Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

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. The argument that the subject held a post that was as influential as that of a cabinet minister is a persuasive one, and has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. K. Kulevome[edit]

D. K. Kulevome (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Resident Minister to Guinea" was not just a diplomatic post; in Nkrumah's days, it was also considered a ministerial position to a certain extent (check here). Due to Ghana-Guinea relations at the time (check here), the position of Resident Minister to Guinea was an important political post for the Nkrumah government, and for this reason, top political officials of the then CPP government were mostly appointed to this position. More importantly, finding digital sources to support and improve some Ghanaian articles is quite daunting. We must consider that the lack of references in this case may not necessarily equate to a lack of notability. To your point Bensci54, he served in ambassadorial positions for more than two years. He was Ghana's ambassador to Japan in 1966. Another document published in 1969 suggests that he was still Ghana's ambassador to Japan in the aforementioned year. The link has been added to the article (including more references and some more information). It is quite unfortunate that there is a lack of adequate resources for a page I find very important (for diplomacy, Ghana's diplomatic history etc). For this reason, I employ us all to reason with me on how editors in Ghana and Africa can add free knowledge to our beloved freely accessible encyclopaedia (Wikipedia) when there isn't much documentation to cite as references. Many important Ghanaian pages have been deleted due to the lack of references and hasty generalisation without understanding the context. It is quite unfortunate. This is not meant to trivialise the efforts of administrators and editors who work tirelessly to ensure that Wikipedia remains a source of credible information for the general public. This is a call to us editors to empathise with other editors from different geographic locations, understanding their unique needs and challenges. It is a struggle for us. Thanks Kinvidia (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kinvidia, and as the essence of the GNG is verifiability of information worth keeping. Clearly, a narrow deletionist interpretation of the GNG is even more threatening to Ghana's diplomatic history than it is to that of a great power. Moonraker (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the explanation given above by Kinvidia. Seems reasonable. I don't find sources, but I'll accept what's explained above. Feel free to correct me if I'm off the mark. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 17 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Korb[edit]

Darren Korb (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The entire article is sourced to trivial mentions from reviews of the games he composed/voice-acted for, or primary coverage interviews. I suggest merging to Supergiant Games, which he is predominantly known for as its main composer and one of its voice actors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. I'm struggling to see how Korb fails GNG. Primary coverage interviews are valuable. I'm supposing you're talking about these sources
* https://web.archive.org/web/20150708231904/http://videogamewriters.com/interview-darren-korb-64357
* https://kotaku.com/the-best-game-music-of-2011-bastion-5871695
* https://web.archive.org/web/20150209221752/http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/grammys-soundtrack-category-has-yet-to-embrace-video-game-scores/
I don't see how if a composer and his soundtrack work on video games is so acclaimed that he garners interviews in a high-profile gaming-related source deemed reliable (Kotaku) and a high-profile general news source (LA Times), that those interviews somehow shouldn't count as far as helping establish notability (?)... but, here are a couple more reliable sources that go beyond "trivial mentions from reviews of the games" and also are not interviews:
* https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/26/5751006/transitor-soundtrack-new-genre-old-world-electronic-post-rock
* https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-music-of-transistor-in-the-key-of-red/1100-6420099/
Those are the ones already included in the article.
I didn't have to search much at all to find these, which I guess I'll spend the weekend and/or Monday & Tuesday incorporating into the article. Please note, I'll have to sift through these to see which ones can actually be suitable for the article and where exactly to place them within it, but the sheer amount of them should give you some sort of insight as to the fact that there is actually a lot to work with here. I included dates for my own reference for when I go through them:
Judging off of really quick glances at the headlines for these articles, it seems like Korb's contributions are heavily praised aspects of the games he has scored, and that includes a good amount of industry award nominations/wins. Some of these sources are award nomination listings. Aside from those, I'm sure some of the other sources only include a passing mention of Korb, but that's probably not the majority of them. And even then, those sources would likely provide great supplemental information for the article (I don't think that's a hot take either). I will definitely concede this article needs a considerable amount of reworking and polishing. But I'm really failing to grasp how the subject does not meet GNG. Hopefully once I incorporate the above sources into the article, that'll help. Soulbust (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a load of WP:REFBOMBing and little of actual substance. The very fact that you had to list all of these sources instead of a few actually pertinent ones shows that you are trying to impress by sheer amount rather than what they actually contain. Many of them have almost nothing.
I would suggest listing the WP:THREE best possible sources that prove the article is notable rather than trying to make people too lazy to look through them and take you at your word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point you towards WP:PST since apparently you believe an article can rest solely on interviews as proof of notability. Specifically the first sentence, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not why you are trying to assert that I'm "trying to impress by sheer amount", when I literally said I would sift through the sources personally to see what can be used. I only listed the sheer amount to display that there is a likelihood of "actual substance" as you put it. I'm not trying to make anyone look "too lazy" either; as I said: "Please note, I'll have to sift through these to see which ones can actually be suitable for the article and where exactly to place them within it, but the sheer amount of them should give you some sort of insight as to the fact that there is actually a lot to work with here." So again, please note that. Also I have no idea how you discerned in a little over an hour that most of theses 29 references I listed above "have almost nothing". I can't say I'll be able to go through them that fast as I'll be going through them carefully and thoroughly, but thanks for pointing me towards those guidelines. I also never said I believe an article can rest solely on interviews, only that "Primary coverage interviews are valuable" and that those interviews help establish notability. Thanks. Soulbust (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You sort through the sources before using them in an AfD unless you are trying to short-circuit the entire proceedings. Just dumping a list of random sources here doesn't help anything in the slightest and makes things more confusing for everyone, especially if none of them turn out to be WP:SIGCOV. Maybe wait until you have a leg to stand on before trying to say the nomination is wrong, rather than making ad hominem arguments about how it's impossible for me to read sources or analyze them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said "many of them have almost nothing". I simply pointed out how I didn't understand how you could make that assertion so soon, considering just how many sources there were, not an attempt at ad hominem. If you were able to go through them that fast, then cheers. I wish I could do that. I'm not trying to short-circuit any proceedings. I also give editors weighing in on this AfD all the faith that they can understand where I am coming from in my listing of those references. I'll move them to the article's talk page. I would also remove them from this discussion, but will leave them for now to not remove any context. Soulbust (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for transparency: I condensed the listing of references into a ref ideas template so it's easier to digest going forward. All references I initially listed are still listed. Soulbust (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated a good chunk of those references into the article. Some of them definitely didn't have any real place in the article. Some of them were of the more supplemental nature I mentioned earlier. But all in all, the article is now fleshed out a good amount and I'm even more of the opinion now that it establishes GNG. There is definitely SIGCOV in there, with sources past just interviews. There is obviously still some room for improvement, but I think this is past a keep or delete situation. Will continue to improve article later in the week if possible. Soulbust (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you single out some that provide significant coverage to the subject itself please. We're here to establish notability through significant coverage of reliable sources, not every passing mention in existence. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per these three sources: "Hades’ Godly Soundtrack Is A Natural Evolution For Supergiant’s Darren Korb", "Transistor soundtrack creation saw vocals recorded in wardrobe and the birth of a new genre", "Darren Korb, The Musical Mind Behind The Hades Soundtrack". I'll even throw in an extra one: The Music of Transistor: In The Key of Red. In addition, his music appears on many of the "Best of" lists which (while not often significant coverage) do good to establish notability in his field. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: He also won two 2011 Spike Video Game Awards for Best Song and Best Score and was nominated at The Game Awards 2014 and The Game Awards 2020 for Best Score. Clearly, WP:ANYBIO is met for that. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See the words: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Why I Asks sources above. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense. His name gets title dropped, but the significant coverage is not there. Unless notability is how many times you get mentioned in the title of an article, I can't imagine that qualifies for the WP:SIGCOV criterion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the articles with my own eyes. He's discussed throughout the articles. It's going to be an uphill battle for you to convince people of it being a "passing mention" when he's name dropped in the article titles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it though? The articles describe the songs, not Korb himself. It literally only says the songs were made by Korb. If you're looking to prove the music of Hades or Transistor is notable, that's one matter, and it would support the existence of a Music of Hades (video game) article, but that doesn't prove Korb himself is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines are nice and useful but I really think there's just an eye test aspect to this particular case. Especially now, after the contributions I made to the article last night - I think if one were to go through this article, they can see he has the tangible industry award recognition, as well as subjective critical acclaim to all of his works. This establishes GNG and is covered by sources in a way that meet SIGCOV. I don't quite love the idea of WP:THREE. I get that three is easier to sift through for an AfD discussion but it seems like an arbitrary mark to hit. That being said, I think the three listed above by Why? I Ask work well. I would additionally note this source: Pyre's Composer On The Challenges Of Creating His Most Diverse Game Soundtrack Yet (Kotaku). It includes some quotes from Korb, but it isn't a straight up Q&A-formatted interview source.
    And in regard to the suggestion that it's his songs and not himself that is earning the coverage: I think in a lot of the referencing, it's actually his work or style on the songs. There's a lot of sourcing on the specific instruments and sonic palettes he uses in the soundtracks. And it isn't just Transistor and Hades. His work on Bastion has also received comparable levels of coverage and acclaim. And because he serves as the audio director for the games, his contributions to things like sound effects and voice recording are also to be included; and they are, cited by reliable sources in the article. It's also of note that his voice acting as the main character of Hades has been covered. An example of SIGCOV of that work includes: this Vice source. Soulbust (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I will reiterate that an article on the games' music is probably notable. There are numerous such articles for many games and movies that have standout soundtracks. But notability is not inherited. This entire article is essentially taking the notability of the music and voice acted roles he made and attributing it to Darren Korb the person. But the soundtrack is what is notable here and is what the articles are about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that notability isn't inherited but that criteria says "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject."" And I just don't think that applies to Korb. It would make more sense to say that of his work, i.e. "this soundtrack album does not have inherited notability just because it was made by Korb." I would also disagree with that, but it would make more sense to me. Like, what "other, legitimately notable subject" that Korb worked with is the subject that is somehow making Korb inherit notability? Because it can't be the games... because his work with Supergiant was as their audio director and composer, and later voice actor - and that work is a big factor as to what makes the games so acclaimed.
    Darren Korb the person happens to be a composer, and his work as a composer happens to have garnered him much coverage in reliable sourcing. To me, this is like saying Tyrese Haliburton the person isn't notable outside of his work as a basketball player. Also in your response to @Sergecross73:, you questioned the articles as describing the songs, not Korb himself. This is untrue. I'm assuming we are discussing the articles that @Why? I Ask: listed. The VGR source is about Korb, and doesn't mention a song in specific. Same goes for the Polygon source, which discusses Korb's process when he approaches composing. Yes that is an aspect of his work, but it's closer to coverage of him as a composer than of his compositions. Soulbust (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the journalists believed Korb himself was worthy of note, they would have done a profile on the person. Instead, they simply discussed only the music and the process of the music's creation. This indicates to me that the music is what they believed to be important, and Wikipedia should reflect that.
    To show an example of the opposite, here is some significant coverage of Nobuo Uematsu from Time magazine. It mentions FF in passing, but mostly focuses on him. I wouldn't debate that demonstrates he is notable. It's possible the VGR article rises to that level, but it does not seem like a reliable source and was obviously tossed into the mix in a desperate attempt to find something that actually talks about him more specifically. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several interviews that sketch out profiles of Korb (especially his two in Nintendo Life [1][2]). (And yes, interviews can count toward notability per WP:INTERVIEW.) Why? I Ask (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the assertions in WP:INTERVIEW. However, I disagree that those Nintendo Life interviews have sufficient transformative thoughts to not be trivial, as stated by the essay. They are mostly lists of questions and answers, making them primary sources. I have not noted an interview with enough independent analysis of the person to be a viable secondary source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You shifted from trying to say the articles only discuss the songs (which again wasn't true). Now it's that only his music, as opposed to him, is notable. And I don't understand what you're trying to say by trying to interpret the journalists' intents? I could as easily say they think Korb is worthy of note, and that since he is a vg composer they're going to cover his composition work (and voice acting work when applicable).
    When I listed 29 sources, saying I would sift through them and see which were suitable for this article, you said I was trying to impress with the sheer amount. Now, 3 sources get listed by another editor (as per your request to mention WP:THREE sources) and you call one of those sources a desperate reach? Okay, what about the other 2 (or the bonus one added by Why? I Ask)? or the bonus one I offered?
    FWIW, I would argue that that Time source helps establish notability for Nobuo Uematsu. Soulbust (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:
    Since the argument is being made that a theoretical "Music of Hades" article would be cool over an article for Korb, I went through the Category:Video game soundtracks listing.
    I had an extremely long chunk of text breaking down that listing, going through exclusions from that list and why I was excluding them. But I'm gonna try my best to condense it. Basically, my point for that was centered around any applicable article on that list (A: individual soundtracks, either obviously so reading the title of an article (Diablo II Soundtrack) or otherwise (Fleeting Colors in Flight), B: Music of [individual game] articles (like Music of The Last of Us). I understand that "other stuff exists" but y'know.
    The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the composers, for the soundtracks discussed in those "Music of [x]" articles or something like Halo 4 Original Soundtrack, have their own articles. Whenever there is a composer that doesn't have an article, there's always a but scenario. And that scenario is usually they aren't the sole or lead composer like Korb is (i.e. Bill Helm for RDR - Helm did not return for RDR2 but RDR's co-composer did); this sort of scenario includes cases where composers only contributed additional or DLC compositions.
    Basically, at the end of the day: Each sole composer of a game's soundtrack which has its own article on Wikipedia has an article of their own. And the overwhelming majority of these composers only have 1 such game that has its own "Music of [x]" article. Korb, with Bastion, Transistor, and especially Hades would potentially - and uncomfortably - have up to 3. Soulbust (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using that as an example of actual SIGCOV, although I think this argument is going nowhere. There's definitely a disagreement that's completely impossible to reconcile as to what exactly counts towards notability here, so others will have to weigh in. FWIW, I don't think it's that peculiar to have 3 articles on his music without having an article himself, being a composer in a niche indie game field whose music was just critically received incredibly well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misread/misunderstood your comment "I wouldn't debate that demonstrates he is notable." But I think some of the sourcing on Korb is akin to that example you provided in it meeting SIGCOV. Soulbust (e) 08:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A reminder that there's currently no one advocating for deletion beyond the nominator so far, so you dont really even need to be thinking of alternatives like this... Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured it wouldn't hurt to address it, but that's fair yeah. Soulbust (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone else's arguments and rationales. The coverage surrounding this individual and his accolades are not subjective opinion, but objective facts. Uphill battle indeed. Haleth (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as far as I'm concerned, Soulbust has provided enough sources with SIGCOV to meet GNG (and well done for keeping civil throughout). Ingratis (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Zee[edit]

