Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 15	January 17 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Prang (LA County Assessor)

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

Poorly sourced and highly advertorialized article about a local political figure not shown to pass WP:NPOL. If his name sounded familiar to you, we've indeed been through this before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Prang -- which got recreated just days after deletion and was salted, explaining why this version features such weird overdisambiguation in the title.
But county assessor is not a level of office that confers automatic free passage of NPOL, and this version as written is extremely overdependent on primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- the test at NPOL #2 is the depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate that his career in politics has made him a subject of third-party coverage and analysis, and is not passed just by using primary sources to verify that he exists, but what little GNG-worthy reliable sourcing is present here doesn't come close to matching what's actually required.
There's still just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to a Wikipedia article -- and conflict of interest editing might be in the mix of possibilities here, given that this version was started by a virtual WP:SPA with virtually no established history of contributing on any other topic. I also note that this version studiously avoids the prior version's attempt to stake his notability on detail-free allusions to some sort of unspecified sex scandal, but that's beside the point since it wouldn't make a difference to the article's value either way (though it does bolster my COI suspicions). Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically fails WP:PROMO along with WP:GNG. But once again I basically just agree with everything Bearcat has written... SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor. Can you help me make this page better and avoid deletion? Coffee&2Ideas (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He would have to have both a much stronger notability claim than just existing as a county assessor — that's not a level of office at which people automatically get articles just for existing as officeholders, it's a level of office at which you would have to be able to demonstrate credible grounds to consider him one of the most uniquely significant county assessors in the entire country — and much, much better and more reliable sourcing (meaning media coverage about him) to support it than you've shown. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:POV, and WP:TNT. In theory, he is notable - as a county-wide official of America's largest county - but a page that is an on-line free election ad, with nary a mention of multiple scandals, is just an illegal theft of a charity's property. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Cooke

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR - acted in local plays. Sources are all local, along with primary documents. Melcous (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, California, and Tennessee. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a biography of a female actress and stage manager. She is best known as the daughter of writer Grace MacGowan Cooke and for her leading roles at the Forest Theater in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. She began her acting career at a young age, securing a role in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Primary and Secondary sources support WP:NP and WP:RS. Please keep this important actress in our encyclopedia! Not sure why the following fact was deleted: "On July 2–3 and 5, 1915, at age 15, Cooke played "Herald" in the play Junípero Serra"? Greg Henderson (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She was a working actress, just not a notable one. She never played on Broadway or in the West End. Most of her career seems to have been at a single outdoor regional theatre. Most, if not all of her credits seem to be for short--running productions; it does not appear that she ever starred in a work with a long run. There is a long section called "works", but they are not her works. Presumably they are works in which she acted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a whole lot of contents about her immediate family members, but contents that can be truly attributed to her shows no indication of satisfying WP:NACTOR or GNG. Simply being associated with someone notable does not receive notability and it is not a reason for notability per WP:INVALIDBIO guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Heavily ref-bombed article on a non-notable actress. This is an example of piecing together an article from bits of 36 different sources, most of which don't mention her at all, a few that have a photo only of her, and a few others have mentions or one sentence about her, or are things like her death certificate or marriage announcement.. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Does not pass our criteria for notable actors/entertainers, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She was known in her small community for appearing in local plays, but that's about it. Netherzone (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge parts into Grace MacGowan Cooke.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we are going to delete, please redirect and I, or someone else, can merge parts into the article: Grace MacGowan Cooke. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable, to an extent, but in this case, it's pushing it. It's like creating re-direct for Taylor Swift's house, each one of her three cats, her Cadillac Escalade and so forth. Graywalls (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a re-direct would be better than an all out delete. Merging some relevant content seems as well. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed it. I am saying this article is an example of something that's pushing the limit. Graywalls (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I just meant that it may be a candidate and I would support it. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Merge option just mentioned at the end of the week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Her article says "best known for her marriage to Harry Leon Wilson", so shouldn't the redirect target be to him?~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Clarityfiend, not sure about that. I don't find that phrase in this article on Katharine Cooke. What I do see is She is best known for being the daughter of writer Grace MacGowan Cooke, and also this; Cooke had an older sister, Helen MacGowan Cooke, who married writer Harry Leon Wilson on June 4, 1912. It seems that her older sister Helen was married to Wilson, not Katherine. Isn't it considered best practices not to define women by their relationships, per WP:NOTBYRELATION? Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't keep the article, the merge and redirect should be with her mother Grace MacGowan Cooke. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, must have ended up at her sister's article by mistake. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have been a prominent director of the famed Carmel art colony. Well written and well sourced. A newspapers.com search for just her nickname targeted to just California and excluding obituaries returns 25 results. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't show the context. Search result count would include trivial mentions such as appearing in a name list, and event announcements. Which of these sources have significant and independent coverage of this person? Graywalls (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with @GraywallsGraywalls on this - that "hits" are not the same as SIGCOV. I too saw a lot of "hits" in hyper-local news (in a tiny community) that turned out to be name-checks, two word mentions, articles about other people who just include her name, and photo captions. This is part of a walled garden. Netherzone (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember - WP:ARTIST played a major role in co-creating a significant collective body of work, e.g. Forest Theater Plays and Katharine Cooke will be Alice in Alice in Wonderland. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on! That is micro-significance, as documented in a photo album from the Forest Theater itself; the other link is a photo and photo caption, and a press announcement for the five day run in a tiny town of a few hundred people at the time. That is a grave misunderstand the SNG's criteria. An example of a "significant collective body of work" is Picasso's Blue Period painting series or Sean Connery or Roger Moore playing in many James Bond films. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netherzone, fails GNG. While I'm normally very supportive of AtD's, in this case I don't think merge would be appropriate per Graywalls. At worst, could live with redirect to the 'Early years' section of Grace MacGowan Cooke, but with no mandate to merge. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Roy Tyler. Daniel (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Tyler

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

It was recently determined that Eddie Tyler never actually existed and was just a misattribution of Roy Tyler's stats to the wrong name. A detailed study is here. Per that article, Seamheads, the authoritative database for Negro League stats, will be corrected "probably within the next month or two" and their stats will be merged. This article could be merged into Roy Tyler simply for redirect purposes if people feel that's better. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roy Tyler cause people may still be looking for the other name. Spanneraol (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for seamheads to update their database, then merge the two together leaving this page (Eddie) as a redirect. No need really for AfD, but doesn't matter. Rgrd. --Bison X (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Should perhaps merge both articles together, or move some of this info into the actual person's article as above. The fact that the two people got confused in the historical record for so long also adds to the story, so should be (at least briefly) documented here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect. Though both retain article content in the page history, we close these two outcomes differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roy Tyler; there isn't a lot of information to merge that hasn't already been added. Hatman31 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roy Tyler. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ for any action here, including merging. However, because the discussion was largely framed around delete/keep etc., a potential merge discussion may create a clearer consensus if held on the article talk page, at any editor's volition. Daniel (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jaahnavi Kandula

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

WP:NOTNEWS. The subject is notable only for this incident, unlike Cecile the lion who was already notable. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A traffic accident isn't exactly noteworthy, wikipedia-wise. This isn't anything out of the ordinary. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was aggrieved that a woman of Indian origin was (unintentionally) killed by a white cop, and her death laughed at by another, we must keep our personal feelings to ourselves, not violate Wiki's policies. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Police, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage backed by reliable third party sources. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to be stating that the woman involved is not otherwise notable. We agree, which is why the article is not named "Jaahnavi Kandula". The event is notable though, as shown by the sustained coverage in the cited reliable third party sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The sustained media coverage that surrounded this incident makes it deserve its own page. The page has already been created, I do not believe there is a good enough reason to delete it all, simply because some deem it not noteworthy. 35.2.26.193 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is significant coverage by multiple third party sources, including local, national, and international media. This was an unusual event, a standard "traffic accident" in Seattle doesn't get coverage in the Guardian, USA Today, etc.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ever her death that got attention, it's the aftermath of the police's reaction to the "thing" that happened that got the worldwide notice. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "thing" you mention being...her death? Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event as mentioned earlier, and it continues to see coverage nearly a year after the death actually occurred: KUOW/NPR, Seattle Times, and smaller places like Northwest Asian Weekly, South Seattle Emerald, The Stranger. Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources are routine news coverage of the event and its aftermath. Not opposed to a redirect toward Seattle Police Department#2020s. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no sustained coverage here. We have a) initial reporting on the event, and b) initial reporting on a video of the event, which was released later. This is routine news coverage of a single event. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a tragic event with obvious overtones of police callousness and racism, but ultimately it is a true crime-type of single event — not the nexus for ongoing protest, fundamental policy reform, or protracted community soul-searching. The coverage is thus ordinary news for one event. Certainly, an event such as this could have additional ramifications down the road which might might put things in an entirely different light; but as of January 2024, this falls under NOTNEWS, in my opinion. My condolences to the family and friends of the victim. Carrite (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: lasting, in-depth coverage on a national scale; meets EVENTCRIT. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Seattle Police Department#2020s I live in the Seattle area and this has been talked about quite a bit around here. Now, I know that doesn't guarantee notability, but I think the event is important enough to have its own article, as there are enough sources to back up this event's notability. The content is a bit thin, and if the community agrees that this article can't stand up on its own two legs, I would merge with Seattle Police Department#2020s per Thebiguglyalien as the coverage merits some mention somewhere on Wikipedia. ❤History Theorist❤ 04:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it should be merged. The event, although tragic, didn't create the same impact that George Floyd's murder did. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As outlined by Legoktm, appears notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 12:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Legoktm so succinctly put it. --AntiDionysius (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to White Zombie (film). When considering policy-based input, Legendre is of insufficient independent notability to require a standalone article. Neither article is of a length where a merger would create Size or DUE issues. Star Mississippi 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Legendre

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

I propose this article should be converted to draft. Currently, it fails the following tests, per WP:DEL-REASON:

1. Insufficient citations from reliable sources, per WP:RS.

- The current citations are solely for the film White Zombie, not for the character Murder Legendre.

- The article seems to have been written 'top down' and its talk page is now requesting sources, rather than being built from the citations.

2. Failure to meet notability guidelines, per WP:N and WP:GNG:

- The character does not have significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV.

- The article describes a character who appeared in only a single film, for which there is already an article, and so the character's notability is not demonstrated.

3. Content not suitable for an encyclopaedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE:

- The bulk of it, the Life section, is an expanded version of the White Zombie film plot described from a different POV using original research, and that article already has a Plot section. The other sections here could be added to the White Zombie article.

- The grammar, punctuation, spelling and style are poor, reading like a fan blog rather than an encyclopaedic article.

