Tennessee gazetteer says it is a post office, but the categorisation in the Gazetteer is 'post office, post town, and post city' (Memphis is a post city) and there's a discussion of the postmaster there. I don't have newspaper access to search and it's difficult to search for this place, but the fact we have book records of people being born and dying there makes it quite possible it's notable under our gazetteer function. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to have an article about the place which claims it was a populated place then we do at least need a source which says it was a populated place, per WP:V. The burden of proof is on those who seek to retail the content. A source which describes it as a post office, or mentions of people being born there, do not support this assertion without original research. WP:V and WP:NOR are non-negotiable core content policies, they cannot be overturned through a local consensus. Hut 8.5 17:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could meet general notability guidelines. It is located at the junction of two important arterial routes: Tennessee State Route 56 leading north to Gainesboro, Tennessee (indirectly Celina, Tennessee and Kentucky) and Red Boiling Springs, Tennessee and south to Baxter, Tennessee and Interstate 40, and Tennessee State Route 290 leading east to Cookeville. As such, it could be a sort of landmark for rural road travelers. --EvergreenLAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenLAM (talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails GNG and GEOLAND due to lack of either significant coverage or official recognition. Appearing on a map or being located at a major intersection are not part of our inclusion criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while the current sourcing is definitely not enough to establish notability, I recently ran a newspaper search, and found many sources that indicate that this was a populated and legally recognized place. For example, these sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5; there are plenty more) indicate that this community at one time had a post office. This is usually grounds for establishing legal recognition. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You need a subscription to see all but the first source, and that's not of much use. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Delete on the grounds all the sources are behind a paywall" isn't the best deletion argument to make (and I'm not saying it's not an issue.) (Bneu2013: Any chance we can get the references snipped?) SportingFlyer T·C 09:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I've clipped the remaining articles (2, 3, 4, 5). Overall, not much different than the first, but does establish that this place had legal recognition. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of a post office doesn't amount to legal recognition for a place. During this period postal offices in rural areas could be put in just about any convenient building, e.g. a farmhouse. It doesn't mean there was a populated place here. Hut 8.5 11:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the post office *is* legal recognition of a place. What it doesn't prove, and I believe this to be your main point, is that it was ever a populated place. However....forgot to sign... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on legally recognized place and [47] which shows it was known for more than just a post office. Actually I'm divided on this and a merge and redirect to Jackson County, Tennessee, because there's nothing here that wouldn't fit easily as a one-sentence blurb in the "Communities" section, but maintains encyclopedic material per WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the tiny amount of text I get on Google Books for that source, it just contains genealogical records which mention that somebody lived there. If that's accurate then it doesn't actually say that Mayfield is a populated place, and we have to use original research to get that. Hut 8.5 17:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not original research, that's common sense. It is legally recognized. It was, at one point, a number of persons' address. It most certainly does not meet GNG, which is why moving the sentence or two to the proposed redirect target may make more sense than outright keep. What shouldn't be done is deletion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to have an article on a populated place then we do need a reliable source which says it's a populated place. Your source doesn't say that. We can't have an article based on editors' interpretations of primary sources. Hut 8.5 07:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this place does exist -- Google Earth took me straight to it. There's "just not much there there". Google Earth is not a secondary source.
As EvergreenLAM pointed out, it is at the intersection of Tennessee State Route 56 and Tennessee State Route 290. Looking around using Google Streetview, within 200m of the intersection are: the Crabtree Siding and Supply warehouse, a Dollar General store, a convenience store, Xpress Excavating company, SonLight Church and a stop sign. There's a suburb - about a dozen houses nearby on Wade Subdivision Lane. I appreciate the article creator's efforts -- I'm just sorry I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. I'll also note that I don't think the existence of a post office really means there was an official town. I'm open to recreating this article in the future if someone finds some interesting history in a reliable source.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, per Bneu2013's excellent research showing a reasonable modicum of coverage during Mayfield's heyday. Second, nothing at WP:NPLACE would suggest that post offices (a legal status conferred by the government, and which in that time transformed the recipient into the center of social and business life for the surrounding area) are excluded from being considered "legally recognized". Third, although the closer of the recent RFC found a "weak consensus that maps alone cannot demonstrate notability" (my emphasis), we're plainly past that point now. (And the closer did find a clear consensus that routine interpretation of maps is not OR, so the many atlases showing Mayfield can likely support some basic statements.) Fourth, perusing the lamentably incomplete and paywalled archives of the Jackson County Sentinel (the Tennessee one, not the Alabama one) on GenealogyBank, I see that Mayfield was the subject of a society column -- which, while it may not indicate GNG-type notability, is certainly indicative of being a "real place" that is worth having coverage of. (On that note, it also had a telegraph office.) In sum, the underlying question of notability is whether sources exist that can support encyclopedic coverage, and we should have at least enough for a basic and useful paragraph here. My days of doing article rescue on spec are behind me, but if the article is kept please ping me and I'll be happy to take a stab at it. -- Visviva (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • post offices (a legal status conferred by the government, and which in that time transformed the recipient into the center of social and business life for the surrounding area I ask that you show consensus that this is the case. There is an old house in my family that was once a post office. The name by which it was known has no modern analogue in the surrounding community, and none of my family knew its name until we stumbled across an old genealogy book. No significant social or commercial center sprung up around it, just my ancestors' tobacco fields. Having a post office is not a "legal status" (in the US, think incorporation), as much as having a house or having a tree is. It is simply a place some people in the US Postal Service thought convenient to deliver their services to the people who lived in the general area. What you're essentially advocating is that "every place that once had a post office is notable" and essentially, by extension, all post offices are notable. I find that incredulous. Should you call the RfC or should I? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen the post office question come up in other geographic AfDs including another one this week. I find your comments about your family's post office interesting, Indy beetle. Because this is recurring, I think an RfC is needed for general use, not just this AfD, to settle this question once and for all. I encourage doing this in a more public venue -- perhaps a active Wikiproject for geography or post offices (if there are such things) or maybe at the Village Pump.