Jen Zee (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The entire article is sourced to trivial mentions from reviews of the games she made artwork for, or primary coverage interviews. All the sources are about the development of Bastion or other video games rather than directly being about the subject and the info would most likely be better off in their respective development sections. I suggest merging to Supergiant Games which she is predominantly known for, with pretty much all mentions of her being in the context of her work at that studio only. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For full transparency, I'm the author of the article and asked Zxcvbnm to bring the article to AfD after he redirected it. I also would ask that if the article is deleted, it should be redirected to Supergiant Games. It's a reasonable redirect target, and the history would be kept in case she either got more coverage (and we can use the work I've done here and easily move it into other places). That said, I feel that she meets WP:GNG already today per my arguments below:
  • Per WP:NARTIST, 4c says, "won significant critical attention." I'd argue that a BAFTA for Artistic Achievement that was awarded to well, her specifically, definitely and easily qualifies for it, and the deluge of critical reception that calls her out by name specifically is rare in video games. Her win was actually the reason that I created this article (most other winners had their own pages). She was also (on her own as a credit) nominated for a DICE award as well.
  • I'd argue that although interviews are the main part of the articles that are more about "her", they do feature commentary about her work as well (in a way a straight interview article normally wouldn't) and pass WP:SIGCOV. Examples include, but are not limited to: [3], [4], [5].
  • The mentions are also extremely extensive in reviews and repeatedly call her out by name in a way that is extremely uncommon in the video game medium. At a certain point, once someone has enough coverage like this where they're constantly, I think it has to qualify. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
  • Lastly, and this is an ignore all rules argument: we suck at covering women in Wikipedia (although we're making more progress on it). And for video game development, artists are commonly one of the largest categories where female staff is dominant, but coverage is often lighter because articles come out highlighting their work instead of diving into it (see two random examples I quickly pulled here: [11], [12]). We have an example of an award-winning female artist in her field, and although a portion of this content could (and should) be covered at the company page, this is the exact sort of thing that we should find a way to cover individually at Wikipedia. Nomader (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, an "ignore all rules" argument would make more sense if this artist were just scooching up to the notability line and had a couple of significant articles to her name. Maybe it wouldn't normally be quite enough but that could be waived to ensure there was no bias.
But, this situation is not that. There is no significant coverage at all, just a bunch of shout-outs. The Transistor review in The Mary Sue name-checks the artist and that's it. Any suggestion she is notable is simply wishful thinking. The interview articles are, well, almost entirely about the game's design, rather than the artist. They belong in the development section of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the large number of interviews that she's done in notable publications, the coverage that her work has received, and the awards that she has been given and nominated for make her pass WP:GNG and are far past shout-outs and passing mentions. I want to avoid needlessly refbombing this discussion with more refs, but I encourage editors who are thinking about which way to !vote to review the scale of the references in the article and the many pieces that both focus on her work (and her) along with the BAFTA award and DICE nomination pieces before making a decision. Nomader (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing shows she clearly falls under WP:CREATIVE's #3, at minimum, and thus we don't have to worry about the GNG at this time. That allowance means there's need to expand out, but per standard AFD rules, this doesn't have to be done "now". --Masem (t) 02:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomader laid out a good case as to why she meets notability criteria for creative professionals, and Masem made some good points about AfD rules and where an expectation of a deluge in coverage, so to speak, is not necessary for this particular subject. The nominator's rationale is noted, but not accepted. Haleth (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets our guidelines for notability. Nomader has made a case for the bio meeting WP:GNH and Masem has shown that she meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Bruxton (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article clearly meets guidelines for notability as other users have pointed out. Historyday01 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Films[edit]

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

I don't think this article passes WP:NCORP. While the company did produce award-winning films, I haven't found acceptable sources to establish the company's notability independent of those awards. The closest I've found are a handful of articles discussing a lawsuit against producer Ted Field by Central Films that was settled out of court, but I'd argue those should be in Field's article and don't necessarily justify a separate Central Films article. Aside from those, the only mentions of the company in reliable sources are trivial, like film reviews that list it as a production company. I can't even find non-trivial mentions in French sources to establish notability (though I don't speak French, so that could be on me), and there's no record of a French Wikipedia article on this company either (redlink, deletion log search). AnAbandonedMall (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Samoa[edit]

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Samoa (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:NRIVALRY as there's no GNG coverage of the rivalry. Although certain matches mention pass GNG, there's no mention of the sides being rivals or anything like that. Similar discussions such as this and this among many other history of xx matches articles have all been deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I personally feel the article is of value and relevance, but if it does not quite meet the relevancy standards as per GNG, then it can be deleted. Thanks. Mrgoggins90 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per linked discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for exactly the same reasons as the other non-rivalries linked by the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really a rivalry. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:17, 24 March 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 Agoura Hills, California. Cannot redirect to Agoura Hills, which is a redirect, or East Agoura which is a redirect to the article being considered for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Agoura, Agoura Hills, California[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khwopa Higher Secondary School[edit]