I think this page should be sent back for substantial rewriting in draft, especially to demonstrate notability outside the film, and in particular why the Murder Legrange character should have its own article separate from the White Zombie article, supported by reliable sources. Masato.harada (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the creator has commented here but please, next time you take a page to Afd, please leave a note on the creator's talk page (among other steps to create an Afd that, unless I am mistaken, you seem to have forgotten). Also, given the extensive existing coverage on this very character and improvement made to the page by Dr vulpes, would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Notability seems clear and clean-up and punctuation are not generally considered good reasons for deletion. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page presents some reliable sources ...it can be improved with extensive coverage in other reliable books (at least 5 on the 1st page of results of a G books search, for ex.). If no one wishes to do it, I will.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created a proper article, I added explanations, references, a few citations, links, an image, a talk page, an infobox, clearly I made it into a proper Wikipedia article. Why is the need to draft it? Rytuyityu (talk) December 27, 2023 (UTC)

Hello@Rytuyityu:, do you need help to format your comment? You might want to add a bullet, your proper signature and read this, maybe?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I went and added some academic sources for this article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr_Vulpes, thank you for your help in the sources, just where did you get them from? (Talk) 06:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rytuyityu Google Scholar [1]. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all, for adding sources. However, they do not address the issue described in my original observations above, that is, the notability of this character. The White Zombie film is clearly notable, but the sources added all seem to be primarily about that film. I am still not seeing a reason for a Murder Legendre article which is separate from the film. Masato.harada (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, various sources do address the character directly: please kindly open the links and read them: 2 paragraphs in Senn's book, 3 in Rasmussen's, more than a page here, at least 2 paragraphs here, and so on,.... fwiw, see also this. These are reliable sources independent of the subject so that the character does in my view meet the general requirements for notability. Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying guys, but why are you fellas deleting the Murder Legendre article when you have other, more horribly made articles about characters that you can focus on deleting to show maybe that you're right or not. (Talk) 01:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rytuyityu (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to White Zombie. I've been writing extensively about early horror films on Wikipedia and there is barely any real study in series and characters in these films uniquely...possibly outside Frankenstein and Dracula and even then, I feel like they can be better fit i ti their respective film articles or series articles. I wrote the good article on White Zombie years back and there is so little that is found here that isn't just material that can be re-iterated I to the film article. Who on earth would look up one and not the other and expect anything major differences? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage addressing the character directly cannot be described as a re-iteration of the film plot. Who will look up one and not the other? Well, those who are interested in the analysis of this notable character. If they feel like reading the page about the film, too, what's the issue? Will they expect major differences in the content of the respective articles? Of course, they would. The page can be improved but I think coverage is sufficient to warrant a standalone article. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree as the of current, the only thing the article has is a re-iteration of the plot of the film, and some vague interpretations from Rhodes and others discussing the performance of Lugosi within the context of the film. There is nothing here discussing him outside the context of White Zombie. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? Have you opened the links and read the sources by any chance? (and more exists; willing to add it later, fwiw) If you have (read all the sources completely) and are still sincerely thinking what you are saying, well, let's agree to disagree....Some of the coverage may be deemed as vague by you, some may discuss the performance or the political/gender/race implications of the character and so on, but they do focus on the character extensively. Even if the context of the film is obviously evoked and present at some point, the character is the object of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth and directly.) I'm afraid I have no further comment. Best wishes, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and add it. (see WP:BURDEN). I see several sources, but if this is to be expanded then do it. In it's current state, it is not noteworthy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a friendly reply. Much appreciated. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would have said to draftify it, but per the improvements made since the discussion started (per WP:HEY) I think the subject just about meets the notability criteria. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to White Zombie. This whole AfD has been a mess and a half, but judging from an outsider's perspective on this, there does appear to be some good coverage on Legendre. However, there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing wise to justify Legendre's split. Any of the info here can easily be covered in the White Zombie article, perhaps as part of the Critical Reception/Influence section, given the analysis of Legendre's role in the film. As it stands, however, unless more sources discussing Legendre individually come to light, I'm going to have to vote Merge on this one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So can this whole discussion about deletion of this article finally go away please. (Talk), 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykgnugji (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to White Zombie. The coverage doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV, particularly with only short one-sentence mentions in the reception. There is certainly something worth preserving here and it can be covered at the main article about the film. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White Zombie (film) - Aside from the concerns regarding the actual sourcing not being sufficient to justify a split out article, I would argue that this is also a WP:NOPAGE situation, where it just makes more sense for the character and his reception being covered as part of our overall coverage of the movie itself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The documentation about Merge indicates that Merging should be avoided if "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short." I have already insisted on the fact that multiple reliable sources offer very significant coverage on the character specifically. Please read the article and open the sources linked. None of them is trivial, none of them are passing mentions. They do establish the notability of this character. Cannot see how this sourcing could be judged insufficient for a standalone page, let alone what only short one-sentence mentions in the reception refers to. What reception? Where? What's more, the White Zombie page is now considered a Good article and the insertion of so much material would certainly be challenged (if permitted at all) as undue coverage of a specific topic, which would make the merging problematic if permitted at all by contributors who have so far managed to stabilise a version of the article about the film and merging would be detrimental to the page quality and balance in my view. Remember that stability and focus are two criteria for GA articles....Improvements are certainly possible while merging would therefore also imply a drastic loss of information about the character. When I read that it makes more sense for the character and his reception being covered as part of our overall coverage of the movie itself Why? If guidelines warrant a standalone page, how does it make more sense, not to keep it separate? If GNG requirements are met, the existence of a standalone page should not be challenged.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its quite simply because I don't consider these to be "discrete subjects". Its a single, standalone movie, and a character that only appeared in that one movie - these are topics that I believe should be covered in a single article. If Murder Legendre was a reoccurring character that appeared in multiple movies/works of fiction and had a lot of coverage regarding those different appearances, then that might be the case that he was a distinct subject from White Zombie. But when he only appeared in this single movie and all of the coverage is about his appearance in that one movie, then it should be covered in the article on that movie. In regards to the concerns of the length and structure of the resulting merge, proper merging does not simply mean copying one article entirely and pasting it into another, it should be a case where the various pieces of information in this article are integrated into the proper sections of the movie article, with duplicative information not being moved over at all. For example, obviously the bit of this article summarizing the movie plot would not need to be moved over at all, as the film article already has a detailed plot summary. The section describing the reception of Lugosi's performance would fit in in the Reception section of the film, the "Legacy" section for the character would fit in the "Aftermath and influence" section of the film, etc. If done properly a Merge should neither ruin the structure of the existing White Zombie article nor make it overly long. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tite

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

Likely autobiography created by Andrewtite and currently fails WP:NACTOR. Prod tag removed by IP who claims to know the subject so bringing here. The references consist of two dead film websites listing the cast, and one local newspaper article about Tite's work as a mascot for $17/hour. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't come close to meeting notability requirements in the sources already used, and immediately clear from a search that there are no better sources to add.Thebookstamper (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of passing of WP:NACTOR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notabilty. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not a notable actor. I once dressed up in a Smokey Bear costume and that does not make me notable. I am sorry that somebody got some terrible advice from a scammer, but that has no impact on this deletion debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability and acting notability. The references are rubbish.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.metronews.ca/toronto/comment/article/102706	Archived from Wayback - An interview about performing in a mascot costume	Probably not	Yes	Probably	No
2	web.archive.org/web/20080827203656/http://cycleoffear.net/index_files/Page364.htm	Wayback archive of a cast listing for a film from the playbill. 14th line in cast listing	Yes	No, neither for GNG nor for NACTOR	Probably	No
3	web.archive.org/web/20080117163502/http://www.thesecharmingmen.ca/castcrew.html	Unreadable Wayback archive of a cast listing for a film from the playbill	Yes	Probably not	Unreadable	?

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last source is unreadable, but looking at the source it's because they made the text black on a black background (and scrolling for some reason). After making it readable, he appears to be mentioned in the cast table, playing as an extra. Still not significant. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 08:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since I realized I forgot to vote in my previous comment. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:NACTOR and fails WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 08:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability.Jeppiz (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To qualify for an article an actor must pass the test at WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Most of the roles listed in the filmography are very minor parts, e.g. in "Charming Men" he played "Nerd Extra #1", and in "Zombie Jesus!" he was an extra in a congregation. The movies where he had more significant roles do not appear to be notable, e.g. "Cycle of Fear: There Is No End" does not appear to have recieved any coverage in reliable sources or have been reviewed anywhere, "Light's Malevolence" is a short film I can find no coverage of in reliable sources (IMDB estimates the box office takings at $400). The sources in the article consist of two cast lists and an interview with a local paper, which are insufficient to demonstrate a passing of WP:NBASIC. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aurora Boulevard. Any editor interested in merging content to the target article can do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonas Street

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

Tagged as unsourced since 2017. WP:NROAD states: "Topic notability...local roads, streets...are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." But Anonas Street is just like any other street in the Philippines. Note that the street is not named after the station, but (per claim in this article) "named after the Anonas family who originated from Iba, Zambales, settled in this area and built a factory near the river." The claim itself is unsourced. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it would be, as a sourced claim would probably point to the (not too reliable) guidebooks such as https://lakansining.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/quezon-city-exploring-the-histories-of-landmarks-along-anonas-street-passing-through-the-quirino-sikatuna-and-teachers-village-districts/ (self-published) saying that it is named after Annona reticulata, and really not treating this street as their focus, as nor do the history books. That self-published page leads to another, https://lakansining.wordpress.com/2020/01/30/quezon-city-the-peoples-homesite-and-housing-projects/, whose title tells us what to look for, and find, in the very much not self-published history books: the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation.
There's probably a way to discuss the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation projects (the actual historical things), including Project 2 that this street is in and that forms part of the Quirino District, in Wikipedia; but going street by street like this and not starting with the PHHC (which, bizarrely, only gets more than a mention anywhere, in a subsection of the Veterans Village article) is not the way to do it. The world has not documented Quezon City this way.
Whereas the PHHC in contrast is documented in a wide variety of sources starting with ISBN 9780226598253 (pp. 112 et seq, University of Chicago Press) ISBN 9781003812883 (pp. 207 et seq. which has a breakdown of Quirino District into projects 1, 2, 3, and 4, Taylor & Francis) and more contemporary sources such as Garde, Flavanio A., ed. (1965). "Planning for Children and Youth in National Development: the Philippine Experience (part 2)". The Philippine Economy Bulletin. Vol. 4, no. 2. National Economic Council..
Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aurora Boulevard, where it is mentioned, per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Anonas Street lacks sufficient coverage to support an entry. gidonb (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb those are different roads, right? I don't see any relation between them even if Anonas is connected to it and it is mentioned there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonas Street is a feeder street into Aurora Boulevard. WP:ATDs are much appreciated, upfront and after the fact! gidonb (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a paragraph in this article by the Philippines edition of Esquire magazine, which states: At one point, Anonas St. in Quezon City became a hotspot for live music, and Freedom Bar and 70's Bistro were its busiest centers. Here, local bands were encouraged to play originals to jampacked crowds. Busy Anonas St. also accommodated a network of fans and musicians, providing an opportunity for folk and rock musicians to bump into one other. Left guide (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide still it is just one reliable source, not sufficient to make this article worthy of inclusion here. Perhaps at least 2 or 3 sources needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Understood, just laying it out here in case someone else is able to piece together another source or two (offline/print/newspaper/etc) to build a stronger case for notability, or if there's merge potential. Left guide (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ with sources presented above. SBKSPP (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote below. SBKSPP (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – apart from the sources above – I'm aware that YouTube videos, Wikipedia files don't contribute to WP:NOTABILITY, but there are a lot of both regarding Anonas Street. There are also real estate listings. I'm looking at WP:Notability_(streets_and_roads) and WP:Notability_(Geographic_locations) (failed proposals though), this meets the criteria for both. TLA (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I find the above case for keep unpersuasive. If additional sources are ever found, the article can be easily restored. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still see no sources in the article establishing notability, just another generic road. I don't think a redirect to a larger intersecting street makes sense. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of roads in Metro Manila#Quezon City, where a sentence or two of sourced material from the Esquire piece can be integrated as a brief description, since the available sourcing is simply not enough for a standalone article. Left guide (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss the merits of possible merge/redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aurora Boulevard, do not delete, where it is connected per gidonb's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's next-to-nothing to merge to Aurora Boulevard or to anywhere else, and redirecting it to this article would just make more questions than answers to a potential reader. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pekon Gayam

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

Couldn't find any sources online with this name. No results on google maps, and coordinates formerly included in the article (5°47'S 105°41'E) are unhelpful. I'm also can't seem to find a searchable database of indonesian census results. I'm willing to withdraw this AfD if there's a source proving that this is legally recognized or meets WP:NGEO, but I haven't found one yet. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article looks like it was made by someone not familiar with Indonesian topic and definetly lost in translation. South Lampung is not a province, Pekon is an administrative term for village in certain parts of Lampung, and Penengahan is a district, not a sub-district. I assume they meant Gayam village, which exist and in South Lampung. But with so much of the article is wrong/misleading, there's no part to salvage and just better to delete it. Nyanardsan (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second the above. No references and many inaccuracies.- SimonP (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bunyan