      In the meantime, I continue to support deletion of this article. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There was a discussion about it here a few years ago. Hut 8.5 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think such an RfC should be at the Village pump. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was only 1/4 of the points that I raised, but I feel that I didn't choose my words as well as I might have on the post office notability question, so I'll give it another go. Even I would not argue that all post offices throughout space and time are presumptively notable. For example, my own urban branch post office is -- to borrow NPLACE's terminology -- more like an irrigation district than a town. Its existence is a technical artifact of the postal distribution system. It is not, AFAIK, "notable" by any relevant standard -- which is another way of saying that an article about it would provide little if any value to the reader.
      But by the same token, recognizing that NPLACE stands for the proposition that "places" run along a spectrum of articleworthiness (from incorporated towns to irrigation districts) that is largely distinct from the GNG, I will raise the following points in favor of considering fourth-class post offices of the rural 19th- and early 20th-century US to be much more toward the "town" end of the spectrum than the "irrigation district" end:
      • Historians have frequently opined on the centrality of rural post offices to their communities in the pre-RFD period. In The American Mail: Enlarger of the Common Life (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1972, pp. 295-96), Wayne E. Fuller writes of the "prestige" of rural post offices and quotes a 19th-century political observer who observed that "[t]he post-offices of the county were the head centers of the community". In Fuller's earlier work RFD (Indiana Univ. Press, 1964, p. 85) he writes that "in rural communities few people were more important than the local postmasters. The very life of their communities pulsated beneath their fingertips". A more recent historian, David Henkin, in The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2006, p. 64) writes that "[p]ost offices were, above all, paradigmatic sites of public life" and notes that in small towns "the post might be the only point of regular contact with the outside world and the only visible embodiment of government authority."
      • Of course, one might fairly question whether these postal historians might be overstating the significance of post offices, just as AFD participants are prone to exaggerate the value of deletion. But it is not only postal historians who have observed the community-defining importance of these institutions. In John Mack Faragher's canonical study of an open-country community (Sugar Creek: Life on the Illinois Prairie, Yale Univ. Press, 1986, p. 176), as Faragher traces the different trajectories of two towns platted during the same feverish period in the 1830s, he quotes approvingly from a 19th-century chronicler of the area who wrote that a community without a post office "of course could not flourish, for what place without mail privileges could ever exist?"
    • For these reasons, I believe that in general, post offices of this particular historical period are worthy of articles because even if the information we can provide on them is relatively sparse, the information is still of encyclopedic value and represents crucial encyclopedic background knowledge for understanding the time and place.
      Finally, returning to the specific post-office community at issue in this AFD, I would contend that (for all of the reasons laid out by myself and others above), regardless of one's opinion about 19th-century fourth-class rural US post offices in general, at least this one -- demonstrably a place that people considered themselves to be "from", not merely where they got their mail -- is of sufficient encyclopedic value to merit an article. Ultimately Wikipedia should include this place for the same reason that contemporary reference works found it worth including: to leave it out would be to leave out important encyclopedic knowledge for understanding the time and place. -- Visviva (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it was a valid designated populated place, what purpose does it serve being a standalone when the vanishingly little content that exists to support it can just be contained in a parent article. That the only designation it has is as a post office makes it even clearer that there is no guideline-based reason to retain it. Redirection can occur after deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out two things about this argument. First, I've shown that it was more than a post office. I agree that it could fit into a parent article, but what's the advantage of deletion as opposed to merge and redirection? How does is deletion, in any way, more useful to someone who may seek information about the location because they saw mention of it in an old newspaper, or saw a letter addressed to someone with a Mayfield, TN address? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to redirect, I just don't see why the history would need to be retained or what could even be merged from it. And I don't see how Mayfield is proven to be anything beyond a post office. It's listed as a birthplace of a few people in a book an amateur genealogist wrote about her own ancestors and "published" through a tiny Mormon vanity publisher/distributor...to extrapolate its designation from such a primary self-published source would be OR. JoelleJay (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and selective merge to to Jackson County, Tennessee per 78.26. Someone with more knowledge in this area can determine what content (if any) should be merged. No need to delete the history prior to redirecting. Frank Anchor 15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. My instinct is to Merge and redirect these geo articles but there is a solid group of editors here arguing to Keep this article so I'll extend the discussion for another week or until another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with keeping the article per Bneu2013's research as well as meeting notability guidelines. Bobherry Talk My Edits 03:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried my hardest to source this one and couldn't find anything of value to add. Denaar (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Philomena O'Brien[edit]

