Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 06	July 08 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Malian coup d'état attempt[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The allegations that a coup was being planned are seemingly only backed by Mali's government ("Mali's military government says", by Al Jazeera, and "Mali's military junta says", by France 24), and even in the contrary it seems that the coup remained as a plot and didn't translate into action, without transcendence after two months. I also should bring into question the credibility of a military junta that itself came from a coup d'état. NoonIcarus (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Africa. NoonIcarus (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the fact that the allegations of a coup d'état were all the more necessary to write an article on this subject JanPawel2025 (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: JanPawel2025 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Two months later, we still don't have any additional information, and the only source on which all the reports are based is the junta's only communiqué made on the subject: no accounts from eyewitnesses, no names, no places... As far as I can remember, there has always been some independent witnesses of the other coup attempts in the last years, in Mali and elsewhere in West Africa. This subject doesn't have its own article on the French WP either. It was most likely just another fake created in order to stir up the anti-French sentiment, and they've gone on to something else since then. BilletsMauves (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Match wagon (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disputed speedy (G14). Page disambiguates one article plus a section of another article (referring to match wagons), but there is dispute on the page history over whether the distinction is actually a difference. That should determine whether to delete/redirect; I am taking it here to resolve the speedy dispute and get outside opinions. ChromaNebula (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a barrier vehicle and an idler flatcar are two quite different wagons each serving a different purpose. Peter Horn User talk 22:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The dab lists match wagon and idler flatcar which leads to Idler flatcars are also used to mount one kind of coupler on one end and another kind on the other end. This is called a barrier vehicle or match wagon. The only real target is barrier vehicle, match wagon should just redirect there. MB 01:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete match wagon (disambiguation), redirect match wagon (already done). I had the same thought process as MB above. As written, a "match wagon" is also known as a "barrier vehicle", which is a type of "idler flatcar". So saying that "match wagon" could be either is redundant. Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No longer true. Peter Horn User talk 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete This seems to be stumbling quite a bit over NA/UK terminology disjunct, as "flatcar" is an NA term and "match wagon" is UK. Also, idler car (NA) isn't a type of car; it's a usage. Dedicated ones, one would imagine, are usually flatcars for various reasons, but they don't have to be: at Savage Mill they used whatever they had on hand to keep the locos off the ancient bridge, typically just other cars in the consist. It seems likely that an idler might also do coupler conversion, but they are still two different functions and I don't see the validity of this disambiguation. It would make sense to use hat notes in the respective articles instead, if necessary. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eagle Township, Boone County, Indiana. Viable AtD as it's mentioned there. No clear reason against a redirect. Star Mississippi 01:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Hollow, Indiana[edit]

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

This is almost impossible to search due to the name being shared with the residence of a serial killer. Maps and aerials, however, show that this is surely nothing more than a non-notable McManor development (like McMansions but smaller) from the early 1990s. Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Eagle Township, Boone County, Indiana, where it is mentioned. Djflem (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a generic non-notable subdivision, it shouldn't even be mentioned on the township page. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:GEOLAND: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There are infinite places on the planet, we are not obligated to mention every non-notable housing development whose only sources are database entries. We have no information to include beyond its existence as a few nondescript streets of houses like the subdivision I grew up in – that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are dozens more such subdivisions both in unincorporated Boone County and incorporated Zionsville, and this theory would just clutter our pages with WP:UNDUE crap. Reywas92^Talk 03:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:UNDUE are you refering to? Which point of view is being discussed and not getting adequate and equal coverage? That poicy has nothing to do with this. (PS, where you grew up doesn't either). Djflem (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the township is not notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Mangoe states, it's difficult to find this location in sources because of the numerous mentions of Fox Hollow Farms and it's serial killer. However, if you include the term of Boone or Zionsville it helps a lot. I think this is interesting, in showing how Fox Hollow first tried to be part of Zionsville and was refused, developed their own infrastructure and then Zionsville tried to take them. We don't need to delete this article just because another area had a famous serial killer. I'm looking for some more info. Jacona (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. The assertion that somehow the development is made non-notable because the type of dwelling or it's date of development, or that it we should delete it because there is a farm with a similar name that once housed a serial killer give me pause. Those are not valid reasons for deletion. What difference should it make whether the homes are McManors, McMansions, apartments, shacks, or shotgun row houses? I was able to find numerous mentions at Newspapers.com, but they were mostly pretty trivial. Even the most interesting of them were at best questionable for establishing WP:N, so unless someone can find something more, it should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate locality. Jacona (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There appears to be a rough consensus at the RFC, although that doesn't help in this scenario as as Elmidae pointed out, there's no redirect target that exists. This can be handled editorially at the close of the RFC and revisited if needed, but I do not see a strong consensus to maintain this as a standalone nor to remove the material. Star Mississippi 01:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098[edit]