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

Local radio presenter with no sufficient links. Links mainly point towards biography profiles and/or programme pages. Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not agree with nomination statement. J97736 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Radio, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Missed getting sorted into deletion sorting lists and minimal participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skynxnex (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are independent sources here, not great ones (the picture of the presenter preparing a meal is irrelevant and the stuff about the takeaway feels WP:REFBOMBy) but they exist all the same. I've added a new link to information about the presenter's programme ending. I'm on the fence with this one, so may be swayed to change my !vote. Flip Format (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:GNG, the individual does not have any real sufficient notability. The sources are also mediocre and as stated by Funky, point toward biography channels or program pages such as the BBC ones. Noorullah (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no issue with notability as he has been active in local radio for nearly 50 years, and there are now several independent references.Rillington (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. radio presenter for over 50 years and long serving BBC staff member. J97736 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. No objection to an immediate re-nomination at AfD. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avalum Naanum

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

Fails the general and television-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The series had more than 300 episodes on Star Vijay. At the very least a redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Vijay#Fiction, where it is listed, should be warranted in my opinion. Not strongly opposed to Keep, as content is verifiable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Switzerland football rivalry

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

I can't find evidence suggesting that the rivalry between these two national teams is notable. There are a few brief mentions, but I don't think there's enough for a standalone article here. An alternative to deletion could be a selective merge to History of the Germany national football team, though most content here is already covered and cited there. ^Complex/_Rational 17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Germany, and Switzerland. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In more or less every sport the German–Swiss rivalry is the most important rivalry for Switzerland and also very important for Germany. As of new as today there is a new article of this rivalry in the three main team sports in Switzerland. Also article from 2020.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No significant rivalry, there is total disparity between the teams. Switzerland appears to have much more rivalry with Serbia, for example. Svartner (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a direct translation from a German article so I cannot change the actual information. KatieMowat (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KatieMowat: As long as you provide attribution for the translated version, which you did on the talk page, there are no restrictions to editing the English article in order to "stay true" to its German counterpart. It's quite normal for different-language articles about the same subject to have significantly different content, and inclusion guidelines also vary across different Wikipedias. ^Complex/_Rational 14:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unproven. If exists or existed, our coverage should have started elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CIRS (AM)

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

Defunct tourist information radio station about which virtually nothing of substance can be written beyond "it existed". To be fair, this was a legitimate article subject at the time it was first created (by me, full disclosure) in 2008, but due to various changes in Wikipedia's notability standards for media outlets, it no longer meets the standards that apply in 2024: in 2008, a radio station was considered "inherently" notable so long as it was possible to verify that it existed, but in 2024 the test depends much more squarely on the radio station's ability to pass WP:GNG on its sourceability, which this one just doesn't.
Further, tourist information radio stations are specifically deprecated by WP:BCAST as unlikely to be notable at all in most cases, but this one can't really offer a compelling reason why it should be considered a special case of greater notability than the norm for a not-generally-notable class of topic.
By contemporary standards, all this really needs is a sentence or two in Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge -- which, in fact, it already has -- rather than its own full standalone article as an independent topic. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect to Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge and addition of "a sentence or two" per nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge: given the existing mention, this seems like a valid enough alternative to deletion here. I'm surprised this article has lasted as long as it has; we weeded out most articles on (particularly Canadian) tourist information stations in 2016, five years before the RfC that confirmed that GNG, not NMEDIA, was the notability barometer for broadcast stations (but again, even the old NMEDIA did not presume notability for tourist/travelers' information stations). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, what got this overlooked is that it wasn't in Category:Tourist information radio stations in Canada at all — it had been early on, but then got removed from that in 2012 on the basis of its defunctness and never got readded afterward, meaning that by the time the hard cleanup on tourist information stations happened in 2016 it already wasn't in that category and thus wasn't noticed. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Night Corridor

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

I found one article in my BEFORE search https://variety.com/2004/film/reviews/night-corridor-1200533531/ but nothing else despite existing for 20 years with numerous fan-pages. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly agreed with keep in light of the Routledge source in particular, as well as numerous other mentions in foreign language sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources to the article, including the review in Variety. See for yourself. Keep, obviously.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Variety article indicates notability, as does the Routledge International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture citation. A Google Books search shows that it's discussed in a French book, L'homosexualité au cinéma by Didier Roth-Bettoni, but the preview doesn't show me anything past the first sentence. It also appears to be very widely-discussed on film blogs including MonsterHunter Movie Reviews, Love HK Film, Cinespot and Unseen Films. (These may be what the OP characterizes as "numerous fan-pages".) These are also only the sources that can be immediately found in English (and French); I'd expect further sources exist in Chinese. I believe that WP:NEXIST applies here. Toughpigs (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chow, Vivienne (2003-08-17). "Indie tricks". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The article notes: "Director Julian Lee Chi-Chiu's new film Night Corridor is a miracle. With only a $500,000 grant from the Arts Development Council, Lee managed to blow this independent creation up to a seemingly big budget production. ... Night Corridor is an alternative film adapted from Lee's novel of the same title, filled with homosexual psycho-thriller elements which did not interest any of the local film investors. With no cash, Lee made every effort to lure the best talents in town to work with him. ... Now the film is not only finished, it is also popular. All screenings at the Independent Film Month at Broadway Cinematheque have been sold out. It goes on general release from August 21 at Cinematheque."
2. Weissberg, Jay (2004-05-11). "Night Corridor". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The review notes: "The cinematic equivalent of fusion cuisine, gothic tale “Night Corridor” proves that too many influences spoil the soup. Novelist-photographer-filmmaker Julian Lee serves up this devilish brew with plenty of eerie mystery and Lynchian obfuscation, but the offerings intrigue rather than satisfy. Don’t expect much H.K. sauce in the mix, although there are generous helpings of “Rosemary’s Baby” and “The Ninth Door” stirred in alongside Japanese-style horror. Locals stayed home last fall; offshore, this is a specialty vid offering."
3. Scott, Matthew (2003-08-13). "Daniel's dark awakening". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The article notes: "For Hong Kong audiences and Wu's legions of fans, used to seeing him in mainstream fare such as the mega-successful Love Undercover (2002), Night Corridor certainly is "different". Director Lee took his inspiration from the creepy painting Nightmare (1781) by Swiss-born artist Fuseli and thus the film (like Wu's central character) charts a course somewhere between clarity and confusion. Being an independent effort made with a limited budget, the film at times suffers from the restraints inherit to this kind of production. And that is something to which Wu readily admits. ... For Hong Kong audiences, Night Corridor might be about as non-commercial as you can get - it touches on homo-erotica, as well paedophilia, and comes with a Category III restriction. Wu is under no illusions about the audience the film might attract, or of its place in the whole scheme of things here."
4. Pei, Ya 皮亞. "《妖夜迴廊》雙生兒妖夜之死" ["Night Corridor": Death of Twins Yaoye] (in Chinese). Hong Kong Film Critics Society. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The review notes: "《妖夜迴廊》大膽走進最危險的國度，鑽營港產片少見的類型，說一個永遠也沒有盡頭的妖夜傳說，剪接紛紛亂亂，如夢魘般重複著人物說話動作情節的關節眼，最後只打上四個大字：死因不明。問題在那裡，心知肚明吧。"
  From Google Translate: ""Night Corridor" boldly enters the most dangerous country, explores a genre rarely seen in Hong Kong films, and tells a never-ending legend of the demonic night. The editing is messy, and the joints of the characters' words, actions, and plot are repeated like a nightmare. In the end, there were only four big words: cause of death unknown. The problem is there, you know it."
5. Gau, Ling-cam 玖零叁 (2015-03-15). "《妖夜迴廊》－李志超的情慾惡夢" ["Night Corridor" - Julian Lee's erotic nightmare]. inmediahk.net [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The article notes: "李志超Julian在去年尾辦了回顧展後就離世，留下未拍的自傳和多少經典作品。上星期在其生前好友在西環設的《「識情。賞美」李志超靈感展覽》買了他寫的《妖夜迴廊》小說。《妖夜迴廊》後來由Julian自己執導拍成影像版本，找來吳彥祖主演和監製，演員有惠英紅、蔣怡、高雄、谷峰，是香港獨立電影的其中一部經典。所以在看書前決定先看電影版本。"
  From Google Translate: "Julian Lee passed away after a retrospective exhibition at the end of last year, leaving behind an unfilmed autobiography and several classic works. Last week, I bought the novel "The Corridor of the Night" written by him at the "Julian Lee Inspiration Exhibition of "Understanding Emotions and Appreciating Beauty" set up by his friend during his lifetime in Sai Wan. "Night Corridor" was later directed and made into a video version by Julian himself, with Daniel Wu starring and producing. The actors include Kara Wai, Coco Chiang, Eddy Ko, and Chan Sze-man. It is one of the classics of Hong Kong independent films. So I decided to watch the movie version before reading the book."
6. Chung, Winnie (2003-12-13). "Asian Oscars set for an affair with Hong Kong film - Infernal Affairs up for 12 awards at annual Golden Horse event in Taiwan". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The article notes: "Hong Kong films are expected to grab the limelight in Taiwan tonight at the 40th annual Golden Horse Awards, Asia's equivalent of the Academy Awards. ... Infernal Affairs star Tony Leung Chiu-wai is the hot favourite in the best actor category. Leung is up against his Infernal Affairs co-star Andy Lau Tak-wah, Daniel Wu for indie film Night Corridor and Simon Yam Tat-wah for PTU. ... Hong Kong actresses Kara Hui Ying-hung and Candy Lo Hau-yum were nominated in the best supporting actress category for their work in Night Corridor and Truth or Dare: 6/F Rear Flat."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Night Corridor (traditional Chinese: 妖夜迴廊; simplified Chinese: 妖夜回廊) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pipoca

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

Athlete from the Corinthians youth categories who made up the squad in 2007 alongside other young athletes like Lulinha, but did not have a well-known career. Even on the Meu Timão website, which provides extensive coverage of the club's players, nothing appears. Fails in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dematagoda#Schools as an AtD based on consensus not to retain. Daniel (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veluwana College

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP: NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Buddhism, and Sri Lanka. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSCHOOL, was recreated after being deleted via PROD. Still lacks any sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NSCHOOL, no indication of any importance beyond that this school exists Josey Wales^Parley 22:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dematagoda#Schools the locality where it is listed, as an AtD if notability is not established. Rupples (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. This article in the Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) looks to be about the school's cricket team [2] although bit of uncertainty as it places the school in neighbouring Kolonnawa. Also, this [3] in the Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka) — so the school may have a degree of notability in cricket. Rupples (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Symanowski

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some behind the scenes of making the movies, but nothing extensive about this person [4] and [5]. I don't see notability from the sources used in the article either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn Mach61 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Boyd

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

~~I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Delete~~ : I find barely any mention of this person, nor any book reviews. Should be deleted for a lack of extensive sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781560255154

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/helen-boyd/my-husband-betty/

https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/making-trans-parents-visible-intersectionality-of-trans-and-paren

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26501117 65.27.103.217 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cornell.edu/video/transforming-literature-ryka-aoki-helen-boyd-ely-shipley 65.27.103.217 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.lawrence.edu/articles/award-shines-light-advocacy-work-helen-boyd-kramer

https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/helen-boyd/shes-not-the-man-i-married/9780786750542/?lens=seal-press

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2004/03/31/boyd-elucidates-trans-gender-issues/

https://events.cornell.edu/event/transforming_literature_a_conversation_with_ryka_aoki_helen_boyd_ely_shipley

https://www.thestranger.com/podcasts/2011/01/04/6152496/savage-love-episode-220

https://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1024621

https://ontheissuesmagazine.com/love/how-a-feminist-found-her-sexismby-helen-boyd/ 65.27.103.217 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, New York, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Np7R0ZJTI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YeLeMiMXuY 65.27.103.217 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. @Boleyn and Oaktree b: please see the added reviews for both books. This is in addition to the sources the IP listed above. Best, Bridget (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First two reviews are fine, the Jstor one helps, the rest are podcasts or personal appearances, which don't help notability but are useful to color the discussion. I'll adjust my !vote shortly. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you are arriving at this count. There are six reviews listed in the article, three for each book, all in notable magazines or newspapers. None of these are "podcasts or personal appearances". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, please see take a look at the article for the reviews I added in these two edits. I'm not only talking about what links the IP posted above, which seems to be what you are looking at. There are reviews in the Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, and Publishers Weekly (book review publications), and one in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, which seems to be a reputed LGBT academic journal. Best, Bridget (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I voted to keep it, it's a moot point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:HEY. The newly turned-up reviews are enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the Jstor book review is the best, then Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Rest given above are not helpful for notability but can help add to the discussion. Just barely passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The threat of deletion has encouraged interested editors to toughen up the references in the last couple of days. I've just added two more myself (re Lambda Literary and On the Issues). I think the article should meet wiki standards now. Subvert47 (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Recent edits and source searches have clearly established notability. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I'm happy to be proved wrong. Thanks for your input, Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptris

AfDs for this article:

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

2018 AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some talk of this software in blogs or animation websites, this [6] in Screen Rant. None of which are extensive or most in RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1892 Livingstone football team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS as a one game 'season'. The single game is already mentioned at Livingstone College#Athletics, and is a possible redirect/merge target. Let'srun (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merger of both this and the Biddle article to a creation of 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game would probably be a decent idea; the first black college football game ever is probably a notable topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to make an article for it soon... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I assume you mean the first game involving 2 HBCUs? There appear to have been some games involving schools such as North Carolina A&M playing different academies prior to this game, and such an article still would need more sourcing beyond the single secondary source currently present. Let'srun (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Meant A&T Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A&T doesn't seem to have played prior to this; per our article: In 1901, the team played its first game, losing to Livingstone College. The team played only one game during the 1901 season and did not field another team until 1906. The game appears to be prominently featured in the book Black College Football, 1892-1992 and its author, a "foremost authority" on black college history, said "Before Biddle and Livingston no there were no black colleges participating in college football." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game if such page exists, otherwise keep. jp×g 🗯️ 05:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun and JPxG: Created the article for 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game. Suggest redirect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I agree with the merge. jp×g 🗯️ 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirecting here. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game. Thanks to Beanie for creating the target article. A worthwhile topic -- well done. Cbl62 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game per above. Alvaldi (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game. Carrite (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1892 Biddle football team

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

This entire article is just content that already exists in Johnson C. Smith Golden Bulls#Commemorative Classic: "The Birth of Black College Football". As it stands, this does not meet the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG as a one game season, per WP:NOPAGE this does not provide any additional context on its own page. Let'srun (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merger of both this and the Livingstone article to a creation of 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game would probably be a decent idea; the first black college football game ever is probably a notable topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to make an article for it soon... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the first game involving 2 HBCUs? There appear to have been some games involving schools such as North Carolina A&M playing different academies prior to this game, and such an article still would need more sourcing beyond the single secondary source currently present. Let'srun (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something, but where does it say that NC State was historically black? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game if such page exists, otherwise keep. jp×g 🗯️ 05:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun and JPxG: Created the article for 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game. Suggest redirect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirecting here as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game. Thanks to Beanie for creating the target article. A worthwhile topic -- well done. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1892 Biddle vs. Livingstone football game per above. Great work. Alvaldi (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Combination of a (small) consensus plus copyvio concerns means I am not going to soft-delete this, rather full delete. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Phillips

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

Worthy and successful career, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Medicine, and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the submission comments, the lead appears to be directly copied from the University of Toronto's website (WP:COPYVIO).

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo J. Tearney

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

No evidence of significant independent coverage of this scientist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Massachusetts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence of significant independent coverage with 7 papers with over 1000 cites? Pull the other one. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe what does "pull the other one" mean? S0091 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Bad nomination; the claim that there was no evidence of coverage in the nomination statement tells more about the nominator's lack of WP:BEFORE than about the subject, because coverage was not hard to find. Beyond the pass of WP:PROF#C1 already discussed above, he passes #C3 (Fellow of National Academy of Inventors) and #C5 (named professorship at Harvard). None of these notability criteria depend on independence of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Apparently I got this one wrong. Apologies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close‎ as this was nominated in error.. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Zhi'an

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. cited sources are his YouTube videos.~~Maliner (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and China. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eureka (organisation)#Significant projects. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSAMI-D

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

I could find only this and this covering this subproject. The Google search showed that there are no other reliable sources. I'm not sure that the specified sources are independent and whether or not it is sufficient to establish the notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OSAMI or delete, depending if the OSAMI article is deleted or not I know that this article isn't notable enough for this Wikipedia, maybe the OSAMI one is okay, but this one definitely isn't. Toketaa^talk 15:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eureka_(organisation)#Significant_projects: the organization running the project. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eureka (organisation)#Significant projects. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSAMI

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

Full of promo, couldn't find sources with enough coverage. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Europe. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eureka_(organisation)#Significant_projects: the organization running the project. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eureka (organisation)#Significant projects. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSAMI-E

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

No evidence of notability of this subproject of OSAMI. Couldn't find reliable sources with significant coverage. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Spain. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OSAMI or delete, depending if the OSAMI article is deleted or not I know that this article isn't notable enough for this Wikipedia, maybe the OSAMI one is okay, but this one definitely isn't. Toketaa^talk 15:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eureka_(organisation)#Significant_projects: the organization running the project. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attanthangal

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

Not reliable source to even prove the bare minimum WP:NGEO guideline. Sohom (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've modified the coordinates given in the article, thus a click on them shows at Google maps and Bing maps this location exists. I think it's a case of WP:POPULATED ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"). --Cyfal (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I do see a few reliable sources barely mentioning this as well on a deeper BEFORE search. That being said, I wonder given the lack of coverage whether it would be appropriate to redirect this to Chennai (with no prejudice towards recreation). Sohom (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:POPULATED
Geardona (talk to me?) 00:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – well, major Indian news organizations including Times of India & The Hindu recognize it, so WP:POPULATED applies. TLA (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To continue discussion w/r/t sourcing. Edit conflict on the close, and per request on my Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the relist, the comment I was going to make in an attempted relist is that the above arguments for keep make assertions that WP:POPULATED has been met or that there is coverage available in TOI or The Hindu, but I'm not seeing any examples of sources that support either of those assertions in this discussion or in the article's citations. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the only three sources that have barely mentioned this place to the article. This does include one pulication from TOI and one from The Hindu.
  However, if we zoom out of Wikipedia policy land for a second, Chennai is a huge metropolitan city that is the sixth-most populous city in India. Normally localities of such cities get hundreds (if not thousands) of sources talking about them. The fact that there are only three sources which are barely mentions of this neighbourhood, tells me that this neighbourhood isn't notable enough for a standalone article at this point. Sohom (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Census of India it is a village. It is, as far as census data (and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) goes at least, in Sholavaram Panchayat Union. There are Census results going back decades. It had 424 people in the 1951 Census, for example. Definitely populated. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulisses dos Santos

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

In spite of meeting NATH 2 through his South American Games medal, I was unable to find SIGCOV through my google searches (note NATH only states that SIGCOV is likely to exist, not guarantee a pass). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Brazil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; plenty of hits on Brazilian Digital Hemeroteca (newspaper archive), but I can't seem to access anything as it's just spewing server errors. Also, his death was widely reported, so may be reasonable to expect significant coverage to exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the expansion and sources found by wjemather. The TV Globo article on his death is clearly significant coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the above. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asiman Hasanov

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

There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that this scientist is notable. This is one of many extremely poor articles that a ring of editors are importing into the English Wikipedia from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Azerbaijan. Owen× ☎ 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject certainly pass 7th criteria of WP:PROF for person being pioneer of health management and hospital construction development and also minimally invasive procedures in Azerbaijan. There are reliable secondary sources proofing the fact (for example) and also addressing the subject of article directly. The only problem is the sources being non-English. --Surə ^🗯 11:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source, which is of dubious reliability, says the subject is involved in vague, unspecified innovations in Azerbaijani health care management. Reads to me like a typical pro-government puff piece. Thenightaway (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep decent article with decent sourcing. Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Pro-government puff piece”? The topic of the source is the person's work in the digitization of healthcare in Azerbaijan. What does this even have to do with government? This is how you "characterize" almost all Azerbaijani sources although you need a good argument to say that.

When it comes to the reability of the sources, let me provide you with an additional sources. This website is famous for its critical articles in Azerbaijan, it often criticizes various people and publishes research. It criticized Asiman Hasanov several times and this is one of them: [7]. Asiman Hasanov is a famous scientist in Azerbaijan, and there were even opinions that he would be appointed deputy minister. At that time, the same source admits that Asiman Hasanov is an important scientist in the field of scientific and technological innovations and medical management. ([8])

Another source:[9]

In addition, Asiman Hasanov was one of the most important figures in the vaccination process against COVID-19 in Azerbaijan. He has given statements on vaccination, disease and spread of the disease. So he has a special influence in the country. The sources proofing the fact: ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) --Surə ^🗯 14:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – at its current state, the article reads like WP:PROMO. The sources used here seem to be either WP:ROUTINE or press releases (no byline), while those that seem to meet WP:RELIABLE/WP:INDEPENDENT are just mentions. I'm not very familiar with Azerbaijani sources, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Sources above are just a kitchen sink collection of name mentions sprinkled with interview quotes and mill news, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV.

Article source eval:

Comments	Source
Dead 404	1. Fins.az. "Who is Asiman Hasanov?" . fins.az_ Retrieved 2023-10-24 .[permanent dead link]
Dead 404	2. ^Jump up to:a b c Fins.az. "Asiman Hasanov was awarded the "Progress" medal". fins.az_ Retrieved 2023-10-24 .[permanent dead link]
Name mention, nothing meeting SIGCOV.	3. ^ "Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan on awarding healthcare workers of the Republic of Azerbaijan with the "Progress" medal » Official website of the President of Azerbaijan" . president.az (in Azerbaijani). Archived from the original on 2023-08-21 . Retrieved 2023-08-21 .
Brief promo bio	4. ^Jump up to:a b c d e "Who is the newly appointed Asiman Hasanov? - Unikal.az". unique.az_ Retrieved 2023-10-24 .
Brief two sentences, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV for BLP	5. ^ modern.az. "A group of scientists in Azerbaijan has achieved serious results in the direction of digitization of healthcare" . modern.az (in Azerbaijani) . Retrieved 2023-10-24 .
Routine mill annoucement about appointment. Fails WP:SIGCOV, NOTNEWS	6. ^ Global.az. "Is Asiman Hasanov appointed deputy minister?" . global.az _ Retrieved 2023-10-24 .

Ping me if sources are found and added to the article that meet WP:SIGCOV and are not routine mill news or name mentions. // Timothy :: talk 04:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Payhawk

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to funding coverage and press release reprints. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Bulgaria. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A412. I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. I suspect this article was created for promotional purposes. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A412. I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources referenced, so per WP:THREE, it would be helpful if you could identify here the three best sources from the references, to help us evaluate. Please pay attention to WP:ORGTRIV and WP:ORGIND, in particular: these sources should not be announcements of Payhawk raising money, press release reprints ("Today, Payhawk announced...") that do not contain additional analysis, or articles that primarily consist of interview quotes from people associated with Payhawk. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Apart from the significant coverage in a large array of routine coverage, here is WP:THREE that I could find quickly.