Anne Philomena O'Brien (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:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Could not find significant coverage. Only 3 gscholar hits. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @PMCH2: who created this article in 2021. The source listed as The Encyclopedia of Women and Leadership in Twentieth-Century Australia is pretty impressive. Also, scroll down to all the listings in the Authority Control template. It takes a bit of checking into each returned listing, but there's enough IMO. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Byrne Presents[edit]

Jennifer Byrne Presents (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 pass notability guidelines. Found nothing to support inclusion in a BEFORE. Last episode listed is from 2012, but infobox says still airing, so is it even still on? DonaldD23 talk to me 00:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23, according to the Book Club website, the final episode of this spinoff series was broadcast on 17 May 2016, featuring Andy Griffiths, a children’s book author. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 09:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: This YouTube video points to an episode dated 24 December 2018; however, it may have uploaded to YouTube on that date. Anyway, assuming it ran until May 2016, would the additional content and the fact that the program ran for 11 years improve its notability. Possibly. Rangasyd (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Schwartzkoff, Louise (2011-07-10). "Free to Air - Tuesday July 12". The Sun-Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Fantasy notes: "Still, long, rigorous discussions about books are a luxury often reserved for high school students and undergraduates. Jennifer Byrne's literary chit-chats are a marvellous substitute for the rest of us. As always, Byrne is a thoughtful, open-minded and well-informed host."

    2. Dunn, Emily (2008-06-23). "TV Previews - Tuesday 24". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Sex & Romance notes: "The title may sound salacious but somehow this episode of Jennifer Byrne Presents fails to deliver, though it is not for lack of trying. Byrne is, as always, engaging and well-researched without appearing too much of a smarty-pants. Her panel of guests, including author Christos Tsiolkas, romance writer Anne Gracie, poet and novelist Luke Davies and writer and academic Sophie Gee, are all interesting with their combination of personal anecdotes and interpretations of the place of sex and romance in literature but there are too many loose ends. Novels are mentioned and then forgotten and comments from the panellists are left unchallenged."

    3. McWhirter, Erin (2008-06-24). "Romancing the novel". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Sex & Romance notes: "For First Tuesday Book Club host Jennifer Byrne, pictured, sharing the limelight with her husband, Enough Rope presenter Andrew Denton, is a fun and at times resourceful ride. ... For tonight's Sex And Romance special Australian authors Christos Tsiolkas, Anne Gracie, Luke Davies and Sophie Gee discuss how they find the words to describe love scenes in their books."

    4. Schembri, Jim (2010-03-11). "Critic's view Sunday, March 14". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review notes: "Kudos to host Jennifer Byrne and her First Tuesday Book Club overseers for refusing to allow their discussion of the book-to-film adaptation process to be glorified propaganda touting literature as the superior art form. The ever-cheery Byrne is joined by ... Amid the lively debate are a few pearls, including Marsden's hatred of Fantastic Mr Fox and Collee dreading the new version of Alice in Wonderland because "Tim Burton doesn't have a narrative bone in his body"."

    5. Munro, Kelsey (2009-03-09). "TV Previews - Tuesday 10 March". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review of Jennifer Byrne Presents: Hoaxes notes: "Jennifer Byrne hosts a bite-sized but intelligent look at famous literary hoaxes, with guests ... They discuss what defines a hoax, whether it can have real literary merit and the ethical implications. There's a little enjoyably narky sparring between Knox and Marx."