Khwopa 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)

Advertising Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In its original iteration (see page history), the article was fairly neutral, but the topic is still un-notable. It could be restored to an earlier revision, but I think deletion would be a better course due to the obvious notability problems. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever, and not enough sources to pass GNG. CycloneYoris talk! 22:58, 24 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin S. Grant[edit]

Justin S. Grant (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 musical person. No charted singles, zero hits in Gnews, Gsearch is his website, various social media then peters off. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are mostly reviews and press-realeases, including 2 openly "sponsored" ones. KhinMoTi (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:49, 17 March 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 Comoros at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Swimming. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Attoumane[edit]

Mohamed Attoumane (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Comoros at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Swimming. Although I see where Ingratis is coming from on the redirect target above, the country page has a lovely little well-sourced summary that exists about his work at that Olympics. I think it'd be a perfect target for a redirect. (I also checked other sources and found no coverage and no other relevant competitions). Nomader (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm more than happy to support the alternative redirect target suggested by User:Nomader. Ingratis (talk) 14:35, 18 March 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 Sainik Schools. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School, Bijapur[edit]

Sainik School, Bijapur (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 cannot see how this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect to Sainik Schools -- Sohom Datta (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. It was withdrawn by nominator, and there were no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Why? I Ask (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockbrook[edit]

Rockbrook (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)

Perhaps more suitable for Wikivoyage Chidgk1 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination is not based on any of the reasons for deletion that I am familiar with. Even if WP:NPLACE was not met (and I do not think that is the case), we would redirect to a related/superset title. Like Rathfarnham. Otherwise, as far as I can see, there is no reason for deletion (and the nom hasn't, to my mind, actually offered one). GNG and GEOLAND appear to be met. If the content was overly "touristy", then that can (and has been) easily addressed. Deletion is not cleanup. Guliolopez (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first, the nomination is malformed, and I think simply invalid, failing to offer any policy reason (throwaway remarks about Wikivoyage are both irrelevant and wrong - there is no suitable content here), and second, this meets WP:NPLACE. It is a very minor locale now, but it has history and a clear location. It is part of a wider Rathfarnham but still rates its own short article. SeoR (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw delete proposal OK thanks for improving Chidgk1 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Birinci Lig[edit]

2005–06 Birinci Lig (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)

Without any cite these numbers could just be someones fantasy football Chidgk1 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal (car)[edit]

Arsenal (car) (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 could not find an English source but perhaps you are more skilled at searching than I am. The German article has a source but I cannot read it. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: London Daily Mail, Nov 15, 1898, p. 8. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Would appear to have sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. We usually keep automobile marques in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There should be more sources out there on this and if it's an early car like this, it's definitely important.KatoKungLee (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although more sources need to be added for this to be a decent article. CycloneYoris talk! 22:38, 24 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adílio Varela[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Adílio Varela (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 at 2 AfDs due to being young, having an ongoing career and playing 23 minutes of professional football about 6 years ago. His ongoing career in what is now the 4th tier of Portuguese football certainly doesn't seem to be capturing any attention so any presumption of notability based on his ongoing career now seems invalid. The 'grace period' is well and truly over now. Furthermore, WP:NFOOTBALL (tied to the defunct WP:FPL) is now essentially WP:SPORTBASIC with WP:GNG.

I can find no new coverage since the first AfD. Best WP:RS coverage found are Sapo, Ojogo (translated) and Record. All of these discuss the same routine event - a loan - the articles themselves pre-date the first AfD, where nobody held the opinion that Varela met GNG but were happy to keep based on the SNG at the time. Unless Varela can be evidenced to pass SPORTBASIC, deletion is the only valid outcome. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note, I have taken note of this source - Jovens Promessas. This is a Blogspot fan blog and their about us page confirms that it's not WP:RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Judging that WP:NFOOTY is now obsolete (for generally good reasons too), I think we can finally admit here that Varela was never really notable in the first place. I came into this discussion expecting to say that "notability doesn't expire" but he clearly never had it to begin with and survived at the whims of a technicality from old rules. Nomader (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in 2020 and 2021, still does. Alvaldi (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:21, 20 March 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. and Move to Chiksaura Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiksaura Bazar[edit]

Chiksaura Bazar (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 refs on the page for many years. No reason to believe that a small village market is notable, no RS that I can find that meet the GNG JMWt (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there evidence that the village, at least, exists? WP:GEOLAND has a lower bar and this may pass that notability guideline. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and then Move to Chicksaura, as suggested by EmeraldRange, based on the government source they discovered, it now meets WP:GEOLAND. However, virtually all the existing information should be removed since it is not well-sourced.Onel5969 TT me 19:40, 24 March 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. Salvio giuliano 09:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques J.A. Asselin[edit]

Jacques J.A. Asselin (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO, a gnews search comes up with a Asselin involved in petanque, and a lottery winner, I don't think it's the same person as ambassador. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG, BIO, NPOL. Sources in the article and BEFORE showed primary, listings, mentions, nothing that is SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. Keep voters above have failed to show any IS RS with SIGCOV, just opinions not backed by policy and guidelines, in fact they are repeatedly dismissing BLP guidelines regarding sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As TimothyBlue said, fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NPOL.Onel5969 TT me 19:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Payton[edit]

Hunter Payton (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)

Spam for non notable actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No significant parts in notable productions. No major awards. Created by now blocked UPE account. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. We have UPE promotion and you show up to canvass the Advertisement Rescue Squad and argue keep while lying about the notability guidelines. Why am I not surprised? A bit part in a single episode does not even come remotely close to being good for NACTOR. NACTOR requires significant roles, not just credited. But you already know that. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. It is best practice to discuss content. WP:AVOIDYOU and avoid the name calling and dispersions, But you already know that. Lightburst (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete He was in ONE episode as the kid at a murder scene in Criminal Minds, at age 12. That doesn't meet ACTOR 1 as explained above, that's a wildly fanciful claim. I'm not sure how you would read part one of ACTOR and determine that... Other roles are bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article from spammer, lacks evidence that WP:NACTOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG, BIO, NACTOR. Source table:
Comments Source
Interview, not IS RS 1. "Interview with award winning actor Hunter Payton". Naluda Magazine. 30 January 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
A "photo flash" promo for current and former child stars exhibit. Not SIGCOV 2. ^ Desk, TV News. "Photo Flash: Current & Former Child Stars Come Together for New Hollywood Museum Exhibit". Retrieved 2017-07-27.
A "photo flash" promo for current and former child stars exhibit. Not SIGCOV 3. ^ BWW News Desk. "Photo Flash: Former Child Stars Celebrated at The Hollywood Museum". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
Mention, no SIGCOV EURweb". EURweb. 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
A "photo flash" promo for current and former child stars exhibit. Not SIGCOV 5. ^ BWW News Desk. "Photo Flash: Child Stars & Moms from Stage, TV & Film Gather at Hollywood Museum". Broadway World. Retrieved 2017-07-27.
Spoiler for episode on affliate website. Not about subject, promo KSiteTV". www.ksitetv.com. 27 October 2016. Retrieved 2017-07-28.
Rotten Tomatoes mention of movie, no SIGCOV about subject 7. ^ Jump up to:a b "A Genie's Tail 2022, Comedy, 1h 29m". Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
Nomination page for an awards show. Not SIGCOV 8. ^ "2016 nominations - Young Entertainer Awards" (PDF).
BEFORE showed more of the same as above. Nothing meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.
@Lightburst: did an intense BEFORE and came up empty for sources; they demonstate well that this fails guidelines. // Timothy :: talk  23:41, 21 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Richard Golden[edit]

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

Per WP:BLPCRIME, we shouldn't have articles about otherwise non notable persons accused of crimes (but not convicted). Fram (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and New Jersey. Fram (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable individuals who have not yet been convicted of a crime are protected by WP:BLPCRIME. Wikipedia is not a police blotter, and we do not publish incriminating Wikipedia articles for every person whose arrest has been covered in the media. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with an as yet unwritten article about Sheriff Mike Chitwood, who appears to be quite outspoken in his views and is probably more notable than this particular person called Richard Golden. At least half the sources in the article appear to be related to Chitwood's statements and actions around the Goyim Defense League hate group. A dozen other group members have been arrested, so why single out Golden's arrest in particular? While one could argue that the crime is notable but this story wouldn't even be news if the victim was not the elected sheriff of Volusia County, Florida and previously the Police Chief of the Daytona Beach Police Department. The double handful of Wikipedia articles I have found about the Arrest of <a person> appear to be notable because of the long term notability of the arrest itself, due to things like violence, photography, historical events, journalists or foreign nationals accused of spying, or other controversies where the arrest is condemned as being abusive or inappropriate. I don't see that here. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can't merge to an article that doesn't exist. Joyous! Noise! 16:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cameron if your considering writing an article about Chitwood, I think I saw some SIGCOV beyond this 1E. Worth checking.  // Timothy :: talk  00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Goyim Defense League or a seperate article about Mike Chitwood. It seems more appropriate now for it to go to a seperate article about the sherrif, or be merged in to the Goyim Defense League as they are the ones behind the string of hate comments and such, but it is something that does have notabiltity due to the fact this has been going on for weeks and the nature of the incidents. Jennytacular (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now that I have seen other policies, the best course of action appears to be to remove this article since the issues addressed are valid and until he is convicted or this acheives significant coverage again, it should be drafted or removed for now.
    Jennytacular (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BLPCRIME clearly states, For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Merging this content, which really is focused on accusations against a non-notable individual, into another article, is still a violation of Wikipedia policy. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with the analysis that Wikipedia:BLPCRIME suggests a delete in this instance. Not an independently notable individual prior to charges, not yet convicted, and a merge doesn’t resolve the issue. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. It seems like a standard arrest, except with Florida with the Sunshine Law to having that information available. – The Grid (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Goyim Defense League, whom this individual appears to be part of and whose activities are related. Djflem (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on WP:BLPCRIME, a standard arrest. Nothing to merge; there is already a brief mention of the event at Goyim Defense League. Joyous! Noise! 18:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLPCRIME, per nom and others.  // Timothy :: talk  00:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. Take your pick.Onel5969 TT me 22:04, 23 March 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Callis[edit]