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

Failure GNG: It will take 76 years for this solar eclipse to occur. At the same time, it only occurs in the waters near Antarctica, and it is a partial solar eclipse, so it has no scientific value. Q28 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First in a new Saros series that (unsurprisingly) does not have a Wikipedia article. Fils WP:CRYSTAL, specifically points #1 and #2. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing notable about this partial solar eclipse. Alternatively it could be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. Praemonitus (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because WP:TOOSOON does not apply here. It may be that GNG is not met but it's not because of the time frame. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's not our job to speculate who will or will not be hanging about Antarctica. Indeed, the very fact that we can give a geographic location means that more than "generic information" is available, so the concern in the guideline mentioned above is inapplicable. There might be an argument for presenting our information about predicted eclipses in a different way, but that's not a question this particular forum is designed or equipped to resolve. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, but ONLY because there is no article on the respective Saros. As soon as that exists, it should be redirected theree post-haste. This is list material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elmidae. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:CRYSTAL, it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality. Celestial events are the most predictable events known to humanity, which is why "the sun will come up tomorrow" is the most commonly used example of a vacuously true prediciton. This eclipse is literally guaranteed to happen at the precise hour indicated, and if it doesn't, come find me in 2098 and I'll give you a hundred bucks (inflation-adjusted). I don't see a GNG fail, either -- eclipses have been considered intrinsically notable events by virtually every civilization in history, and we have the entirety of astronomy to back up that this will happen there then. jp×g 20:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: There's a current RfC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#Eclipse_RfC. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Eclipse RfC but feel free to close if this RFC looks decisive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - despite the divergence of opinion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191, apparently being about a hundred years sooner is where the current notability line is. No harm in keeping and revisiting post-RFC--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Živadinov[edit]

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

Relies on a single source. Person is not notable and should be deleted DavidEfraim (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DavidEfraim (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. There are multiple reliable sources found when searching online [1][2][3][4] as well as plenty of mentions in books[5][6][7][8] that show that the subject easily meets WP:GNG by virtue of extensive coverage in reliable sources. There are plenty more sources available both in a general Google search and through Google Books, I just picked four of each for examples. The article also meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" because the many of the sources note that he is a pioneer in Eastern European theatre for various reasons. - Aoidh (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more feedback here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel H. Davis (United States Army Air Service officer)[edit]

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

This is the first case of over 100 year old violation of not news guidelines. However since the main coverage we have is from contemporary news reports, I still think that issue applies. I do not believe we have actual grounds to justify this article, and no actual claim to notability. Dieing in a plain crash is all we have, and that does not make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. While there are lots of mentions of his role as joint namesake of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base there is a lack of indepth coverage about him. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am honestly shocked that someone that has an Air Force base named after them does not have significant coverage, but that's where we're at with this article. Nearly every single reference I could find to him was always a short sentence explaining that he was a pilot from Tuscon that died in a plane crash, and it's always in the context of why Davis-Monthan Air Force Base is named what it is. The only exception I could find is this which does go into a bit more detail, but even that's only within the context of why the base is named what it is, and that source alone is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Outside of the Air Force base, he is not mentioned from what I could find, and when he is mentioned, it's always the same short sentence. Per WP:MILPERSON there is no military-specific notability guideline, and he just doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep open another week so I can explore Newspapers.com, which has at least some contemporary coverage. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: If you do find coverage via Newspapers.com, please provide a clipping so that we can see the content in question. I'd be more than happy to reassess if sources can be found via that route. - Aoidh (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will; I'd already found some. I can't provide clippings from other databases, if I find coverage, however. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for another week based on editor request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added quite a few sources to the article. Will keep adding more. Here's one I won't add as it is in Spanish: 1 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other coverage I haven't and probably won't add, in English, demonstrates national and enduring interest in Davis (and Sinclair): 2 3 4 5 6