Forbes article about how the company is the first unicorn in Bulgaria. Business Insider article about how it raised $100M. Capital (Bulgarian newspaper) about its billion-dollar valuation (again). It's impressive as Bulgaria's first unicorn. Meets WP:GNG in my books! TLA (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that this would meet WP:GNG, but the relevant SNG is WP:NCORP, which is stricter, and specifically excludes coverage "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital". RS don't actually say anything about Payhawk other than that it's been really good at raising money. As an aside, the term unicorn doesn't actually independently mean anything outside of the startup's valuation when they raise money. It's just a number. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. What about this? TLA (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The post clearly says "Sponsored by Payhawk" in the header. Fails WP:ORGIND. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources in the article and the ones I can locate all rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W16DS-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Giorgio Pisanò#Political activity and parliament. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and Freedom Movement

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

Obscure political party which does not have any representative elected on a regional or national level. All sources found refer to a court ruling that acquitted the party of the charge of Apologia di fascismo [it] (apology of fascism). No WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Italy. Broc (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to founder Giorgio_Pisanò, or more accurately to Giorgio_Pisanò#Political_activity_and_parliament, where the party and the relevant court acquittal are already mentioned. Cavarrone 12:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second option, it makes sense. --Broc (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Gariglio

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

Council member in a small town, only made it to the press for being a Hitler fan: [17]. Not notable. Broc (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. Broc (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG pretty clearly. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Wike

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

Only minor roles as actor. Co-writer of one notable film, An Evening with Beverly Luff Linn, still does not fulfill WP:NACTOR. Broc (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Broc (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Sidhu

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:NSINGER. No indication of significance. Nothing on social media. Own site is only half-built. scope_creep^Talk 13:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's also evidence of self-promotion in the primary editor's editing history. Paywalled cited sources appear to be primarily about Sidhu Moosewala. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, self promotion and refs do not support the article. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saumitra Rawat

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

Very likely a paid-for article or at least heavy UPE involvement post-creation. I won't PROD or speedy because the subject might be notable so it's worth a debate but the sourcing in the article as stands is paper thin and the article is essentially a CV in prose format. There are a few rock-solid reliable sources cited but they don't appear to say anything much about this gentleman. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and India. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in light of near-certain paid editing, WP:NEWSORGINDIA is particularly concerning for me. I would not be surprised if many of the sources are themselves paid, which would render the sourcing ineligible for GNG consideration. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 13:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article fails WP:GNG with mostly unreliable sources and the ones that we could consider somewhat reliable does not show any significant coverage about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article was created by me as a part of my efforts to create articles on Padma Award winners of India. The subject of this article is a recipient of Padma Shri, the fourth highest civilian hour of a country with a population of 1.4 billion. It is up to people like User:RetroCosmos to believe that this is paid editing but before reaching to such a conclusion, I would advise anyone to check on my Wiki history. I believe Padma Shri gives the subject notability per WP:ANYBIO. If the article needs pruning to remove dubious references, that may be looked into. --jojo@nthony (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing you in particular of paid editing. I thoroughly checked the article history before creating an SPI report, and (on a quick glance) did not believe you to be a sockpuppet. However, this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 14:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was a sweeping one and, being the creator and major contributor of the article, I felt the accusation points towards me. If it is otherwise, sorry, it's my mistake, I must have failed to grasp the real content. jojo@nthony (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Ganga Ram Hospital

https://sgrh.com/leadership-team#!#Board_of_Management

Padma Shri Award 2015

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/two-doctors-get-padma-bhushan-16-padma-shri-115012500823_1.html

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/delhi/padma-shri-for-dr-rawat-35815

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2015/Jan/25/padma-awards-lk-advani-gets-padma-vibhushan-709535.html

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/heggade-amitabh-get-padma-vibhushan-2108842

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-and-current-affairs/story/list-of-padma-awards-2015-247836-2015-04-09

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/advani-bachchan-dilip-kumar-get-padma-vibhushan/articleshow/46015106.cms?from=mdr

https://www.news18.com/news/india/full-list-padma-awards-737736.html

https://newsroom24x7.com/2015/01/25/padma-awards-for-advani-bachchan-and-bill-gates/

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/the-104-people-who-were-conferred-the-padma-awards-today

https://tribunenewsline.com/know-about-dr-saumitra-rawat-who-was-selected-for-padma-shri/

https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=162006123

https://www.bhaskar.com/news/up-doctor-saumitra-rawat-got-padma-shri-award-will-give-free-treatment-to-poor-4951075-pho.html

https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=114952

https://alumni.du.ac.in/archives/archive-15/pdf/1%20Medley%20Fast%20Track/alft%200004%2025%20padmas%20in%20last%205%20years%20and%20%202015%20padma%20awardees.pdf

https://in.ambafrance.org/17-foreigners-NRIs-among-104-Padma

https://zeenews.india.com/news/india/padma-awards-2015-announced-advani-amitabh-among-104-awardees_1536246.html

https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-01/Awards_2015_14042017.PDF

First Colorectal Robotic Surgery in North India

https://zeenews.india.com/news/health/health-news/rare-robotic-surgery-to-remove-cancer-a-first-by-docs-in-north_23730.html

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/delhi-hospital-uses-robot-to-clear-rectal-cancer-113090400920_1.html

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2013/delhi/robot-helps-docs-remove-rectal-cancer.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468900920300426

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Robotic-assisted-esophagectomy%3A-A-literature-review-Jha-Dhamija/2504f50a4cbf7c80fd63c54b1efbe262fe08e707

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-5473-2_7

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/jalandhar/presentation-on-robotic-surgery-in-gastrointestinal-cancer-236001

https://www.worldwidejournals.com/indian-journal-of-applied-research-(IJAR)/recent_issues_pdf/2019/May/May_2019_1556694391_0208937.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/25863965/Controversies_in_management_of_gastric_cancer

https://medcraveonline.com/JLRDT/caudate-lobe-liver-abscess-early-surgical-drainage.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210261216304369

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35900502/

https://www.jcehepatology.com/article/S0973-6883(19)30118-5/fulltext

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342755102_Robotic-assisted_esophagectomy_A_literature_review_and_our_experience_at_tertiary_care_centre

https://healfoundation.in/changemakersclub/

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10080144/7/Shahab%20Consensus%20statement_G02.pdf

https://ijcp.in/Pages/Post_Detail.aspx?wid=20303

https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00467-2/attachment/71ee9e98-fc1c-42f4-be7b-5c4fbd40822a/mmc1.pdf

https://zeenews.india.com/news/health/diseases-and-conditions/pancreatic-biliary-cancers-difficult-to-treat-experts_27665.html

Teaching, Training, Chairman, moderator, faculty in various national and International conferences

https://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/indian-docs-could-be-exempted-from-part-of-exam-in-uk_823177.html

https://asiindia.org/list-of-orators-for-asicon-2017/

https://asiindia.org/wp-content/uploads/asi-handbook-2020.pdf

https://asiindia.org/wp-content/uploads/ASI-State-Chapter-Activities-2017.pdf

https://www.jipmer.edu.in/sites/default/files/14th%20%20EVE%20%20Final%20Brochure%201.pdf

https://www.iasgcon2023.com/pdf/IASGCON-2023-Final-Program.pdf

https://ibhi.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IBHI-Oncology-Summit-Programme-Schedule.pdf

https://www.iages.in/file/FALS-Colorectal-2019-Brochure.pdf

https://www.slideshare.net/GEMHospital/iasgcon-2016-scientific-program

https://www.iages.in/file/FALS-Colorectal-2018.pdf

https://therightdoctors.com/images/iages-2020-dr-saumitra-rawat-laparoscopic-d2-gastrectomy%E2%80%90step-by-step

https://rectalcancerupdate.com/

https://www.dmhospital.org/Academics-Laparoscopic-Surgery

https://www.assocham.org/uploads/files/1623754632.pdf

Contributor Oxford Handbook of Surgery

https://academic.oup.com/book/30086/chapter-abstract/256609570?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.euro-libris.ro/carte/oxford-handbook-of-clinical-surgery-oxford-medical-handbooks--i17401

He was appointed member, National Task Force for Corona, India to facilitate a public health response to the pandemic based on scientific and specialised domain knowledge. 12-member National Task Force for Corona included Union Cabinet Secretary as convenor, Secretary of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as ex officio member and nine other leading experts in healthcare in the country

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-19-sc-sets-up-national-task-force-to-streamline-oxygen-allocation-across-the-country/articleshow/82479711.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/supreme-court-sets-up-a-12-member-national-task-force-to-facilitate-public-health-response-to-the-pandemic/articleshow/82481922.cms

SC sets up 12-member national task force to allocate oxygen across India | Latest News India - Hindustan Times

Supreme Court forms 12-member oxygen task force to fight COVID emergency (newindianexpress.com)

SC forms National Task Force to streamline oxygen allocation : The Tribune India

Supreme Court forms National Task Force for transparent oxygen allocation - The Hindu

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/supreme-court-forms-national-task-force-to-streamline-oxygen-allocation

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/sc-constitutes-12-member-national-taskforce-to-distribute-oxygen-essential-drugs-1800282-2021-05-08

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/sc-constitutes-12-member-national-taskforce-to-distribute-oxygen-essential-drugs-1800282-2021-05-08

COVID-19: SC sets up National Task Force to oversee oxygen distribution - The Week

https://www.financialexpress.com/lifestyle/health/supreme-court-sets-up-12-member-national-task-force-to-ensure-oxygen-supply/2248503/

https://zeenews.india.com/india/supreme-court-sets-up-12-member-panel-to-monitor-oxygen-allocation-amid-covid-19-surge-2360617.html

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/supreme-court-constitutes-national-task-force-for-oxygen-allocation-in-country-amid-raging-covid-pandemic/754535

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/top-stories/sc-forms-national-task-force-to-streamline-oxygen-allocation.html

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/080521/sc-steps-in-sets-up-12-member-national-task-force-to-manage-o2-pande.html

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/economy-politics/story/covid-19-supreme-court-forms-12-member-task-force-to-distribute-oxygen-to-states-295326-2021-05-08

https://www.news18.com/news/india/covid-19-supreme-court-sets-up-12-member-national-task-force-for-oxygen-distribution-to-states-3719111.html

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/coronavirus-outbreak-supreme-court-sets-up-12-member-oxygen-national-task-force/cid/1815018

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-sc-sets-up-task-force-to-oversee-distribution-of-oxygen-to-states-uts/382300

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/national-task-force-on-oxygen-why-has-it-been-constituted-who-are-its-members-and-their-mandate-6873901.html

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/supreme-court-sets-up-national-task-force-to-assess-oxygen-distribution-in-country-amid-covid-19-surge20210508184050/

https://www.thestatesman.com/india/oxygen-crisis-supreme-court-pushes-setting-national-task-force-entire-country-1502966760.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-ropes-in-experts-for-national-task-force-to-overhaul-allocation-of-o2-to-states/articleshow/82489728.cms

https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/et-now/markets/sc-appointed-panel-wants-2-3-weeks-of-strategic-oxygen-reserve-for-future-emergencies/101500

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-19-india-must-have-strategic-oxygen-reserve-ntf-tells-sc/articleshow/83827026.cms

https://news.abplive.com/news/india/supreme-court-constitutes-national-task-force-to-review-oxygen-distribution-amid-covid-crisis-1457413

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/sc-sets-up-national-task-force-to-assess-country-wide-oxygen-distribution-amid-covid19-11620473406508.html

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/covid-updates-supreme-court-sets-national-task-force-streamline-oxygen-supply-across-india-836094

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/first-meeting-of-national-task-force-on-medical-oxygen-set-up-by-sc-held-today-sources20210509223735/

https://theprint.in/judiciary/sc-forms-12-member-task-force-to-ensure-scientific-distribution-of-oxygen-to-states-uts/654930/

https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1390988326723670017

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1390998444941078534

https://zeenews.india.com/video/india/immunityconclaveonzee-discussion-over-indias-fight-against-coronavirus-with-senior-medical-officials-2293789.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/covid-jabs-for-12-14-age-group-starts-tomorrow-clinical-trials-ensure-corbevax-vaccine-is-safe-says-dr-saumitra-rawat/videoshow/90229303.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/no-need-to-vaccinate-those-who-had-covid-19-infection-suggests-health-experts/videoshow/83434001.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/covid-jabs-for-12-14-age-group-starts-tomorrow-clinical-trials-ensure-corbevax-vaccine-is-safe-says-dr-saumitra-rawat/videoshow/90229303.cms?from=mdr

Received Honorary Doctorate of Science (DSc) by KumaunUniversity

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/pm-likely-to-attend-16th-convocation-of-kumaun-university/articleshow/71637504.cms

https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/state/uttarakhand/other-cities/justice-dy-chandrachud-get-honorary-degree-at-convocation-ceremony-of-kumaon-university/amp_articleshow/74529347.cms

https://www.devbhoomimedia.com/kumaon-university-16th-convocation/

https://www.jagran.com/uttarakhand/nainital-justice-chandrachud-rajat-sharma-and-padma-shri-dr-soumitra-rawat-will-get-honorary-degrees-at-the-convocation-ceremony-of-kumaon-university-20075566.html