Ann Callis (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 claim to notability is that she was a judicial circuit judge and a candidate for Congress. She was elected to the third circuit which represents Madison County and Bond County as per the Illinois Blue Book, a fairly small jurisdiction. Her judgeship, while an accomplishment, as a trial level judge elected by the voters of two counties, she is not presumed notable under notability. There is no record that she ruled on any cases of note. The closest thing is that "she was involved with the creation of the first Veterans’ Court in Illinois, which received the national 2010 Paul H. Chapman Award," but that phrase is so vague her actual level of involvement cannot be known and cannot be used to claim notability. Her candidacy, while Illinois's 13th was a targeted race, but does not meet the level of historical interest set by the candidacy of Christine O'Donnell. Every election will get coverage. This was no different. Therefore, I propose a deletion. For reference, a similar conclusion was drawn in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric S. Pistorius. It might be appropriate to migrate some content to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2014#District 13 Mpen320 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Your argument is ignoring WP:GNG. There are more than enough sources to pass it. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No. It doesn't. My nomination should make it clear she does not pass GNG either. The types of independent, in-depth sources that would allow one to meet GNG are ruled out from the above.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page clearly has enough sources to fulfill GNG, and feel that the OP could have pursued these changes in another form, showing this whole AfD runs afoul of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. I would suggest the OP improve the image to make it stronger rather than pursuing deletion as a "solution". Also the example cited as "evidence" to support the deletion seems faulty as well. Historyday01 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did a Google and newspaper search and came to the conclusion that Callis does not meet GNG as a local officeholder and one time Congressional candidate which makes any alternatives to deletion a moot point. You and other editors are more than happy to find GNG meeting content to demonstrate to others the merit(s) of our respective views. You mention "improve the image." My nomination does not mention any image. I feel that is just setting up an argument I did not make to strengthen your view, which is unfair.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more participation before closing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonably notable and well sourced article. BogLogs (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:NPOL, not elected to office. As per nom, minor judicial appointment, fails WP:GNG. Coverage presented in the main is routine local media generated from electoral candidacy. Lacks "significant coverage". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a difficult AfD because most of the coverage is local coverage, both of the subject's appointment as a judge and in the context of her candidacy for Congress (as shown in the article). There is some (brief) coverage of her accomplishments as a judge. If the consensus is to not keep the page, it should be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2014#District 13 as a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for the US House (as described in WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. These do not meet that standard. Not seeing anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, just routine local news. Doesn't meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, NPOL.  // Timothy :: talk  12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's consensus that there's no inherent notability here, but no consensus so far on GNG. Detailed analyses of the source material would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient WP:GNG. Questionable on WP:NPOL but sufficient sourcing I lean towards preserve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of enough of significant coverage for any BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The coverage that exists appears to almost entirely be in the form of routine local election coverage, which is not typically considered sufficient for this kind of article; this is because it is the duty of local news to provide information on local candidates, but this does not necessarily translate to wide notability. Similarly, the cited national sources basically only provide a name drop, which is clearly not sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Curbon's assessment of the sourcing. Does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 24 March 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 Conan Gray#Headlining tours. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Gray World Tour 2022[edit]

Conan Gray World Tour 2022 (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 a concert tour, not properly referenced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, every concert tour is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists or existed -- the notability test is not passed simply by verifying that the tour happened, it's passed by showing, in the exact words of NTOUR, "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms".
But this is showing nothing of the sort: apart from one article in a reliable source that merely lists the tour dates, this is otherwise "referenced" to a mix of unreliable sources (Uproxx), primary sources (the performer's own self-published website about himself, the self-published websites of individual venues he's performing at), and background information on his album that doesn't address the associated tour at all, let alone establishing any kind of notability under the terms that NTOUR requires. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 17 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty List[edit]

Naughty List (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:NMUSIC. Only one independent non-database source, the Rolling Stone article; and even that one is borderline trivial. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found a long list of announcement articles ([13][14][15][16][17]) and a full review of the song, and all from a brief Google search. This plus the charting is plenty enough. QuietHere (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to push back on the "borderline trivial" assessment of the Rolling Stone article. That article is standard length for a single announcement/release and describes a good bit of detail about the song. I've seen much worse from this type of article, including while searching for coverage of this very song. QuietHere (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am primarily convinced by the coverage provided by QuietHere. That provides enough evidence in my opinion that there is significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources for this song to be considered notable enough for its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Spartans in 2021[edit]

Salem Spartans in 2021 (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)

Don't need a separate season article for this team which competes in a regional domestic competition. Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources cited in the article are mostly a collection of scores and stats, not prose. There doesn't appear to be any content or sources worth merging into the main Salem Spartans article, so it's ok to delete. ProQuest actually turns up quite a bit of match coverage on the Salem Spartans in 2021 in major newspapers including The Times of India and The Hindu, but content from the most relevant sources could easily be incorporated directly into the main Salem Spartans article. There is no need for a standalone article for this season per WP:NSEASONS. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Doesn't look to be anything relevant enough to merge into the main article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Also these matches the teams play in don't even have official T20 status, so I'd question the notability of the entire league in the context of WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject isn’t sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and there is nowhere near enough to merge into any other article. Shawn Teller (talk) 12:37, 24 March 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) WJ94 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Anwar[edit]

Faraz Anwar (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 doesn't established, fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NBASIC, primary sources, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:33, 17 March 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

György Balázs[edit]

György Balázs (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)

He fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) and WP:NTENNIS (didn't qualify for a main draw of ATP, hasn't won a Challenger). He participated in Davis Cup, but that was removed from the NTENNIS notability guideline. In my searches I haven't been able to find much beyond passing mentions or directories/databases. If anything, I got more results for other people with the same name! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Hungary. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing GNG. All articles require some minimal GNG. He passes TennisProject Guidelines for suggested notability for having played in Davis Cup. This is often a pretty good indicator of notability, and non-English speaking players are under reported for this very reason. It's harder to find sources in Hungarian for this English Wikipedia version. Guidelines are meant to be flexible. In this case though, he did nothing else his entire career. He got into Davis Cup because there were no other players from Hungary with better rankings. He never played on the high-level ATP Tour. He tried a couple minor league tournaments but was crushed in every one of those. He stuck to the minor-minor leagues filled with high school and college youth, where he never won, and even making the final doesn't win you enough to cover your expenses. I can't find this player doing anything to warrant GNG other than losing to Andy Murray in a Davis Cup match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he met the WP:NTENNIS criteria, because he won one junior Grand Slam. Sczipo (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sczipo The guideline says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for junior players", which it's not. The significant coverage still doesn't exist and is needed per WP:NSPORT/FAQ Q1. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say in the article he won a junior Grand Slam tournament? I searched for what was there not something else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click) It was on the External links. But if you want, I make a "Junior career" section. Jovanmilic97 the guidline say "Significant coverage is likely to exist for junior players if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title" ;) Sczipo (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that's not the part that's the problem, but the lack of significant coverage needed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I was saying is that it's tough to just search for a name. He's not Federer. If you search domestic and foreign newspapers and press for a name and an accomplishment, like winning a Grand Slam tournament, it might be easier to find some coverage or interviews. In reading the article I didn't even know he won a Grand Slam tournament to refine my searching. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there's an article on the junior grand slam they won and they are mentioned there, then redirect. As pointed out, junior players need to pass WP:GNG, and this one doesn't.Onel5969 TT me 19:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly correct. I did some checking and usually there are articles on a major junior champion. The trouble is he won the doubles junior championship at the 2003 French Open, not the singles championship. With something like doubles you'll either have to speak French to find the article or Hungarian to find an article there (if any exist). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Attila Balázs#Career; I have added a note to that section about their ITF doubles wins. BD2412 T 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO, N not inherited. BLP, none of the sources in the article is SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Same for above and BEFORE; Likely is not a free pass, BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oji Chukwuemeka Ifeanyichukwu[edit]

Oji Chukwuemeka Ifeanyichukwu (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 businessman who runs a carpentry business. Fails WP:NBIO / WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:05, 17 March 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tontine Trust[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP. The only source I can find that meets WP:SIRS is the FT article, but the policy requires that "there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability." JaggedHamster (talk) 11:02, 17 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louardi Badjika[edit]

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

WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. It needs several refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. It currently has zero. Was moved to draft in hopes of improvement, but was moved back without any improvement, simply the adding of non-reliable blog source which was titled by the editor, "In-Depth article about Louardi Badjika". Onel5969 TT me 10:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It's an unacceptable source. See Skyrock (social network site) - stuff posted on there is no more an indication of notability than having coverage on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram etc. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Any unsubstantiated claims of that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES are just that, unsubstantiated claims. Alvaldi (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only online source I can find covering Badjika in detail is the blog noted above. Unfortunately, I can't determine whether the kurbos behind the blog is a journalist with an expertise in football (we can only see that it is a 52-year old from Ligny-en-Barrois). I suspect this person used some French-language media sources to write the post, but they didn't credit anything, so we're left with zero SIGCOV. Seeing that Badjika played most of his career in Ligue 2 during the 1980s, it's not a huge surprise I'm struggling to find anything. That said, it's possible there may be something if we had access to newspaper archives. Jogurney (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:20, 20 March 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 to delete. Closing as no consensus at this time because the basis for keeping is weak, but there is no reason to expect that relisting will yield a different outcome. Irrespective of notability conferred by the award, authorship of a best-selling book is another point of potential notability which needs to be better substantiated. No prejudice against renomination for deletion if no improvement is made in this direction. BD2412 T 16:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchita Misra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ruchita Misra (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 deleted in 2021, and nothing has changed since then. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Was moved to draft in hopes of improvement, but moved back without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 10:36, 17 March 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Inglehearn[edit]

Catherine Inglehearn (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)

Ambassadors being not inherently notable (WP:OUTCOMES), the subject is in no way otherwise notable, with nothing beyond routine appointment announcements and virtually no mention in any RS. A one-page profile of her in the Royal Institute of International Affairs journal 'The World Today' does not take us over the line, BTW. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:49, 17 March 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. Withdrawn by nom and no other "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China Review International[edit]

China Review International (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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Barrett, T. H. (June 1995). "China Review International, Vol. 1, no. 1, Spring 1994. 303 pp. Honolulu: Hawaii Center for Chinese Studies and University Press". Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies. 58 (2): 439. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00011745. Retrieved 2023-03-20.