Will search under "Howard Davis" soon to see if there is coverage of him before the war; one article says he was known by his middle name. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets GNG. Coverage was anything but brief and local and an Air Force base bearing his name adds significantly to the notability case. If it isn't to be kept, the content of this article should go to the article on the base; no matter the outcome, some of the citations should also go to the Oscar Monthan article in case that ever comes up for deletion; if draftified to me, I will do so. But my vote is keep. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately I have to keep my delete opinion, as the sources DiamondRemley39 found were more of the same as in my comment; a short sentence explaining that he was a pilot that died, usually to explain why the base was named what it was, and zero context beyond that. I also have to stress that having an Air Force base named after someone does not create notability for that person, as notability is not inherited. - Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your vote, but do not misrepresent the coverage so. Certainly more than "a short sentence" describe where he was born, raised, schooled, served, and died in biographical articles with photos. There certainly is context. I don't care if it no longer exists as a standalone article--the prose and references will be preserved and the article redirected, so it does not signify--but what we can see exists must be not be downplayed if this is to be a good discussion. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the obituaries and the articles explaining who is was within the context of the naming of the base, but nothing outside of that. When all the coverage is about the Air Force base and explains who he is an aside, the notability just isn't there unfortunately. - Aoidh (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come, come, now. According to that *changed* statement, you missed some sources or you misclassified them. The first source is an entire biography, for example. Not a few sentences as you first said. Not an obituary or coverage of the naming or even the crash as you have said. Again, I don't care what your vote is, but *do not misrepresent the sources you yourself asked for* and have access to yourself, according to your user page. Take your time and be precise in AfD discussions. Also, news coverage of death in papers about the country does not an obit make. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That first source you're referring to discusses him within the context of why the Air Force base is named what it is, which is exactly what I said it was. I would further point you to WP:BLP1E, as being mentioned in the newspapers solely for a plane crash does not create notability. Your comment seems unnecessarily focused on me and what you've assumed I did or did not do; perhaps let's focus on the content moving forward? - Aoidh (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are focused on the content. We are focusing on what you've said rather than on notability because your comment is misleading as to the scope of the sources. (I started my first comment with "keep your vote," after all.) We are having this tangent because such poor representation of the sources as you provided in your comments tend to mislead editors who come to the discussion and vote. Recall you wrote "a short sentence explaining that he was a pilot that died, usually to explain why the base was named what it was, and zero context beyond that". Wrong. Instead of striking, correcting, clarifying, or ignoring, you now add, "When all the coverage is about the Air Force base and explains who he is an aside..." No. Inaccurate; there was some biographical coverage at the time of his death. You could have avoided this discourse if you'd merely said "I've reviewed the dozen plus sources added and I don't see the notability". Again, keep your vote. Good editors care about accuracy on this page and in the article. You don't have to keep responding, but if you've been around AfD at all you may know that editors are likely to respond to comments like these. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, you do not get to decide who "good editors" are nor what they do. You're resorting to attacking me as an editor to compensate for your lack of anything else to rebut, and thankfully anyone who reads your comment will see right through that. Despite what you're claiming, most editors don't behave like you have at AfD, especially the "good editors." I don't know what your goal is with nonsense like "good editors care..." implying that I'm not a good editor but it's inappropriate, it's not constructive, it's certainly not going to convince me of the merits of your argument, and it's frankly disappointing that you feel you have to stoop to that behavior. You're not discussing, you're attacking, and I'll not play along further. You had a chance to stop making digs at me and to focus on the content and you failed. Badly. I know you'll have the last word and you're welcome to it, but for my part I'll just say that we'll agree to disagree. I'll take this page off my watchlist now because I'm not interested in more of...whatever this is you're doing. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage is local or in passing. Sufficient that he remain in Samuel Davis, with a link to the base. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not seeing anything with enough depth to warrant a full article. Intothat darkness 13:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aneek Chatterjee[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC (see, e.g., [9]). – Ploni (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Ploni (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:AUTHOR looks more likely than WP:PROF but I didn't find the published book reviews that would be needed for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphnet[edit]

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

No reliabler sources provided to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost weekly coverage in Digital Health and substantial analysis in the Financial Times. Rathfelder (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Software, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenot enough independent reliable coverage for WP:NCORP. However it looks not so bad and there is a good chance it could be updated with better RS --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The FT is both independent and detailed and its a significant player in the NHS. Bigwig7 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Financial Times website is a reliable source to prove WP:GNG. Other sources also look mostly reliable. 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, sourcing seems to just scrape over the line. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J.H. Soeder[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage (nothing came up on Wikipedia Library or newspapers.com), and the book awards cited don't appear notable enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, United States of America, and Arizona. Ploni (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TigerShark (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Boyce[edit]