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/india-tv-s-editor-in-chief-rajat-sharma-to-be-awarded-with-honorary-doctorate-from-kumaun-university-595785

Young Leaders Conclave

https://www.narendramodi.in/shri-narendra-modi-to-speak-at-the-young-indian-leaders-conclave-on-29th-june-2013-5354

Distinguished alumini of Delhi University

https://alumni.du.ac.in/archives/Ezine10/content/02%20What%27s%20New/ALUMNI%20%20SERVICES%20%20%202017%20%E2%80%93%202018.pdf

Delivered Endowment Lecture at Association of Surgeons of India Annual Conference

https://asiindia.org/prof-santokh-singh-anand-endowment-lecturers/

https://asiindia.org/list-of-orators-for-asicon-2017/

Renowned Indian surgical gastroenterologist and Padma Shri recipient, Dr Saumitra Rawat (Head Gastroenterology and Liver Transplant, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital) delivered extension lecture on ‘New Modalities in Gastro-intestinal Cancer Surgery’ at the Department of Surgery, JNMC

https://twitter.com/AMUPRO1/status/958940958069964800

Delivered the prestigious 2018 European Association for Endoscopic Surgery lecture. “Training in minimal access surgery in asia pacific and avoiding errors & complications” at Annual conference of Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland in Manchester

https://www.alsgbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/016-Final-Programme-2018.pdf

https://www.alsgbi.org/manchester2018-2/h

ttps://www.alsgbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/1.-Training-Day-Programme-and-Application-Details.pdf

https://www.alsgbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/019-Spring-2019_web.pdf

Doctor of the year , 2017 awarded by Indian Medical Association

https://imahq.blogspot.com/2017/07/ima-awards-announced-congratulations-to.html

Hononary Member, Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland

https://www.alsgbi.org/alsgbi-council/

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invited Saumitra Rawat to be part of the Swachhata Hi Seva initiative, saying that his contribution will be instrumental in building a clean and healthy India.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/modi-invites-noted-gastroenterologist-to-contribute-to-swachhata-hi-seva-117092000993_1.html

https://www.hindustantimes.com/environment/gandhi-jayanti-2017-eminent-personalities-support-swachhata-hi-seva-campaign/story-78kj5Rw5Wu8lq7qsxgcvBI.html

https://medicaldialogues.in/pm-modi-invites-eminent-medical-professionals-to-join-swachhata-hi-seva-drive

https://www.m3india.in/contents/news/modi-invites-noted-gastroenterologist-to

https://zeenews.india.com/india/rare-six-kilo-tumor-removed-from-65-year-old-patient-in-delhi-2382512.html

https://zenonco.io/cancer/anirudh-agarwal-periampullary-cancer-caregiver/

https://www.amazon.in/Kahani-Doctor-Saab-Arvind-Yadav/dp/1643241532/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1533090982&sr=8-10&keywords=arvind+yadav

Following are media links. Some would be in English others in Indian language Hindi. They are from top TV Channels in India during the difficult time of Corona pandemic. He did Yeoman service during difficult time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAnET5_Xg_Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGvVEsRsSHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcei4tweK4

Can someone from Wikipedia team edit profile. You may find more references. 110.235.234.62 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:I agree with @Tachs. The article in itself is worth keeping. It is a fact that it's very a prestigious award given by the President of India, and the gentleman seems notable. It seems to be hastly edited though and a much better approach can be taken in adding more reliable references. I think the page should stay and restored to the previous version. Roosterwiki2020 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Comment from blocked sockpuppet struck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Dr. Saumitra Rawat, honored with the prestigious Padma Shri, showing his dedication and service in the medical field. His recognition alongside Dr. Ashok Seth, whose career is detailed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashok_Seth, marks a significant moment in medical excellence.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Rawat's expertise was integral to India's response. As a member of a select team, he was pivotal in strategizing medical oxygen allocation nationwide, showcasing his commitment to public health. For more on this, visit https://theleaflet.in/sc-forms-12-member-task-force-to-devise-methodology-for-allocation-of-medical-oxygen-across-india-covid19.

In the eyes of many, including myself, he stands not just as a medical professional, but as a symbol of hope and resilience, deserving of utmost respect and admiration in medicine. 122.180.181.87 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP removed two deletes from this AfD: [18], since self-reverted; closer please double-check history before closing. Also voted twice [19][20] this is getting comical. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 14:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Dr. Saumitra Rawat was honored with the Padma Shri in 2015 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/padma-shri-for-gang-ram-doctor/article7051082.ece), a prestigious award for his remarkable contributions to medicine . He is recognized for his pioneering work in Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrointestinal surgeries, addressing complex diseases like colorectal, stomach, and pancreatic cancers, as seen in this YouTube video. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LK5-_7YVY8 ), Dr. Rawat actively served the nation. It's disheartening to see some people commenting on his profile without understanding or researching his impactful contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.181.87 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Keep. I researched the latest versions and the history, and the links posted above. Seems like the page has not been edited since 2022 and the most recent edits happened in quick successions without reliable sources. The current version is same as the one in June 2022. The page should be further updated with these latest sources.

~~Roosterwiki2020 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)~~Comment from blocked sockpuppet struck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Roosterwiki2020 is a new account created couple of minutes ago and jumped right in support of jojo@nthony and voting to keep the article. IP 122.180.181.87 followed here. These accounts and IP are suspicious.RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but when did creating an account became an issue? Yes it's a new account due to what looks like a clear sabotage. Let's assess the merit on the facts we have instead of passing sweeping statements please. I'm quite surprised because at one point @RetroCosmos seems to have restored the recent/problematic version, and then opened the SIP report. Roosterwiki2020 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Comment from blocked sockpuppet struck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just waiting for a 3rd to come in and say ultrakeep. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 15:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Was the version created by @Tachs okay, in your opinion - @RangersRus and @RetroCosmos? Or was that also paid for, and through a suspicious account? Roosterwiki2020 (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)~~Comment from blocked sockpuppet struck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mention of the award won [21], but most is of the person to media about medical procedures or diagnoses for other individuals [22]. Not quite at notability here due to a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link https://zeenews.india.com/news/india/padma-awards-2015-announced-advani-amitabh-among-104-awardees_1536246.html clearly mentions 'Dr. Saumitra Rawat - NRI/PIO - (Medicine)' at 4th last under 'Padma Shree Category'. Further, the other link https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/justice-sanjay-kishan-kaul-gall-bladder-surgery/ mentions that Dr Saumitra did a gall bladder surgery of Justice Sanjay Kishan at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. So what's your standpoint? 49.14.140.27 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A one line mention isn't substantial coverage. Doing surgery on a famous person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Instead of turning it into a big argument, let's look at the facts. Wikipedia itself says Saumitra Rawat got the Padma Shri in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Padma_Shri_award_recipients_(2010%E2%80%932019), a really important award in India. The government must have checked all the details before giving him such a big honor. So, instead of making a big deal, maybe someone just updated their profile with information that hadn't been changed for a while. 103.90.183.126 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source Industrial Insect (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Dr. Saumitra Rawat received the Padma Shri in 2015 for his amazing work in medicine (https://tribunenewsline.com/know-about-dr-saumitra-rawat-who-was-selected-for-padma-shri/). He actively helps people through medicine. His profile on Wiki is there to motivate young people in the country to work for the nation's betterment.

49.14.140.27 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT Industrial Insect (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine, but he's had no media coverage in 9 years now, other than doing surgery on famous people. As inspiring as that is, we need more than "doctor does surgery on important person" articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid putting someone down just because we haven't learned enough about them. I found many articles from years after 2015, and I'm sharing some with you for your information(https://theleaflet.in/sc-forms-12-member-task-force-to-devise-methodology-for-allocation-of-medical-oxygen-across-india-covid19/). Dr. Rawat treats everyone the same, and I don't believe doctors distinguish between rich and poor. Here's another article with facts instead of just words (https://www.bhaskar.com/news/up-doctor-saumitra-rawat-got-padma-shri-award-will-give-free-treatment-to-poor-4951075-pho.html). Jaiprakash1999 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to elevate or put anyone down, we need sourcing that talks about them at length, or there is no notability here. Neither source is useful, the first one is just a mention of the person in a list of people, the second one is barely half a page of text. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Dr. Saumitra's old wiki page needs updating. The confusion arises from no recent changes since he received the award from the Government of India. Adding reliable new links would give a more current understanding of his noble work. Rather than removing the page, let's update it with the latest references.

Strong Keep: Wikipedia had recognized Dr. Rawat for receiving the Padma Shri earlier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Padma_Shri_award_recipients_(2010%E2%80%932019))and his hospital acknowledges his work( https://sgrh.com/doctor-details/institute-of-surgical-gastroenterology-gi-and-hpb-onco-surgery-and-liver-transplantation/saumitra-rawat)( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LK5-_7YVY8), along with features for his notable contributions during the COVID(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcei4tweK4) crisis in India(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0tgC-wNoQ), there's enough information available online about him. Instead of asking to delete his profile, let's make Wikipedia a platform to acknowledge hardworking people, focusing on their efforts rather than questioning their credibility. This would be heartening for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpectreXWraith (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Comment from blocked sockpuppet struck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatJobs

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

Fails WP:CORP, with no significant coverage online, just social media and press releases. Sources cited are mostly primary, along with a few unreliable secondary sources that look like paid placement. Wikishovel (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Wikishovel (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing significant (at least) in the UK publications. Geeraarts (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the above assessments of the given sources, which are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH; searches find routine listings and a brief Q&A with the founder but not the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madhavi Shankar

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

Non-notable. Refs are non-rs Forbes x of y,PR, profiles,interviews. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 12:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and available sources that do not provide significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability and the development of a neutral article that is not WP:PROMO at this time. My search results include a PR Newswire source (25 Nov, 2020) that seems similar to other available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- References are from reliable sources and independent of the subject, Passes WP:GNG. Nopstick (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article are:
- The 2019 "App Alert" source from The Hindu is based on what Madhavi Shankar says, e.g. "explains Madhvi, outlining the journey of SpaceBasic", and it is not an independent, secondary review or evaluation of the app.
- The 2021 New Indian Express source about the Australian Alumni Grant Scheme (AAGS) 2021 mentions Madhavi Shankar for communication app SpaceBasic was one of 13 recipients - this is not significant coverage.
- The first Forbes profile is a paragraph making the extraordinary claim "In 2019, Shankar was named as one of the Top 60 Women Transforming India by the Indian government and the United Nations" - the UN part does not appear to be repeated by multiple mainstream sources. This also appears to be WP:FORBESCON (pay-to-publish), so not independent - her Forbes writing is noted below as a Council Post and as "Membership (fee-based)."
- The 2019 Deccan Chronicle source is an interview, without independent and secondary coverage beyond the brief and vague summary introducing the interview.
- There is also a non-independent interview/brief profile from her university UTS.
- Her Ted talk is not independent.
- The second Forbes profile is briefer, notes she is a Forbes Councils Member and this is "Membership (fee-based)".
- 2019 ECOSOC Youth Forum is an event overview, and does not mention Madhavi Shankar, although this non-independent source may link to further materials that can verify that she spoke there.
- 30 Under 30 Asia: Enterprise Technology is not a significant award to support notability.
- The 2020 MAKERS source is based on an interview and has a similiarly vague and glowing introduction as other interviews that does not offer much independent or secondary coverage to help develop a neutral non-promotional article.
- 2019 Women Transforming India by NITI Aayog.
Beccaynr (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czech Republic at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Veselý

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

I couldn't find news sources of this person that meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. His Czech Wikipedia article is likewise unsourced stub without major changes since its last revision in 2022; otherwise, it would copy over English Wikipedia. Google searches also come up with silly, random namesakes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. I couldn't find enough to keep the page either. FromCzech (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FashFilmFete