    6. Beaumont, Anita (2008-06-24). "Highlights - TV & Stars". The Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Sex & Romance notes: "Byrne rattles off a few statistics about them representing half of all paperback fiction sales in the US, before launching into further discussion with Australian authors Christos Tsiolkas, Anne Gracie, Luke Davies and Sophie Gee."

    7. McEvoy, Marc (2007-10-08). "TV previews - Tuesday October 9". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents Writing with Food notes: "It's great to have a show about literature. It's a pity about the late timeslot and the silly fake library behind host Jennifer Byrne but she does a good job keeping our attention, igniting her guests' erudition with pithy comments from her lap notes and preventing a slide into drudgery."

    8. Dubecki, Larissa (2011-11-10). "Tuesday November 15 - Previews - Your Critical Guide to the Week". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Di Morrissey notes: "This is a spinoff from the popular First Tuesday Book Club. Jennifer Byrne brings her enthusiasm for the written word to this cross between a chat show and a talking-heads series in which she genially interrogates authors for 25 minutes."

    9. Houston, Melinda (2010-07-13). "Green Guide's Critical View - TV & Weather". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review notes: "A bracing episode of this engaging series as Byrne proves she hasn't entirely lost her journalistic edge. It's the nature of the show that this was always going to be a conversation, not an interrogation, so some of Christopher Hitchens's more egregious assertions are politely let through to the keeper (for instance, that he is neither argumentative nor contrarian). ... But it's when talk turns to the place of women that Byrne can no longer contain herself and the sparks really start to fly. "

    10. Galvin, Nick (2011-09-25). "Free to Air - Tuesday September 27". The Sun-Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Christos Tsiolkas notes: "Another cracking interview from the ever-smiling Jennifer Byrne, proving that entertaining, thought-provoking TV can come out of the simplest formats, as long as the content is strong."

    11. Kalina, Paul (2012-08-27). "Free to Air - Tuesday August 28". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Dava Sobel notes: "She is Jennifer Byrne's guest tonight, and what ensues is an eloquent and inspiring discussion about her work."

    12. Ellis, Mark (2010-11-11). "Tuesday, November 16 Critic's view". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Graphic Novels notes: "It's a niche sector of publishing that is given serious analysis by the ever-smiling and enthusiastic Byrne. The discussion is perhaps at its best when covering the "how" of producing this genre and starts to sparkle a little when discussing how it works on a page by showing several time frames at once. But it does get a bit bogged down in its own seriousness. For serious book lovers and graphic-novel readers only."

    13. Nicholson, Sarah (2008-04-23). "Starting a new chapter". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The article notes: "Byrne's reading list grew considerably this year when she signed to do the Jennifer Byrne Presents specials as well as her regular hosting gig on First Tuesday Book Club. The first episode of the new program will screen this week with Byrne sitting down to chat with authors Peter Carey, Paul Auster and Ian McEwan in an experience she describes as "a total dream"."

    14. Allan, Roxanne (2012-06-12). "Close Up - Read on Lines With Punch". Sunday Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The article about Jennifer Byrne Presents: Punch Lines notes: "These genres and topics will be explored through three special episodes - dubbed Jennifer Byrne Presents - and act as additions to the monthly First Tuesday Book Club. ... Punch Lines, for example, is the next Jennifer Byrne Presents special to be aired this week and looks at the art form of comedic writing - something with which Byrne's husband, TV presenter and producer Andrew Denton, is well acquainted."

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

    Cunard (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Redoing the original close by BD2412 for technical reasons. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nabeel[edit]

Ahmad Nabeel (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 science person, links are primary sources, confirmation of where they've worked or appear to be SEO sites. Nothing of note found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like to see more assessment of the sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, it would be nice to hear from some editors experienced at AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I manually assessed the first three sources, they are independent and significant (never heard of these news sources before but I didn't find any outstanding problems). This person got a lot of coverage for his breakthrough "Klens" and received the aforementioned international award, which should meet WP:NACADEMIC #2. While this isn't exactly an academic I believe it's close enough, and the sources should meet GNG. Also they definitely aren't SEO sites. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to LeBron James. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria James[edit]

Gloria James (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)

Being the mother of the famous basketball star isn't notable, coverage appears either related to him directly or talking about his problems with the law. Rest of the coverage appears typical celeb gossip. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria James Wiki article is fine. It's part of American history. The truth is the truth. It should stay. 69.14.233.102 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need articles that talk about her. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is famous for being the mother of a basketball star but is a large part of his story and is widely known and talked about. Very famous regardless of her connection to Lebron. PD8 5:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_27&oldid=1163689492"