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

Was deleted in 2018 due to a WP:GNG/N:FOOTBALL failure. She still fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about her. Dougal18 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Daily Record and Edinburgh Evening News articles appear to satisfy GNG. Crowsus (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Transfer news is routine coverage. This article has 4 lines on her before quoting her and moving on to Hibs Ladies upcoming fixtures. This has one and a half sentences on her. Dougal18 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep Article looks fine, the sources don't appear to be that strong, but look good enough and a few other online hits. Govvy (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Daily Record source is sigcov but not sufficient on its own. Giant Snowman 09:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also found sources about her online. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share those sources with us? JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single source containing anything that could even contribute to BASIC is a mere 4 sentences and some quotes. Not SIGCOV. The rest of the coverage is routine mentions in transactional news and profiles in non-independent/RS media. Not remotely passing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments more detailed than "Passes WP:GNG" or "Fails WP:GNG" would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, comments like that don't really help the discussion closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely should. Perfectly normal opinion expressed at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, one editor says, "Passes GNG" and the next one says, "Fails GNG". How much weight to give either comment, comments that took about 10 seconds to add to the AFD discussion and show no evidence that either editor has examined the article? An AFD I closed was brought to Deletion review simply because I gave statements like those any weight at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. If an editor wants to weigh in, they need to give more than that. Simione001, Necrothesp, why does it pass GNG, Sportsfan 1234, what did you do to research this and find it lacking? Das osmnezz, tell us what sources you found? Give the closers something to weigh! Jacona (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is all about opinion. In my opinion the sources are sufficient to satisfy GNG. What, do you think every source needs to be analysed? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What, do you think every source needs to be analysed? as a closer, it would be infinitely helpful as @Liz also pointed out. The volume of sports debates is exhausting, poor quality votes help no one even if one of you is by default "right" Star Mississippi 02:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. No consensus to delete. Consensus to either keep or redirect. Also factoring current clear consensus at RFC. TigerShark (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094[edit]

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

Failure GNG: It will take 72 years for this solar eclipse to occur. At the same time, it only occurs in the waters near Antarctica, and it is a partial solar eclipse, so it has no scientific value. Q28 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About 70 years WP:TOOSOON. Searching (even using less precise parameters than the article title) doesn't give anything which discusses the eclipse in any depth, just various sites that show its predicted path and similar technical details. Neiltonks (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century, or just delete per above. Praemonitus (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think. It is too soon and WP:CRYSTALBALL optimism assuming the universe will still exist in 2094, but I do admire the optimism. CT55555 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, even if the universe doesn't exist by that point, I'm sure eclipse and astronomy cruft will be doing just fine.