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, just lots of name-dropping in the links for topics of the films. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only the routine local coverage cited. Festival's website doesn't yet mention it running a third time. Wikishovel (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Fashion, and Arizona. Wikishovel (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few refs. Seems notable. Keep. (At least a redirect to Phoenix,_Arizona#Other_attractions_and_annual_events seems warranted). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The updated sources demonstrate notability. To the point about their website not yet mentioning a third festival- the second one was only in September 2023 so may well be too soon for that. In any case, I think there's enough notable coverage from the first two years to justify the page. Thebookstamper (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beliamen

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

Unreferenced for nearly twenty years, I haven't been able to verify that this place exists. Happy to be corrected. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, not even one, does not meet WP:GNG. Dcotos (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:NGEO, the place doesn't actually exist. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any coverage—let alone mentions—of this place, other than in entries on Wikipedia mirror sites. Definitely fails WP:NLAND. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 18:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything. Timur9008 (talk) 19:48, January 22, 2024 (UTC)
Strong Delete: a quick google search turned up no results. As stated before, this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. ''Flux55'' (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fell (artist)

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

I doubt these sources satisfy WP:GNG. Some include trade publications, which is doubtful. There are a few obituaries, like source 6, but seems to be written by a family member sharing the last name (Mark Fell). TLA (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also evidence of notability in the fact his work is in the British Council collection: source 5. 86.16.5.172 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites at source 2 an obituary from Jackdaw (a specialist art magazine) by Andrew Wilton. Whilst the article is not accessible online, Wilton is a noted authority on British art and was the Keeper of the British Collection at the Tate :https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/wilton-james-andrew-rutley-1942 86.16.5.172 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of notability includes a British Museum artist biography and the fact that his work is in their collection. Source 3. 144.82.8.103 (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article also cites by ISBN a book on the work by an art publisher, Unicorn Press. 86.16.5.172 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's more coverage (in French) at [23] and [24]. He also has four prints in the collection of the British Museum [25]. That alone goes a long way towards WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ARTIST after the addition of the Ashmoleon gives him works in the collections of more than one major museum. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein plus "Fell’s work is the subject of a forthcoming book, The Art of Michael Fell. Unicorn Press. 2023" (EDIT: plus the addition of new reliable sources after I wrote this) Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sources now mentioned seem quite promising. I don't know French, so I can't fully verify it. Would love to see a bit more input before I withdraw. TLA (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added references to: (a) biog on website of Royal Society of Painter Printmakers (source 1); (b) work held at Ashmoleon Museum, Oxford (source 7); (c) French press coverage of exhibitions in Gascony (sources 14, 15 and 16). Hope that is helpful. Thanks. Darkusfell (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 11:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Van Patten

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

Literally, all sources here are WP:IMDb. The only WP:INDEPENDENT source here is the Chicago Sun-Times piece, but that is clearly not WP:SIGCOV as it's about his brother, Vince Van Patten. TLA (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and delete the redirect for now. The article just isn't ready for mainspace, so draftifying will allow more time for sources to be added, and for the article to be rewritten as an encyclopedia article rather than a CV or headshot bio, after which it can be moved to mainspace if there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:BIO. In any case, the redirect should not be allowed to stand, as it seems possibly the living person himself is quite frustrated with the redirect to his father's page. James and/or his representatives are advised to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The guy has a 50 year career as a bit-part actor, right back to the start of the 1970's. There should be plenty of coverage on him somewhere, sufficient to create a small biographical article, but certainly at the moment there is no indication of significance. It can't remain in mainspace. Drafting seems the reasonable choice. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Needs family background, considering he comes from a distinguished family of actors. He is the youngest son of actor Dick Van Patten. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some coverage on him. 1a, 1b, 2. It would seem most of his credits were small parts, but some seem significant, such as the movies The Graduates of Malibu High aka Young Warriors 3, Roller Boogie and the TV series The Chisholms might be just enough to get him over the actor notability guidelines. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Caribous

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

It was a short-lived professional team in a minor sport, not at a high level. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's this 9-minute segment about the team on CBC Radio, and as seen here, the New York Times wrote about the team 22 different times, and the French Wikipedia article cites three French-language sources. I presume more can be found in print/newspaper/offline. Left guide (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd perhaps merge a small section into the National Lacrosse League article. Even in the Fr article, it's sourced to a gov't publication, the French CBC then a University of Sherbrooke piece. Could be deleted otherwise for a lack of substantial sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CBC piece puts this over the edge for me. I also found this article from Le Soleil after just a bit of searching. I'm positive more French language sources can be found as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — there's no good reason to have Boston Bolts (lacrosse), Montreal Quebecois, Philadelphia Wings (1974–1975), Quebec Caribous, or Toronto Tomahawks seperate from National Lacrosse League (1974–75); they've all been stub articles since the 2000s, and the teams could be better covered in the parent article. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially an WP:OTHER argument that doesn't really address the sourcing or notability of this individual article. Such arguments accomplish little since inherently some teams in the same league receive more/better coverage than others. Left guide (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're interpreting my argument as, since I certainly wasn't making an WP:OTHER argument, but I'll further clarify my point. A league that only lasted for two seasons, with none of the franchises having ever existed outside of it, is in my opinion better covered as a whole in a single article for the convenience of the reader; especially if the "Teams" section is comprehensively written with the sources listed above and in the aforementioned articles, and synergises well with an expanded "History" section. I ultimately don't think WP:GNG should be an indiscriminate licence for an article with a paragraph or two and a roster list to exist, when it can easily fit comfortably in a well-written parent article. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you are arguing for a Merge closure, you need to present one target article to Merge to. More complicated scenarios can argued for if the article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – On fr.wiki it seems adequate, independent third-party sources appear to exist, but the article as it stands now doesn't even have a single source. I imagine the best thing would be to move it to draftspace until the necessary improvements are made. Svartner (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The other similar articles would need a separate AfD (possibly a mass nomination if they share the same issues). Sandstein 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Science Camp 2015

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

Cites only primary sources, no evidence of notability. ~~Likely~~ Confirmed COI editing, shouldn't have been moved into main space past AfC, but has been previously draftified twice already so won't send it back again. Declined multiple times at AfC, but author insists on publishing, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG and whatever other notability standards one cares to measure it against. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, Asia, and Thailand. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from the fact that this article would probably have to be completely rewritten to comply with all of the other wikipolicies, I am able to find marginally passable indications of notability for the Asian Science Camp as a whole, but not for 2015 in particular. I don't think all years pass GNG. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 10:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Block COI author and speedy delete under G5/G11. This is disruptive editing. Author is a COI SPA intent on publishing their pet page by hook or by crook. If getting rejected at AfC only emboldened them to go around the process, we have no use for their contributions. SALT the page if they come back with a sock. Owen× ☎ 16:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Asian Science Camp 2022, Asian Science Camp 2016, Sixth Asian Science Camp. The individual annual events are obviously not notable. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 21:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Scholastica Catholic School

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

No indication of notability, fails GNG after a rapid search for more sources. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Kenya. Skynxnex (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Private school. There's a couple of captioned photos [26] and [27] but not enough coverage to pass NORG/GNG. Possible redirect to Ruaraka but note there's no education section in that article, so not recommending. Rupples (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 08:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Guitars

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

They exist, but I couldn't find enough evidence that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the German Wikipedia article contains 11 references. Left guide (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The German article cites Rheinische Post and Weser Kurier multiple times, which are IMO reliable sources, and the coverage is decent and specific to the band. Cortador (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Edwardson

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

Retired television and radio reporter who has subsequently gone into local politics at a very low level. Does not meet WP:NPOL at this level (no "significant press coverage", just routine local arguing). WP:BEFORE also does not reveal any significant coverage for his television or radio activities beyond routine coverage of him existing and passing mentions in articles about other things. Flip Format (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Politicians at the town and county council levels do not automatically pass WP:NPOL just for serving at that level — the only level of local office in England that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article to all holders across the board is the narrow tier of directly-elected big city mayors, while the test most local officeholders have to pass is that their careers in politics have generated a hell of a lot more press coverage than has been shown here. Meanwhile, his prior career in journalism is staked solely on the presence of a staff profile on the self-published website of his own former employer, which means he hasn't been shown to pass inclusion criteria for journalists either. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been around a long long time, but I would have voted !delete on its previous problematic pre-political incarnation as well for failing GNG. Standing as a local councillor does not bootstrap it unfortunately. SportingFlyer T·C 13:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kull

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO - requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dartmouth College is a primary source and therefore not independent. Dan arndt (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMIC #5, and possibly #1. Kull holds the Rodgers Professorship at Dartmouth College, an endowed faculty chair ([28]). Scopus shows a h-index of 22, and Google scholar shows about a dozen papers with more than 100 citations, with the top three all published in Nature and having counts of 440, 457, and 859. Note that WP:NACADEMIC is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline, so in this case, significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources is not required to meet inclusion criteria. Jfire (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Biology, California, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His university page falls into the category of "reliable though not independent", i.e. can be used as a source but does not contribute to WP:GNG, though that is besides the point, as WP:NPROF is the more applicable notability guideline here rather than GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPROF C5, plausible C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both PROF#C1 [29] and #C5 as above. Bad nomination, fails to consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is not based on independent sources (or, if you will, media hype). Nominator has participated in many past deletion discussions on academics and should know better. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of yellow pages

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

This list is almost wholly unreferenced, and almost none of the list entries have their own articles. Given yellow pages are rapidly disappearing in most places, it seems like it would be difficult to reconstruct a series of references, and the length of the list would make that quite a task anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely WP:OR, fails WP:NOT. Possibly notable subject, but requires WP:TNT due to its current state regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeing as to how an excellent case has been made for the page's deletion, and seeing how this page so desperately would requires major overhauls of an impossible nature per WP:DYNAMITE, this article neither manages to comprehensively accomplish any aspect of its initial purpose in an orderly manner nor does it, in any way, shape or form, justify the extraordinary efforts which would be required in fixing all the problems contained within. Excellent nomination, I must say - this is one of the strangest pages I believe I've ever come across, and to think it went unnoticed for so long is rather astonishing. Alas, when a page (particularly directorial listings) can neither justify its initial existence - let alone to the active nature that this encyclopedic project is geared towards - then it cannot survive on Wikipedia... and seeing as to how, per WP:REDUNDANT, the page offers extremely low encyclopedic value to anyone in any form, this page definitiely deserves to be deleted. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 08:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Calfo

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

fails WP:GNG; reads closer to a fan page or resume than an encyclopedia article Joeykai (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G11. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Narbett

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

This new article does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noon (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete improve it Jomaxwell (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPA came in. I will look at the references. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete – Yeah, routine coverage. WP:TOOSOON. TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy redirect to Public Investment Fund. IgelRM (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess argument on Redirect suggestion. But I don't see a mention of the company at the proposed target article page nor mention of the investment fund on the company article so I'm not sure a Redirect makes sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Page could be recreated once the company attains more notability.TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Shimashki dynasty. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebarat I

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. All that is known is basic geneological facts, sources mention the name in lists, however there is nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a consensus redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 08:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Iran. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Automatically notable, because he was a king. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges, which can also be reached at WP:POLITICIAN. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed does not mean automatically. Likely doesnot mean always. The opening section of this SNG states, "People are likely to be notable..." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria The presumption in this case is false, this semi-historical figure does not meet GNG or NBIO, or even have verifiable basic biographical information. Having a name in a list does not meet notability.