      The article notes: "... the case for a single periodical devoted entirely to reviewing monographs on China ancient, modern and contemporary—even if confined as it is at present to English-language monographs, with a few in Chinese thrown in for good measure—will doubtless appeal to many librarians and individual researchers in Chinese studies. Given the reluctance south of the Canadian border to read anything in French, and the extremely rapid publication schedule indicated by the publication dates of some of the works reviewed, this appeal will probably rival or even eclipse that of the existing Revue Bibliographique de Sinologie, though there is no indication that the invaluable abstracts of articles included in that excellent publication are to be included in the new journal. We are, however, promised a flow of 'features', meaning the more extended review articles of the type which preface this first issue: ... One would have liked to have seen some of the longer pieces buried also in the body of the reviews signalled in some way in the table of contents, too."

    2. Rawson, Jessica (1996-02-23). "China under review". Times Higher Education Supplement. Archived from the original on 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2023-03-20.

      The article notes: "Produced by the University of Hawaii centre for Chinese studies, this new journal aims to review books relating to all aspects of sinology. The editors intend to cover books in many disciplines, from art to economics, from linguistics to Chinese medicine. But their intention has limitations, for, so far, the journal has concentrated largely on books in English. It is of course wise to avoid the mass of books in Chinese or Japanese, which are covered in other specialised journals. But the range covered is inevitably influenced by this constraint. ... For British scholars and all university libraries with even the slightest interests in any of the fields touched upon by Chinese studies, this is an indispensable reference tool."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. Ye, Yunshun (2014). The ALA Guide to Researching Modern China. Chicago: American Library Association. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-8389-1209-6. Retrieved 2023-03-20 – via Google Books.

        The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "China Review International (University of Hawaii Press). This quarterly journal publishes English-language reviews of recently published books and monographs from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, the United States, and elsewhere to help scholars keep abreast of cutting-edge research in Chinese Studies."

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources provided by Cunard should be enough for significant coverage. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the content of this article already exists in the proposed merge target, rendering a merge unnecessary. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the BRSABV Ekana Cricket Stadium[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of international cricket centuries at the BRSABV Ekana Cricket Stadium (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 evidence that this is a notable list topic. While it is verifiable, there are very few sources who pay attention to which stadiums have hosted which centuries, normally the interest is in which player/team made centuries, not where. Fram (talk) 08:12, 17 March 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.

Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mokshalini (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani (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 entry. Coverage consists of articles with passing mention about him appointed as the GCA president Mokshalini (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mokshalini: Half of the references are about GCA. What about the other half? Jay 💬 08:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is true that some citations are about his appointment as the Gujarat Cricket Board's president. But there are many other reliable sources in the article to satisfy WP:GNG. Some are [31], offline coverage from Divya Bhaskar, Gujarat Today etc. These all discuss the life and career of the subject other than his involvement in GCA.Giksongeorge (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I would like to withdraw the nomination. I thought we can only use online sources in wikipedia. Mokshalini (talk) 09:06, 21 March 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Cecilia[edit]

Gabriella Cecilia (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)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:GNG. References fail to meet our needs. WP:BIO fail. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 17 March 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 George Thengummoottil. The sense of the discussion is that the movie was not notable, and therefore should not have its own article. The article was redirected to the director's page as a notable alternative. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singalila in the Himalaya[edit]

Singalila in the Himalaya (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 film. No reviews from reliable sources exist and the quality of references in the article are also low. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 00:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nepal, India, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 00:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — what’s currently in the article could have seemed enough, but, on top of its production conditions having attracted attention, the film also received a good review in the Bangalore Mirror, for example. Notable.— MY OH MY! 10:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a review. Its an interview of the director wherein the documentary is mentioned. A review is a critical analysis of the documentary, which is not found in the link you have provided. Jupitus Smart 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I’m sorry but no, quite not so. It is obviously the other way around. It’s a review using material from an interview with the director, because the columnist states that the film has a lot to do do with the filmmaker’s experience (which is obvious). You might not lilke it but the film is not just ’mentioned’ (!!!) in it, it’s at the center of this article (published in Dec. 2016 for the release of the film). Anyone can read it and see. For instance :

But Singalila in the Himalaya is more than just about the the beauty of nature or trekking or travelling. In many ways Thengummoottil’s year-long stint in Bhutan, [...]rescued him from a miasma of melancholy, catapulting him into a new life of filmmaking and travelling, and this is what the film tries to capture

and so on. Anyway, the film seems notable, thanks. — MY OH MY! 17:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking lines does not help. The entire article is about the person with the movie mentioned in between. Its even titled 'High on Sight' which alludes to the fact that he suffers from Keratoconus. It is mainly about the problems he suffered in the making of the documentary given his condition and lack of resources to film. I reiterate that this is not what makes a review, which needs to be a critical analysis of the documentary. And even if this is to be accepted as a review, we need two of them to satisfy WP:NFILM guidelines. Best. Jupitus Smart 17:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have all the technical reviews (some are on the page), and we have this in The Hindu, in Jan. 2017, for example. Again, I find it notable, considering also the attention on its making and author, and I will leave it at that, if you don’t mind. — MY OH MY! 18:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Hindu article and the Bangalore Mirror article are about the filmmaker. Notability is not inherited. I would rather let someone else evaluate the merits of this now. Jupitus Smart 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:. Non-notable film with no useful reviews~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1010:2900:4423:2CC8:73B9:AE64 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Bangalore Mirror is the only RS out there I can see that covers this film and it's an interview (and, indeed, NOT a review), while the festival wins - Indian Mountaineering Foundation IMF) Mountain Film Festival and the 16th Girimitra Sammelan Audio Visual Competition do not contribute to notability. We therefore have a film that fails WP:GNG let alone WP:NFILM. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the director's page. This is the only thing I can find [32] and it's more about the person than the film. The Indian Mountaineering Film festival win is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Thengummoottil, as an ATD. Film does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Thengummoottil per above, where the film is mentioned. CycloneYoris talk! 22:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Campbell[edit]

Helen Campbell (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found no additional substantial coverage. QuietHere (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: another drive-by Afd, seemingly part of a determined attempt to delete as many biographies of ambassadors as possible (see the page User:LibStar, which bizarrely contains a list celebrating successful diplomatic deletions). At least two sources, "A Career in European Foreign Policy with Helen Campbell", and "INTERNATIONAL FORUM OSLO, NORWAY, August NEWSLETTER 2017", pp. 15–17, appear to comply with the terms of the WP:GNG. Other sources are not hard to find, as should be expected when someone has had Europe-wide diplomatic roles. Moonraker (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding much in terms of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The two sources above appear to be a biography for a speaking engagement and an article in an organization's monthly newsletter and wouldn't consider either to be particularly notability-lending. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't know why this article links out to the subject's CV, because it reads pretty much like it is the subject's CV. Despite some deft work with the icing bag, this article merely speaks of a perfectly sound diplomatic career and is laudable for all that. It also fails the bar of notability, has insufficient SIGCOV and does not pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harby Sangha[edit]

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

A non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP: Notability (people). Doesn't cites references as well, therefore should be deleted.Lillyput4455 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article needs review by some more experienced AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per @M.Ashraf333 Ñ•ætin👨 (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Yung Chukwuebuka.VickKiang (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete WP:NACTOR looks for significant roles in multiple films, and while the filmography is impressive, there's nothing that would support significant roles. For WP:GNG, the sourcing just isn't there. One source is basically a database dump page. Another is the definition of a passing mention - name dropped with a dozen more. The remaining sources are all fluff pieces with instagram images and videos, decent for sourcing background information but not actual in depth coverage. I suspect there are better sources out there but will need someone familiar with Punjabi sources and language to ferret out. Ravensfire (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO, sources in article and BEFORE show nothing but PROMO and database records. Nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. Keep votes fails to provide sourcing. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.
Source eval:
Comments Reference
Promo article, complete with photos 1. Sanjha, A. B. P. (2023-03-01). "ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਅਦਾਕਾਰ ਹਾਰਬੀ ਸੰਘਾ ਨੇ ਮਨਾਈ ਵਿਆਹ ਦੀ ਵਰ੍ਹੇਗੰਢ, ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਖੂਬਸੂਰਤ ਤਸਵੀਰਾਂ". punjabi.abplive.com (in Punjabi). Retrieved 2023-03-05.
Database record 2. ^ "Harby Sangha (Actor) उम्र, पत्नी, परिवार, Biography in Hindi - बायोग्राफी". 2022-09-30. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
Promo doesn't mention subject 3. ^ Sethi, Chitleen K. (2020-03-27). "Sidhu Moose Wala releases song on Punjab 'super-spreader', gives call for social distancing". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
Promo list 4. ^ "Happy Birthday Harby Sangha: Here Are His 5 Notable Films As Comic Star". PTC Punjabi. 2020-05-20. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
Promo article, complete with photos, dups ref #1 5. ^ Sanjha, A. B. P. (2022-12-17). "Harby Sangha: ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਐਕਟਰ ਹਾਰਬੀ ਸੰਘਾ ਨੇ ਪਤਨੀ ਤੇ ਬੱਚਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਕੀਤੀ ਖੂਬ ਮਸਤੀ, ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਵੀਡੀਓ". punjabi.abplive.com (in Punjabi). Retrieved 2023-03-05.