Ovinus (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:CRYSTAL more carefully. Likely events can be included, if predicted by experts. So I'm switching to not !voting here. CT55555 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per CT55555. Ovinus (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because WP:TOOSOON does not apply after a careful reading, as Aoidh pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 7, 2195. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098. We have 193 articles on future solar eclipses; the question of which to give separate pages, which to perhaps condense into a common list, etc., is not what this forum is for. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to respective Saros article, as for the other nominated far-future eclipses. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what I said at the other nomination. This is not WP:CRYSTAL — it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality based on thousands of years of astronomy (by which nearly all human civilizations have considered eclipses to be notable events of great significance and portent). Celestial events are the most predictable events known to humanity, which is why "the sun will come up tomorrow" is the most commonly used example of a vacuously true prediciton. I don't understand what the concern is with it being "far-flung". I plan on the human race existing in 2094, don't you? Is there something I should know about? jp×g 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But as I answer your question, it makes me want to ask you one too. Sorry if I'm taking us further off track, but do you think the humans are going to continue existing indefinitely, or do you think there is a point where certainty about that is difficult to predict? CT55555 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we don't, who cares? In the most literal sense possible – if there is some massive event that causes humanity to perish, there won't be any humans to have opinions about it. And there will still be an eclipse on June 13, 2094! Perhaps the cockroaches and space aliens and intelligent machines will even read about it on Wikipedia. jp×g 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies blocking the paths of suns happen commonly, what makes these ones notable is that humans see them. But maybe it doesn't matter too much if wikipedia is out of date if there are no humans. I don't think we have guidance for that. But still, I wonder do you think the orbit of the moon and earth are absolutely guaranteed to be unaltered forever? Is there a point where you think these future predictions should stop? Or should we have wikipedia articles about eclipses expected in the 3000s? 4000s? Should we have infinite eclipse articles? My current view remains that the guidance directs us away from creating articles about future events that didn't happen. CT55555 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If some event catastrophic enough to disrupt the orbit of the Earth occurs between now and the end of the 21st century, I am pretty sure it will involve enough energy to render the planet uninhabitable, in which case Wikipedia will no longer exist. As for future predictability, there are indeed stochastic perturbations that can compound and alter the trajectories of celestial bodies on larger timescales. If that's enough to actually change eclipse times, who knows? But for matters of practicality, I don't think it really matters what Wikipedia has planned for the year 3000: it seems exceedingly unlikely that humans will still be using their hands to type on keyboards, or reading glowing rectangles to obtain information about the world (indeed unlikely that the English language will exist in its current form). But if a bunch of articles about eclipses in the year 3000 existed, I don't think it would be worth the effort to have discussions about all of them and delete them, either. jp×g 00:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. And therefore we must agree there needs to be a cut off point somewhere between now and 3000AD. I don't know what to !vote other than against all future predictions. CT55555 (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: There's a current RfC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#Eclipse_RfC. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Eclipse RfC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century – the RFC is currently unanimous that eclipses shouldn't be given special exemption from WP:GNG, and the reasoning there (both by me and by other editors) seems to apply just as well to this specific eclipse. --ais523 17:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Micro miniature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunasekaran Sundarraj[edit]

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

No independent sources found. Some of the references are to subject's own site; others are blogs or unreliable. The Hindu article is an interview in a city supplement, Tribune is a passing mention among awardee list and the award's notability is not established. (rationale copied from my PROD) Hemantha (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, India, and Tamil Nadu. Hemantha (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Micro miniature article. ~~Delete~~ - The article tone is promotional, it's clear that it will need clean up if it's not deleted. I did find one good source that would count towards GNG: this article in The Hindu is not an interview, it is a review:[10], but one review is not enough to pass our notability criteria for GNG or NARTIST. A Google BEFORE search found nothing other than blogs or self-published items. There are awards listed in the article but they do not seem to be notable awards. I'm willing to change my !vote if verifiable SIGCOV can be found, and links posted here or added to the article. An alternative to deletion would be to list him, along with the above citation on the Micro miniature article ~~(which is in badly need of updating.)~~ Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Hindu and other sources would cover the artist's notoriety and notability. A couple images of his work would help but this seems a Keep page. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one sentence in the Micro miniature article using The Hindu article mentioning his 2011 Sardar Patel Award. I cannot find any bographical information online (DoB, etc.) The current article has tables that don't make any logical sense. What is the table "Miniature arts" supposed to convey? I have removed the "TV and radio" table as well as the "Newspaper and magazine, online news" table because they are utterly useless. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Nagy[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; the only coverage available appears to be from the NBA itself, barring some mere-mentions in newspapers that I found on ProQuest. Would have met the old NBASKET standard that all top-tier players, coaches and referees are notable, but as that is no longer in force, here we are at AFD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Ohio. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basketball referees, even in the NBA, were not considered inherently notable, even by the old SNG. In any event, GNG needs to be met.—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple sources of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not rise to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reading through all of these varied opinions, I'm going to close this discussion with a simple Delete, no Salt. If this article gets recreated again in main space, please tag it for CSD G4. Ideally, any supporters of this article will read this AFD closure and work on a new article in Draft space, submitting it for AFC review.