The presumption this is likely notable has been challenged and sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth are needed, otherwise a redirect is appropriate if possible target finds consensus. // Timothy :: talk 09:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebarat I is the principal character of P.Steinkeller article (quoted in the artcicle), and the central figure for understanding the relations between Ur III and Shimashki dynasty rulers. I am not sure what is GNG criterion - coul dyou please explain? Thanks,

YX Ykhramov (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Shimashki Dynasty. WP:NOPAGE seems to apply. Curbon7 (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kings are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: should be classed as notable as a king, although a lot more work needs to be done. Azarctic (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kings or Rulers are definitely notable. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Taung Tan) DrKay (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a clear consensus to Keep this article but not a response to the nominator's desire for some additional reliable sources. I know this is a challenge for historical figures but maybe some editors would like to take this on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure a king can be presumed noteworthy, but if this specific person were truly noteworthy, there should be enough resources to develop the article. If there aren't, then the subject does not meet wikipedia's notability criteria and the information in the article cannot be reliably verified. EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my area of expertise, though, if the article cannot be improved, I am inclined towards Delete. EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Epartid dynasty. Ebarat is thought to be the same as Ebarti or Eparti I, but so little is known about him that a standalone page is unnecessary. Details are better presented in the dynasty article.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in this discussion seems to have said what is wrong with the works cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shimashki dynasty. I agree with JoelleJay's position, but unless our articles are wrong, the correct redirect is to Shimashki dynasty, not Sukkalmah dynasty, which was founded by Ebarat II. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborating a bit, to respond to Liz's relisting comment: this is a challenge because this king ruled 4000 years ago and left little in the way of historical record. We don't know when exactly he ruled, what his relationship was to the other kings in the dynasty, or any of that. That's why this is much better dealt with on an article about the dynasty itself. I note that of the 12 kings of that "dynasty", only one other has a wikipedia article: Kindattu. -- asilvering (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Shimashki right, mixed up my tabs. JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is a rough consensus to Redirect the article but not on the target article. From what I can from the article, Shimashki dynasty might be the correct target but I want to see if that's verified by participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shimashki dynasty. Insufficient material for a stand-alone article. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer people to my comment above. I have no opinion about the disposition of this article, but it shouldn't be deleted or merged or redirected without consideration of the sources actually cited in it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wacław Chamrat

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found mention the author in connection with the Chronicle, but do not have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. There is no article for Chronicle of Biała to merge or redirect to. // Timothy :: talk 06:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No sources found on Google Books or Scholar and possibly JSTOR; GB only showed a book mentioning the subject. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 13:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Chamrat is an author of the Kronika miasta Białej (Chronicle of Biała), which is considered as a priceless source for the history of Biała in the 18th Century. There are two sources, both written by scholars. And you could find mentions about Chamrat even on Google Books. [30] Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of Bielsko-Biała as that article is seemingly one of the only few pages on the internet that mentions him. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or merge fper Ff above. I am not seeing anything about this person outside a mention in passing in my BEFORE. It is possible that his work (Kronika miasta Białej/Kronika Chamrata) would pass WP:GNG, and the author may want to write an article about it, but per WP:NINHERIT, it does not mean we need an article about his creator, about whom next to nothing is known (but if the article about his work is notable, a short bio section there would be fine). That said, I am concerned that the two sources listed are not linked and seem very hard to verify, the presumed academic article (" Kronika miasta Białej z lat 1732–1768 zwana Kroniką Chamrata") does not return any google (gscolar/gbook) hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Due to verification trouble, I lean draftify as first choice, merge as second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist so we can get a consensus on whether to Keep, Delete, Draftify or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fence leaning keep. On the one hand, arguments put forward by User:Herzog von Teschen point towards a keep, but on the other hand the Kronika is not accessible online (and what mentions and paraphrases from it are known are but minute) and, as User:Prokonsul Piotrus points out, next to nothing is known about the actual author. The insidious sign pointing towards a delete is that the author does not have an article on the Polish Wikipedia. I'm an inclusionist, tho, especially of topics of history, therefore I lean keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created an article on the Polish Wikipedia. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - OT: It would now need to be populated with more information on Chamrat. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Pant

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

This only sites four sources and is not written professionally. One source doesn’t lead anywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerryman1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria. There's no evidence he was a "national player" (whatever that means) in taekwondo, boxing, and gymnastics. I don't believe that just being part of the crew on a film that won an award makes you "award winning". I also question some of the claims. For example, the article says he was the "action director" on the film Ravaan, but I don't find him among the 100+ members of the crew--despite the fact that two action coordinators, an assistant action coordinator, and a stunt double are listed. [31] I also believe there's strong evidence of COI. Papaursa (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Game

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

Routine coverage mostly based on a press release from NBC touting ratings. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Events, American football, Internet, Florida, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although some of the content can be added into either NFL on NBC or a newly created NFL on Peacock article (I oppose a redirect to either title). The game itself is not notable. The way the game was broadcast is possibly notable but that can be better covered on an article about NFL broadcasting than an article on a single game. Frank Anchor 13:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep inasmuch 1) I curated it and 2) it's a fascinating and notable NFL, business, Internet, streaming, copyright, and pop culture story, all of which intersect. How many football games are named after the rights-holder? This is a bit much to fold into another article, in my estimation. kencf0618 (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you like the subject and find it ”fascinating and notable” doesn’t make it so and certainly doesn’t mean it should be kept. A game being named after its rights holder (and this nickname has NOT had any mainstream usage) doesn’t mean the game is notable. There could potentially be content on this article that is useful to an article on NFL broadcasting (as I mentioned in my !vote) but this game is certainly not notable enough for a standalone article. Frank Anchor 23:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the game itself was not particularly notable, but the broadcast (being the first NFL playoff game behind a paywall) was very controversial and seemed to get a lot of coverage. I have little inclination right now to try to dig into the coverage, but if someone wants to look for and finds significant coverage of the broadcast controversy, then the article should be kept as meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently the game fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT; it's too early to tell if the game or its broadcast will have the type of legacy that would entitle it to a standalone article. For now, the information in this article should be incorporated into NFL on NBC as suggested above. Hatman31 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete per the reasons above. There is not much information in the article currently and while this was the first playoff exclusive game on Peacock, the Bills-Chargers game back in Week 16 was actually the first exclusive game on the platform (over this game). I feel that game would be more suitable for that nickname but what do I know. Also agree that it is way too early to tell if it will have a lasting legacy for a standalone article. Maybe in the future but not at the moment. --James161723 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K20HZ

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this six-year station, entirely within this century, that seems to have mostly carried national/non-local programming (and was never on cable, in a market where cable is so dominant the major TV stations have branded using cable channel numbers) ever attained any significant coverage, I'd be surprised. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTBV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even in Los Angeles, a relatively-new low-power station that seems to have only carried national (mostly religious) networks doesn't seem like the type to get much significant coverage. (While not itself a reason to delete, these smaller LA stations also tend to attract IP edits of questionable accuracy and nonexistent sourcing.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InFORM Decisions

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the needed sourcing to pass the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary sources cited and a search didn’t produce evidence that any exist. WilsonP NYC (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan al-Bakkour

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

A Google search solely returns news articles on his resignation in 2011. Nothing notable here as far as I can see. Aintabli (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Syria. Aintabli (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are other means to find information than Google. Geschichte (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! By "Google search," I mean I also checked publications other than news articles such as books, and there isn't anything that passes WP:NBIO. As evident from the article's history, the content (1 sentence, 26 words) did not change for more than a decade, because the subject is only notable for their resignation, nothing else. Aintabli (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPOL, as an attorney general of the Hama Governorate. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians and judges who have held:
1. international, Not an international position.
2. national, Not a national-level but local position.
3. or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Syria is not a federal state.
Aintabli (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, striking vote. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was previously WP:PROD'd and isn't eligible for soft deletion. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W17CT-D

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A relatively new station (within this century) that seems to have only carried national services isn't likely to attain significiant coverage. It's apparently part of a group of low-power stations affiliated with a local radio group, but none of the other TV stations appear to have (or should have) articles (though that's completely irrelevant to this article's merits). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSWF-LD

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

No WP:SIGCOV found for this station to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one's surprising me. Turns out it went on air in March 1989, not 1997, and its initial format of tourist information resulted in a few articles in the Orlando press. The station also suffered from a legal dispute and bankruptcy projection. But in typical LPTV fashion, the station didn't use its then-call sign of W19AX; they were "WTTC". Added all this material. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Jordan women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alanoud Ihab

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

Redirect to List of Jordan women's international footballers as I was unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I came across this interview during her time with the under-17 national team, but everything else that came up were passing mentions (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Jordan. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that she is also referred to as Alanoud Ghazi in some sources. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quizimaze

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

Fails GNG. Was unable to find anything via a basic before search and newspapers.com has very little outside of advertisements. Justi yaya 04:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Canada. Justi yaya 04:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the BGG page I find it unlikely this is notable. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail GNG. ― novov (t c) 03:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Braves–Phillies rivalry

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

This article falls into WP:FANCRUFT territory. The entire article is just content that already exists in other articles. Rivalry articles should only exist if there's a long history that's reliably sourced. These are just two teams in the same division who have only played each other in the postseason 3 times the past 30 years. The two paragraphs dedicated to the rivalry at the Atlanta Braves article is sufficient. Nemov (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Nemov (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the sourcing in the current version of the article appears to be run-of-the-mill sports journalism. In terms of sources that exist, this article by ESPN is probably the strongest piece of coverage for satisfying WP:GNG. There are others like it, but unfortunately, most that I can find falls under one or more of the following issues A) recent, not before 2023, B) unclear reliability, or C) primary sources. Left guide (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I had not noticed that there was already a paragraph on the rivalry on the Braves page, as I was mainly referencing the Phillies page, which does not have its own paragraph on it. Your points for deletion of the article are valid, and I offer no objections. However, I would suggest that a paragraph be added about the rivalry to the Phillies page. Wildcat7176 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Atlanta Braves vs. Philadelphia Phillies. Ifa redirect is created, I suggest expanding the content at that target to a few paragraphs, similar to what is currently in the Braves article linked above. Not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG for a standalone article. Frank Anchor 20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even think the rivalry on the main rivalries page stands to any recognition. It's all recency bias because of two consecutive meetings and FANCRUFT. Personally, new rivalries ought to be at least five years old before getting a mention on the main rivalries page. Conyo14 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aranxa Vega

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

The subject, a Peruvian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I was able to find were interviews (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) and coverage from when an advertising panel fell on her during a post-match interview (1, 2, etc.), and everything else is trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interviews are fine as an indication of notability; what it's poor for, is sourcing - but that's not what AFD is about. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has been noted hundreds of times by now, interviews only contribute to GNG if there is secondary independent SIGCOV of the subject by the author. Nothing derived from what the interviewee says counts toward notability. The above sources in fact aren't even interviews in the sense we use them: they are routine match reports that happen to quote Vega's press statements. Nowhere close to SIGCOV, nor is the brief bump of primary news coverage from the incident noted above.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD as "Delete" but didn't notice at the time that the majority of participation occurred in a few hours before I closed the discussion. I was asked to relist this discussion and I think that's a reasonable request so that's what I'm doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with what JoelleJay says. Notability means significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews are neither secondary sources (they are primary sources) and not independent sources. Ms Vega scoring a goal, her opinion on a match, particularly that an opposing goal was offside, and being hit by an advertising board does not amount to notability and I see nothing better. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. but it sounds like this article could use a lot of attention and updating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ag Against Hunger

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

Worthy organisation, but I couldn't establish that there are sources to show WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 09:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current website link is a content farm... see the archive page instead: [32]. The news tab, [33], has a bunch of sources, all the external links there seem broken+unarchived though. Note, this website has gotten a huge number of IA saves, 1053 total.

However, with [34], [35], [36] in addition to the Western Farm Press news piece in the article's EL section, this meets WP:GNG in my opinion. The article needs to be pruned down to sourcable information. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Darcyisverycute, there are a wealth of quality reliable newspaper sources about this organisation (although I'm not sure about linked sources 3 and 4 as they seem to be primary sources). Either way, with those, the Western Farm Press article, and this article from the American Journal of Transportation, I think this passes GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But this may need to be updated to reflect change in org structure. I fixed the dead link to their website to what looks like the current one. I think that was confusing people. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Action Movement

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

Does not appear to be a notable political party. Perhaps case of WP:TOOSOON. A before search did not yield anything except press releases by the party ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SIGCOV is missing. The only coverage I found is a couple articles about the party being created, and several press releases. Happy to reconsider if more sources pop up. --Broc (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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