 // Timothy :: talk  17:15, 25 March 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! 05:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gibson (diplomat)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. could not find any coverage in gnews, JSTOR or gbooks. The 2 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hmm, wouldn't a PROD suffice here? The last edit in almost 2 years was this AfD nomination and the page logs don't show any red flags. —Sirdog (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prod them but there is someone out there that fiercely opposes me suggesting that ambassador articles should be deleted. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. —Sirdog (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Nothing in the news, JSTOR, or books. Current sources are from the government Barbara worked for. Ambassadors do not inherently satisfy WP:NPOL. —Sirdog (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:10, 17 March 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. Sandstein 17:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress campaign for the next Indian general election[edit]

Indian National Congress campaign for the next Indian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: The article contains extravagant information which is irrelevant to the topic. Besides many items of information are not cited with reliable sources. I hope the administrators will take proper decision based on policies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be only one article containing campaigns of major political parties in India. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article falls under WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two major sections - Political Affairs Group and Task Force-2024 contain no citation. Besides the items of information in this article are different from campaigning. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article still needs WP:TNT and as all of the materials in the article are off topic, the article should be properly rewritten and should be merged into an article Campaigning for 2024 Indian general election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whilst it might seem WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'm not sure there is really a valid reason to delete. There are lots of high quality sources, presumably they are only going to increase. I don't like the title fwiw, and I don't envy anyone trying to write about this in a neutral way. JMWt (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though the article seems as WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is no valid reason to delete it as source there is WP: Reliable. I think that the article needs some improvement.

Thank You! Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have no opinion on the AfD, but will note here for transparency that XYZ 250706 appears to have approached at least two editors on their talk pages regarding this AfD: Special:Diff/1144227404, Special:Diff/1144227430. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan I have told them to put their neutral opinion. Besides one of them (a member of Wikiproject Indian politics) has edited this page several times before and other editors who actively takes part in such discussions and is a renowned Wikipedia article reviewer. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @XYZ 250706: re: canvassing, you're new to AFD so you should get some grace on this, but what you did above was canvassing. It didn't impact the AFD, but this should not be repeated for any reason. Your intent may have been innocent, but you crossed a line regardless of your wording.  // Timothy :: talk  11:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: and move to an appropriate page title. I rm the unsourced content, BLPs should be listed as members of political groups, committees, etc only with clearly RS to prevent abuse. Its too soon for the article, but it will be probably be notable at some point. A keep here shouldn't reflect on any future AFD, if the article is not expanded and properly referenced, it should be deleted and an unnesseary fork.  // Timothy :: talk  11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But if we see the current condition of the article, it is not ready to be published in Wikipedia. Should not we add or merge it to an article which will contain campaigning of major political parties in India? XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are lots of stubs with just a paragraph. Its an unfortunate fact of Wikipedia  // Timothy :: talk  15:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for deletion here. It's early, certainly, and I wouldn't waste my time writing about this; but there's coverage and the eventual notability is not in question. I'm not seeing a problem with the title either; when the election date is confirmed, moving makes sense, but not before. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 17 March 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! 05:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sudhir Chandra Sur Degree Engineering College[edit]

Dr. Sudhir Chandra Sur Degree Engineering 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)

Article was created as an advert in 2014. Most substantive edits since have been promotional and likely UPE. No reliable sources are cited. I was unable to find any that cover the subject in depth, though there appear to be a few books and papers written by people who attended this institution so it's probably worth discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a mixed bag. I tend to consider independent degree awarding colleges notable, and commonly deletion discussions find most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. That being said, I usually expect two solid secondary sources before voting keep. In exceptional circumstances, even one might be sufficient. Nothing at all appears to exist here. We also need to be cognisant of the fact being a degree awarding institution is a relatively low bar to meet these days and not every degree awarding institution ought to be covered. I tend to lean toward the general notability guideline here, and even unofficial advice on colleges refers editors back to GNG. There simply is not enough coverage out there by secondary, reliable sources to meet the sigcov requirement. There is also the issue of copyright violation. There is a significant amount of this article copied or closely paraphrased directly from the subject's website. I actually think this is almost eligible for a speedy delete on G12 grounds. Once we remove the offending text, there is not much non-infringing content worth saving. At a minimum, I do think the fact that most of the content is from the official website with little else out there to provide much more than a sentence or two proves this article is not suitable for inclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:41, 17 March 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 but also an acknowledgement that this article needs some editing work done. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Nation[edit]

Slate Nation (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)

Relies too heavily on primary sources, looks promotional. Fails GNG TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Examples here. I think it's also relevant that SBS (a national Australian broadcaster) seemed to take notice of this artists tour and their subsequent immigration issues. Non-notable people do not have such issues picked up by national media. Example here. The article is too heavily reliant on primary sources, and does appear slightly promotional. However the notability standard appears to be met and so these relevant issues can be addressed via clean-up rather than deletion. Not exactly a hill I am willing to die on, but I do lean keep on this occasion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MaxnaCarta Is Hot in Juba really a reliable source? The article you are linking at doesn't even have an author but only "source: Talk of Juba"? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have any evidence it is not a reliable source. It appears to be a legitimate South Sudanese media outlet with a huge social media following. I don’t normally use that as evidence of reliability but I don’t want to exclude an outlet just because I’m not familiar with it. I know little about South Sudan or its media sources but this looks to be one of substance. Also, no author does not mean lack of reliability. Just the other day I was sourcing something written by the BBC and no author was listed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO: the artist has undertaken national tours of Australia and has been described by its national media. Further work on improving content via clean-up is not sufficient reason for article's deletion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: It appears WP:GNG may be met, I am not too confident on the reliability of the sources that meet GNG (see below) but they seem legit enough. Article needs work but the tags sufficiently highlight the issues that can be worked on.
    Sources that satisfy GNG include: galaxyFM, Hot in Juba, & Sudans Post. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:04, 20 March 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. Originally unsourced, the article benefited from the added attention during the discussion and is now referenced. The subject's notability was challenged for lack of independent sourcing, and this became the dominant thread of the discussion. Although developed at some length, I don't think that consensus was reached on that point. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Harmon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kendall Harmon (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)

Delete: Article does not establish notability of subject, is orphaned and cites no sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLPs need clear sourcing for notability and content, this has none.  // Timothy :: talk  11:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BLP without required sourcing. Anyway, 1 book; 1 doctoral thesis; 1 academic article (book chapter); and unspecified newspaper/magazine articles are not enough to establish notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No established notability. Jeppiz (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as the other results I see are blog and Facebook coverage. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am hoping for a little time to investigate the bio. I Just googled and book searched "Kendall Harmon homosexuality" and found The Guardian. The Christian Science Monitor and many others. Will need a short time to see if SIGCOV exists. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Guardian piece I think you found is an article the subject wrote; it does say they were "canon theologian for the diocese of South Carolina". I thought there might be something there, but couldn't find anything. I did find sources with short quotes opposing LGBT+ equality from the subject, but those sources didn't address the subject directly or indepth, just a short quote, along with quotes from others. This isn't enough for a BLP.  // Timothy :: talk  19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 34 mentions in: Caldwell, Ronald J.. A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina. United States, Wipf & Stock, 2017. I would encourage people to do the WP:BEFORE searches and assess this article based on the sources that exist, not the state of the article. CT55555(talk) 19:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That source appears to rely heavily on citing Wikipedia...