However, if my decision today leads to a 4th AFD within a year with a similar outcome, I'd then suggest Salting the main space page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dufek[edit]

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

Recreation of article deleted via two different AfD discussions. Propose deletion and creation protection. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Motorsport, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: with such a young subject (17 years old) it's not surprising that coverage would increase, so re-creation five months after deletion is not a terrible thing. St Anselm (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you're worried about the recreation of an article, nominate it for speedy deletion upon reviewal, don't create a whole new AfD without even verifying whether coverage/notability has increased over these 7 months. ~~Per WP:DEL-REASON and WP:SK#1, unless you propose a valid rationale, this a very straightforward speedy keep vote.~~ MSport1005 (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale echoes that of HumanBodyPiloter5's from the previous nomination. The subject has not received enough additional significant coverage in independent sources to satisfy the GNG. Everything appears to be either ROUTINE or non-independent (such as an interview) save for La Côte, which is behind a paywall and still only a single source. Don't assume I haven't done a WP:BEFORE check. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then what's this, and this, and this, and this? Most is WP:ROUTINE but if you search deep enough, independent coverage exists. This (which comes from a quick search, so even more can emerge) combined with all the La Côte coverage, which is very good, takes it towards WP:GNG. WP:POTENTIAL is also high, as his age and rookie win at Zandvoort last weekend (later lost due to a penalty) shows, so salting is unwarranted. This is a keep, or at worst a draftify !vote. Still stand by my speedy keep vote though—this is a very poor nomination and you seem to be trying to scrape up a rationale on the spot. MSport1005 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was moved to mainspace with a very clear rationale: "Dufek has now completed races in FRECA". Now, I don't know whether that implies notability, but it does suggest that the previoud AfD arguments might be inappropriate, that a speedy delete would be very unfair, and that as it stands there is no valid rationale for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The Formula Regional European Championship is a minor series and competing in it is not any sort of indicator of inherent notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Random teenager competing in low-level competitions. NRTV is a couple of sentences of extremely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Simandan is an interview on a blog that probably is not a reliable source and may not be independent of the subject. This Formula Scout article (noting that Formula Scout are a reliable source) contributes more towards WP:SIGCOV than their coverage of drivers usually does, but my personal view is that our definition of WP:SIGCOV and WP:ONEEVENT needs to be particularly extensive when dealing with WP:MINORS, so this alone doesn't sway my opinion. If multiple other profiles from reliable independent sources were to show up similar to this Formula Scout article I might change my vote, but right now this article only seems to demonstrate the notability of the events Dufek has competed in. Swiss Motorsport.com gives us a couple of paragraphs of routine reporting on where local drivers finished in a minor-league motor race and cannot be considered WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. As always, I have nothing against these kids. I just feel it's fundamentally unethical to have articles about children who aren't demonstrably public figures known to a fairly wide audience, given the potential for vandalism and other issues to occur that may not be picked up on by good-faith editors before they can cause some sort of harm. More broadly I have concerns about the number of WP:BLPs of sportspeople who haven't established themselves as having success at a fairly high level, as often these articles get forgotten about over the years and can become targets for vandalism, like that article about a BTCC backmarker which spent several years with a verifiably false claim in the first sentence from a while back. Edit: I do agree that it is fairly plausible that this article's subject may become notable at some point in the next few years, but without getting into WP:CRYSTAL it's impossible to say what might happen beyond the current situation. If this article's subject wins the FRECA title then that would change the situation significantly. On those grounds I would support WP:SALTing until ~~October~~ January 2023 and no later. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - NRTV is a TV interview, not that two-sentence summary. That, plus the non-WP:ROUTINE Formula Scout source, plus all the extense La Côte coverage, take it close to WP:SIGCOV, so I'm quite baffled by all these delete+salt votes with little to no rationale, particularly User:Sportsfan 1234's one. MSport1005 (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HumanBodyPiloter5. If Formula Scout is a reliable source then we have WP:GNG right there.[11][12][13] StAnselm (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Three Formula Scout articles do not prove the subject meets the GNG. The coverage here still essentially amounts to WP:ROUTINE announcements as well. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely "organization" in that sentence means "collective or corporate author" and not "publisher" or "news agency"? -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest the most appropriate interpretation is "outlet" or "masthead". Multiple different outlets owned by the same publisher or agency would be different organizations, but the same individual outlet (in this case Formula Scout) would be one organization. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Salt as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per my original deletion nomination, the second deletion discussion, and HumanBodyPiloter5's analysis of the sources provided (except I disagree that Formula Scout is an indicator of notability, as I've argued before). Dufek continues to fail notability guidelines for the time being, and it doesn't look like his chances of moving up the ladder are that big at the moment. Creation protection until January might be appropriate but I don't have a strong opinion on that. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Dufek's results I would agree that WP:SALTing until January would actually be appropriate. If Dufek does turn around the season and wins every remaining race and gets coverage in the process then it can be requested that the protection be removed, but otherwise it is unlikely that this article's subject will meet the notability requirements for a WP:BLP by the end of this year. Beyond that it becomes a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's very hard to predict where one of these junior sportspeople might be competing in twelve months time. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and oppose salting - Reformulating my vote. Comes close to WP:SIGCOV with the sources I've provided above but it's not clear-cut, and fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Borderline notable at best. Oppose salting because WP:POTENTIAL is high, as explained above. Incubating in draftspace until a bit more coverage emerges is the best approach in my view. MSport1005 (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will look into this when I'm more free, but DRYT.Motorsport needs to stop moving drivers from draftspace under the reasoning of FRECA participation. "since Dufek has now completed races in FRECA, he is a relevant driver and is worthy of a page" is a pretty poor rationale, that's not based on the actual guidelines at WP:NMOTORSPORT. The only current F1 feeder series (rightfully) giving notability is Formula 2 Championship. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, weakly oppose draftfying with no particular opinion on salting. While I've voted delete in all three previous discussions, it does appear that the sourcing available is better than the last times (not that cluttering this discussion with routine coverage or blog posts helps!) but I still don't see a pass of GNG. Again like the last time there is a huge number of sources in the article itself but these are mostly non-neutral or non-reliable. I'm opposed to draftifying this version as I believe it is possibly lacking correct attribution from the previous versions (especially given the presence of some of the same fairly obscure unreliable sources like the youtube video) but also if deleted (which will reflect consensus on lack of notability), due to the presence of these unreliable sources it might be better to start again if/when substantial coverage in reliable sources becomes available rather than continuing with this version. A7V2 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not salt Fails WP:GNG with lack of WP:SIGCOV on this athlete who is currently limited to regional competitions. As a young "up-and-comer," his notability can quickly change. Frank Anchor 20:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drakoo wave energy converter[edit]

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

Not enough reliable independent sourcing exists to assert notability of this particular type of wave energy converter. PianoDan (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article created by WP:SPA, abandoned ever since. Tercer (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, looks like an abandoned advertisement. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Page was deleted in October 2006 as A7, without its AfD ever having been closed properly. (non-admin closure) jp×g 19:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brent's T.V.[edit]

non-notable band.

Delete Sethie 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a joke? Can a band tour laundromats? TheRingess 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that this can be closed properly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 19:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, the article was redirected years ago and has been stable. No prejudice against bold recreation. Legoktm (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disposal_orbit[edit]

The article should redirect to "Garbage orbit," which is the same thing and where more information is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyak (talk • contribs) on 06:54, 3 January 2006

Merge with Graveyard orbit, as suggested by Eliyak. A couple of process irregularities: 1) the merge has already been performed, without AfD consensus (though I don't expect there to be any problems with it), and 2) 129.98.214.113 (talk · contribs), who added the AfD tag, apparently didn't ever properly list it as an article for deletion (tag added at 06:50, 3 January 2006, page not showing up on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_3). --Christopher Thomas 07:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect... oh wait, that happened two years ago! :) — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was wrong about the last one -- THIS is actually the longest-running deletion discussion in Wikipedia history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 19:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nomination, but without prejudice to recreation. At the time of nomination (fifteen years ago) the article had no content that couldn't easily be covered in a section of graveyard orbit. However, over the course of this AfD, satellite technology has developed to the point where disposal orbits are used more commonly, so I'd expect there to be more literature available on them allowing the existence of a standalone article. jp×g 19:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Hames[edit]

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

First AfD ended in no consensus. Not seeing sufficient depth of coverage for meeting notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the depth of sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as per rough consensus. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracker (granola bar)[edit]

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

Deprodded with the rationale that it is "pretty notable in the UK", I was unable to find any reliable sources showing this. Fails notability guidelines; the sole source on the article mentions the subject only in passing. Waxworker (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything about this bar; the provided source is a bare mention, and everything on Google is just sites selling the bar. It's just a brand name of cereal or granola bar. valereee (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is indeed a "brand name of cereal or granola bar". But then, a Mars bar is just a brand name of a chocolate bar! Certainly highly notable in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As part of a WP:BEFORE exercise, I found (and in several cases added) a number of sources which seem to deal with the subject as a primary topic. Granted more than a few of them are in the "re-printed press releases as trade 'journalism'" category. But, in addition to the coverage itself, some of the claims to notability in that coverage ("first cereal bar in UK", "second in market share", etc) suggest that deletion is perhaps not the best course here. Guliolopez (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per work by Guliolopez. Artw (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable product with British consumers CliffordJones (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guliolopez. I was also able to find [14]. I'm not sure why the majority of hits in google for a widespread consumer product being for places that sell said product is at all relevant, given that this is going to be the case for every similar product whether notable or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable Kazanstyle (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. M. Muzumdar[edit]