    A useful summary of his viewpoint comes from Wikipedia: "Harmon has espoused a traditional/conservative position he describes as 'reasserting' the historical Christian position on same-sex erotic activity"

    We should be very cautious about using it. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (arguably even speedy keep). The rationale and many of the votes that follow it are appear to be based on the state of the article (since improved) at the time of nomination, which is a flawed understanding of WP:BEFORE. WP:AFD should be based on the sources that exist, not the ones in the article. A search of google books makes notability clear, significant coverage in reliable sources exists for this notable subject. WP:GNG guides us to keep. CT55555(talk) 19:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the preface in A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina, the subject was a contributor/source for the book. A single source in a very niche topic, when the subject contributed to the source does not establish notability, especially for the BLP. In any event, the source does not provide SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  20:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. But there are plenty other sources that write about him, plenty content to create a medium length article, so seems inevitably a WP:BASIC pass and he's quoted on theological issues enough that maybe an WP:PROF pass would be relevant to consider too. Take for example how many times The Guardian use his comments, just to consider one reliable source (Google ""Kendall Harmon" site:www.theguardian.com" to see) CT55555(talk) 13:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated comment I accepted this rebuttal with good faith and assumed I'd missed that, but fact checking it today, I see it is incorrect (well, maybe correct to say his blog is a "source", but he is clearly not a contributor.) . What the preface does is present the sources and include Harman's online blog as one of them. I quote "...in general, from the "orthodox" Anglican viewpoint. More specifically on the diocese, Kendall Harmon's blog at Titus One None provided a host of essential material supporting the diocesan positions and decisions and criticising the national church..." CT55555(talk) 13:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian uses his comments because he used to be an opinion columnist for them. He has a profile there and everything (in fact, it's the first thing that shows up when you google ""Kendall Harmon" site:www.theguardian.com"). JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking over this comment overnight and I still cannot decide what conclusion to reach from this. If The Guardian sought his input for their paper, and paid him for it, it still does suggest he is influential. In the context of him not being a journalists, it still seems to suggest WP:PROF The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. is met. Although I welcome your critique of that. CT55555(talk) 13:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It suggests he was an opinion columnist for them and therefore The Guardian is not an independent assessor of his expertise. Writing an opinion column is certainly not evidence of scholarly recognition, but even scholars who are solicited to write real journalistic articles on their field for a newspaper do not meet NPROF C7 (otherwise we would have articles on every single science reporter, doctor writing a health column, or financial analyst). Researchers are employed to do research in industry/academia for their expertise, and journal editors/writers are employed based on their expertise to write non-research articles summarizing that research. Neither of those positions is sufficient on its own to meet NPROF, so why should being employed to write about one's field in a non-academic capacity (and arguably as a non-academic; merely having a doctorate or even having published some papers/books long ago does not make someone an academic) because of one's expertise imply they have had more academic impact?
    NPROF C7 is for academics who are regularly asked, by multiple outlets in conventional media over a sustained period, to explain the importance of a research finding or to offer their specialized analysis of a topic. Outside of writing the opinion columns (and out of the ~17 results for him on The Guardian website, 7 are links to his "Anglicanism at the crossroads" piece, 4 are to his "Cautious hope" article, and 2 are his profile/name in a list of contributors) Harmon, as far as I can tell, is not even being quoted for his academic, theological input. The 4 stories that mention him just relay his opinion as a high-ranking witness to contemporary Episcopalian politics; newspapers do the same -- quoting the reactions of involved leadership -- when reporting on any organizational drama. E.g. we wouldn't say a company's vice president giving his thoughts on a merger is acting as an expert commentator. Being quoted 4 times by the same newspaper isn't enough for C7, and certainly it isn't enough when the context isn't academic. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So a non-professor is not passing professor notability. Got it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the care that you've putting into your points here, as you always seem to do. I did wait and think before reaching this conclusion, and I contemplated switching to neural and weak keep, but considering everyone's contributions here, I've decided to keep my keep !vote. I am less certain which specific guideline I should point to, if it is WP:BASIC or WP:PROF or WP:GNG, so in conclusion, this is basically me focussing less on any specific guideline and more on the overall assessment that he is overall a notable leader, who is specifically notable for having a strong views, and is someone that encyclopedia readers would reasonably want information on and therefore this article's net presence to the project is a positive.
    I've seen references to the quality of the article - a very important topic - but a topic for the talk page or a tag, if problems remain, but not a reason to delete. This conversation is getting long. I'll read everything that follows, but if you don't see me continuing to rebut the point, assume I'm semi- WP:COALing things. If anyone says anything that persuades me, I'll update.
    Thanks for the careful and polite disagreements here, CT55555(talk) 22:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, former contributing writers are sometimes asked for quotes on issues on which they are experts and/or involved. Just what are you suggesting is a problem here, JoelleJay?
    A profile? All it says is "The Rev Kendall Harmon holds a DPhil from Oxford University and serves as canon theologian for the episcopal diocese of South Carolina". It's likely the first thing that shows up because The Guardian has decent SEO. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's literally listed as a contributor. I don't know what SEO manipulation has to do with Harmon's Guardian profile being at the top of search results for Harmon on the Guardian website...
    Anyway, see above: he's only quoted four times, and not as an expert in theology but as an Episcopalian leader offering his primary opinion on discord within the Anglican Church. So even if he was completely independent from The Guardian, this wouldn't be anywhere close to fulfilling C7. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, I misread your statement on powersearching with "site:..."
    But when you write "He has a profile there and everything"... what is surprising about that? Do you take issue with his articles? With his being quoted only four times? What's the beef?
    Many writers of opinion pieces are experts in their fields. He is, as you have said, an Episcopalian leader; he has been immersed in these major church issues for decades; he has been quoted a mere four times by The Guardian. OK. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a profile as a Guardian contributor means he is affiliated with The Guardian, and so his being quoted in their articles is not indicative of NPROF C7 expertise (which is the only way being quoted in a newspaper can count towards notability). Being quoted in only four articles is just another metric by which he is deficient in the requirements of C7. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I rebut the points that the Harmon was a contributor to the book (does not say that), that Harmon is not addressed directly and in-depth, and the conclusion that the schism book amounts to a"single source in a very niche topic" below. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    untrue. I looked for references online and didn't/don't find it sufficient coverage. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting myself, with bold emphasis to highlight the point I made: "many of the votes that follow it appear to be based on the state of the article (since improved) at the time of nomination". CT55555(talk) 19:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, appearances can be deceiving. Some of the prose and citations don't add up. How thorough was your review? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you asking me? CT55555(talk) 20:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asking whether you'd compared what things said with what the sources say... will follow up below. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly not following you. Are you now asking me if I have fact checked the sources? CT55555(talk) 20:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found that the person meets our guidelines for inclusion. Myself and CT55555 have begun to add references to show notability. The previous Delete ivoters have assessed the article's lack of references but not the availability of references per WP:NEXIST. The nomination is similarly flawed in that it only discusses the state of the article at the time of the nomination; and it speaks to the lack of sources in the article and not those that exist. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't make assumptions about what voters have and have not done. Maybe other fingers looked as I did and were not moved to vote to keep by the scope of coverage. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Independent reliable sources with SIGCOV have not been added to show notability. The statement that delete !votes didn't look at the "availability of references" is clearly shown as false by comments above.  // Timothy :: talk  22:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your delete rationale assessed the article as is was, just as the nomination and the other delete rationales. You stated BLPs need clear sourcing for notability and content, this has none. Forgive me but WP:COAL is something I am trying to follow so I will probably not respond again. Lightburst (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the additional sources and work put into the page after its nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to closer and other editors: I am seeing some factual discrepancies in the writing of the article. This is problematic anywhere, but especially in a BLP of an individual who has controversial views. I am correcting them as I see them and explaining in my edit notes. I will comb through the article now to make sure nothing is misrepresented. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing found so far seems to lack independence, which is especially unacceptable for a BLP with controversial views. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is based on the book that I presented above, please note my updated rejection of that analysis with a quote that I think really clarifies the independence of the book. CT55555(talk) 13:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAs I did cleanup, I did some looking, some linking, etc. I noticed that there were at least 3 instances of article content not being backed up, or backed up well, in the sources. I'm too busy to include diffs, but: one predates the AfD (the word "reasserting," with quotes); another may be a misunderstanding of content (the word ordination rather than election, which is a significant distinction but could be easily confused); and an issue with paraphrasing (poor and weak when only one of those appears in the source). Must go now; will follow up on other gleanings from the review in a couple of hours. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's borderline. Harmon was vocal on this and that well before social media, but he was not profiled that I've seen. The book on the schism of South Carolina is well-written, Wikipedia mention notwithstanding (and what I saw was not a citation in the true sense but an acknowledgement of the text there). It's also well-footnoted. Is an individual who has held important positions, though not positions of traditional leadership, who seemingly has a fair amount of attention from his blog and media comments, notable? In most cases, I'd say that is not enough. But the book states that he was a significant figure in the schism. That's a big thing. This has me lean about 52% keep the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DiamondRemley39, I thought Timothy established that book was not suitably independent: According to the preface in A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina, the subject was a contributor/source for the book. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Timothy established no such thing. That is not what the book says. Page 1 of the preface acknowledges Harmon's blog as a source of diocesan positions and decisions, but not Harmon as a source of himself. Harmon's involvement in the events is verified with those footnoted reliable, independent, secondary sources are footnoted. The facts of the article are not disputed.
    2. Would a book of the history of any movement or community be thorough if it ignored the works of the key players? Nope. It would be a literature review.
    DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed from CT55555's "fair enough" that he agreed with that characterization. He's struck it now, so sure, the book is more independent than it appeared. That doesn't make it acceptable as the sole SIGCOV source for a BLP. The other citations in the article are nowhere close to providing independent, secondary significant coverage; in fact, they are all disqualified from counting towards GNG due to being primary, non-independent quotes from Harmon (CNN, The Guardian, LA Times, CSM), primary, first-person accounts of someone's reaction to Harmon (Edward Fudge book), items Harmon has written himself (his bio at ADOSC, his papers/books), or a couple mentions with non-independent repetition of things he has said (Sachs book). What someone says about themselves or what they believe is not an independent analysis of them even if it's repeated in an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Notability guideline reads: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. We have not relied on these.
    What of the many footnotes in A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina? A number of them indicate WP:NEXIST with sources that meet the standards. Your mischaracterization of the Sachs book (miles from "a couple mentions with non-independent repetition of things he has said") suggests that you haven't reviewed it; Harmon not only appears throughout, but his actions are analyzed by the author.
    You want to exclude every source or virtually every currently cited source--I haven't compared your list with the sourcing in the article now-- because Harmon wrote or was present or got quoted. But it's a small community and its leaders will write and be present and get quoted as their union crumbles. And the state of the article doesn't really matter because ^^^^ sources exist.
    Do you doubt any of the content? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent of the subject obviously excludes repetition of things the subject has said. I don't know what you mean by the footnotes in Schism -- are you saying they contain citations to other independent authors' commentary on Harmon? Which ones do that?
    Sachs has 6 mentions of Harmon:
    p59 is a quote from a passage Harmon wrote (not independent of Harmon): "Another theological opponent named Kendall Harmon, who delivered a paper entitled "The Case against Conditionalism: A Reesponse to Edward William Fudge" at the Fourth Edinburgh Conference on Christian Dogmatics, responded to a letter from Fudge: As you correctly gathered from the title of my paper, I did not agree with your book."
    p60 is a quote from someone else (quotes are primary): "Kendall Harmon's paper surprised me. I thought that he had raised some points wich merited clarification, but to me it seemed no answer to you. But he seemed to think that he had effectively shown you seriously wrong."
    p378, 411, 418, and 429 are all his name appearing in the index/bibliography.
    To write an NPOV article we have to have sufficient sourcing that comes from other people talking about the subject who have no affiliation with the subject. Merely quoting/stating what the subject said, whether about himself or about other things, means the article would be composed from the subject's (or his affiliates') POV with no written secondary independent analysis of what he said; for that reason, such content does not contribute to notability. And per FRINGE, for controversial topics we cannot just repeat the contentious opinions of the subject without contextualizing it with the mainstream POV (Quotes that are controversial...need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. I don't know to what extent Caldwell is a dispassionate third party presenting a neutral secondary analysis of Harmon, but even if he's the perfect source in that regard it's still just one source, and for BLPs in FRINGE areas multiple such sources are required. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "Caldwell" when I wrote "Sachs"; mea culpa. I'm not going to list every footnote; the book is hyperlinked. Caldwell does not represent a single source. Nor will I respond to the suggestion that Caldwell has to be something beyond well-sourced, well-written, informative, and the merits of a secondary source with all the modifiers whose presence here we are debating.
    Let's go back to the topic. This AfD is about **notability**. FRINGE (and a new denomination that interprets scripture to defend classic Christian tradition is not so fringy) is another matter and such discussion is appropriate for the talk page rather than AfD. That the content needs be contextualized does not signify. Such work can be done by incorporating more content or excising what is there now.
    Too ill to reply longer. Good night, and good luck. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Caldwell not a single source? And AfDs are not just about notability; not complying with WP:FRINGEBLP is a very real reason for deletion. His bio currently serves to relay his controversial opinions on homosexuality with zero contextualization or even secondary commentary of any kind, which is not acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After all I and others have written, how can you ask me how Caldwell is a single source? I never said Caldwell was a single source. I said he did not represent one.
    OK, I will try again. Caldwell indicates sources per NEXIST. Footnotes. I've said "footnotes" I don't know how many times here. I'll add synonyms: Bibliography. Citations. Sources. Other stuff. ::shrugs::
    Of course AfDs are not just about notability. I wrote that this AfD is not about notability. The nom statement reads: "Article does not establish notability of subject, is orphaned and cites no sources."
    You're the only one who thinks there is an issue other than notability here, I believe. You are the only one who finds a FRINGE issue present in the article. OK. The onus is on you. Others cannot edit things you find problematic to your satisfaction. When you repeat the same points without taking action, your argument sounds a little more like WP:JDLI. So go for it, please. Contextualize to your heart's content. The content you need is there. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For these footnotes etc. to count towards NEXIST you need to identify them. You can't just say a book that covers the subject and contains footnotes "represents" multiple sources, especially for a BLP, and especially for a controversial BLP. How do we know these footnotes aren't to primary accounts, or Harmon's blog, or any other non-RS?
    All articles must meet our policies on BLP and FRINGE. It doesn't matter whatsoever that those weren't identified in the nomination. The BURDEN is on those who wish to include content to ensure it is reliably sourced and presented in a NPOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. CT55555 and I know the character of the sources because we have used our reading comprehension skills to review them. No snark meant... I am laughing now because I have said it so many ways that I don't know how else to spell it out. You've suggested I transcribe the bibliographic citations on many pages. No, NEXIST does not require (or suggest, I think) that standard. These pages are as accessible to you as they are to me... but maybe not. I realize that some people struggle with technology, so if you need help navigating Google Books, let me know and I will leave some info on your talk page.
    2. Already said: sure, pile FRINGE on... You write, "The BURDEN is on those who wish to include content to ensure it is reliably sourced and presented in a NPOV." So far, you've written of FRINGE so generally. Tell us: What is not reliably sourced? What is not presented neutrally? Is the article pro- or anti- Harmon, schism, LGBTQIA, women in ministry, etc.? Give specific examples of prose that may not have happened as they are detailed or of the article's current sources that cite disputable information and are problematic. Give specific examples of slant in the sources and in the article.
    I really don't know what else to say here. You won't review Caldwell or edit the article; I can't tell what would make the undisputed facts presented by mainstream and academic sources more palatable to you and I won't transcribe Caldwell (and even if I did, I'm guessing the goalposts would move again). We should probably agree to an impasse. I will continue the discourse if you do, though, not for your sake or mine, but for those of other editors and admins. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with the current presentation of the article is that it describes Harmon's beliefs using his own quotes/writings; they are conveyed through reliable sources, but they are not contextualized with independent analysis or commentary on how those views are/were received or what the mainstream stance is. For example, in which he discussed homosexuality and its incompatibility with biblical scripture is a statement made in wikivoice without clarification that this is an opinion that is quite disputed within Anglicanism. Biographies should not be platforms for their subjects' contentious views -- Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. That means Harmon campaigned against the election of Barbara Harris as bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts in 1988 by characterizing Harris, a black woman, as angry, uneducated, inexperienced, and extremist should not be repeated here without those claims being challenged. Caldwell's style of describing these events is commendably dispassionate, but from what I've read so far it is very much told through the narrative of the conservative Anglicans with little exposition on the perspectives of their opponents. This leaves us without reliably-sourced criticism of Harmon's comments, and that is a problem when they are so contentious. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Direct quote removed with a couple of clicks because I am neither theologian nor apologist nor Anglican.
    2. I changed "in which he discussed homosexuality and its incompatibility with biblical scripture" so it goes with what was, in your opinion, the "mainstream stance" on homosexuality in the setting in which it was written. Two sentences now modified to: "Harmon has frequently written and commented on homosexuality, which he has deemed 'unnatural,' with conservative Christian views" and "His 2005 article 'Anglicanism at the Crossroads', in which he detailed a conservative Christian view of homosexuality's incompatibility with biblical scripture, appeared in The Guardian."
    3. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. How is the content misleading or controversial when it is about actions of Harmon's and says 'characterizing'? Harris is the object. Harmon's criticism is well-reported upon; no one denies he said it; it is sourced and linked. I can over-cite the content, I suppose, from some of the 14 citations linked below or from elsewhere... If you mean misleading about Harris, well, I've changed the verb to "opined" for you. Does the article say that Harris is angry, uneducated, inexperienced, and extremist? Not at all. No, the article does not deprecate Harris (or Harmon) in communicating what Harmon said about Harris. The mainstream opinion--which would more diplomatically and accurately be called an opposing opinion (to Harmon's) --can be found in Harris' wikilinked biography. Much more coverage of Harris would be inappropriate here. Please do shop her article or do the research to find coverage that suggests, counter to Harmon's claims, that she was... happy?, educated, experienced, and conservative or moderate, and incorporate that, or find a source and copy the content here and I will incorporate it if it can be done without leaving the subject of Harmon.
    4. "But from what I've read so far it is very much told through the narrative of the conservative Anglicans with little exposition on the perspectives of their opponents". In that case, you haven't read much of the book. The source has both viewpoints; remember that, without the liberals, the conservatives would not have been active on this topic. As this biography is on a conservative Anglican rather than on the schism or either Church, the information will regale the actions of the conservatives than the liberals as those are most relevant. Do mine the source if you want more of the liberal perspective in a BLP of a conservative.
    5. "This leaves us without reliably-sourced criticism of Harmon's comments"... in the article now. But criticism of Harmon's comments is not required (though I'm sure some exists in some of the mainstream media articles and likely elsewhere). We have facts, neutrality from Caldwell, and more. We can write with neutrality here.
    Feel free to work on the article by stripping offending passages yourself, or dressing them up, though that may be counter to your vote. Or keep saying specifically what you want and why; I or someone else may do so as we have time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, those edits do make it more neutral. Mostly I am concerned with points 4 and 5 (and how they intersect with 3): we still don't have secondary analysis of what Harmon has said or reports on anyone's direct reactions to him. In our article on Andrew Schlafly, we relay his views but also how they have been received and others' responses to them. That's what I would like to see evidence of for Harmon -- can you point out where Caldwell has mentioned "liberal" viewpoints on Harmon's statements? JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A. Even if comparing the tone or scope of an article were a good argument to make in a deletion discussion, you'd want to select someone with a background and career more similar to Harmon's than Schalfly's.
    B. There is more Caldwell book and other source info to incorporate before I would have time to prioritize the addressing WP:RUBBISH points. Again I recommend you review the sources yourself, including Caldwell, who does analyze Harmon. If the argument is that such must be in the article now, that is a surmountable problem.
    3. "Without reliably-sourced criticism of Harmon's comments, and that is a problem when they are so contentious". Which of his comments is contentious?
    You've got access. Go for it! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a few sources from newspapers.com: 1234567891011121314

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus on the notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After reading through the discussion I am now convinced this person is notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own article. Dream Focus 18:48, 18 March 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 Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Abdou[edit]

Hassan Abdou (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bakar[edit]

Mohamed Bakar (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:32, 17 March 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Deshais[edit]

Nicholas Deshais (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)

Failed WP:BEFORE test, almost entirely sourced by primary/non-third party sources. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:55, 17 March 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Asher[edit]

Elena Asher (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:NBIO. Refs are shallow PR/puff pieces. KH-1 (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination, but primarily because references lack quality and are definitely not neutral. (See above) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:04, 17 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_17&oldid=1146452166"