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

There's a lecture series in the subject's honor thanks to a grant donated by his wife, but otherwise I'm not able to find any significant coverage of the subject, having searched DuckDuckGo, Google Scholar, and Proquest for several variations of the subject's name. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough coverage even on some of the military publications. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Held a very senior position and recipient of the Padma Bhushan, only 1,270 of which have been awarded in nearly 70 years, which would seem to qualify per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1,270 awards over 70 years doesn't scream ANYBIO to me. By contrast, the higher-level Indian civilian awards, Padma Vibhushan and Bharat Ratna, do seem like they would qualify for ANYBIO. I'd be more inclined to assume notability based on the subject's civil service position if we had any sources with biographical information other than the one written by his wife as part of the grant donation to the University of Mumbai. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill can you please wait till I modify the article refs? A simple Google book search proves him a notable person. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 15:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recipient of the Padma Bhushan award is notable. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipients of Padma Bhushan are notable. Indeed recipients of Padma Shri (the fourth-highest civilian award, one grade under Padma Bhushan) are notable. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that there's a general agreement on that, based on the many non-linked names at the articles listing Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan winners. Particularly in the absence of RS with biographical information, redirecting to a list entry seems far preferable to a stub. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G11 by User:Athaenara. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paari Saalan[edit]

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

Looks like promotion, not enough reliable sources Renvoy (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Renvoy (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D'Aleo[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to meet GNG (The best think I could find was this snippet [15]), and the article is is need of some WP:TNT for not adhering to WP:FRINGE and other NPOV issues stemming from the fact it's based on non-independent sources. Femke (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, and United States of America. Femke (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the guy that co-founded the Weather Network, there isn't much for reliable sources. Plenty of "soundbytes" of him giving a quote on this or that, nothing directly about him. He's authored a few papers in GScholar, but still nothing discussing the man himself. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University in popular culture[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and list fails WP:LISTN. There isn't WP:SIGCOV to cite much of the statements here, and much of the list is WP:OR. Following the precedent at other similar articles for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale University in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane University in popular culture, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture. Jontesta (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:LISTN, full of trivia. Femke (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another TV Tropes style list of extremely minor trivia. Most of these boil down to "Princeton was mentioned once in this thing!" type entries, and there is no actual discussion on the actual overall concept. The closest this article has to any kind of actual legitimately sourced information is the first sentence, which simply states that Princeton appears in popular culture, and is actually just sourced to the official Princeton website. Rorshacma (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Princeton University#In popular culture. I created this page in 2013 using content (I think) from elsewhere on Wikipedia. It could easily be condensed into a short section of the Princeton University article. Goustien (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per my argument at Talk:Princeton University in popular culture. This may even pass WP:LISTN, although much content is poorly referenced and the usual accumulation of WP:IPC failing trivia. Note we have one ok source: https://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_old/PAW98-99/04-1104/1104feat.html (COI/independence issues aside, sigh). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Education, and New Jersey. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not TV tropes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is standard for these articles. Does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis (character)[edit]

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

I was going to redirect this to Steven Williams but I decided to send it to AfD instead. The character is already covered in the article for Steven Williams and is not individually notable. Bruxton (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Delete. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Boogie2988 (not Steven Williams, different person). Ridcoulous coverage of a rpg character creater by a YouTuber. We may want to discuss whether Boogie2988 meets NBIO in a separate AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Francis is not independently notable from his creator. Furthermore, the title is far too broad to be useful as a redirect. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the WP:GNG and already covered elsewhere. A redirect might be a valid compromise but I'd discourage it as an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. as a valid AtD. G13 can solve this if sourcing doesn't come to fruition. Star Mississippi 02:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Beckley police shooting[edit]

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

Relatively common shooting, some regional coverage, "armed man shot by police". WP:MILL no evidence that it will be WP:LASTING. Bruxton (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than regional coverage. Washington Post, Associated Press and US News have all reported on this. I feel like it is a unique shooting, as the multiple POV videos have gone viral on various platforms, and could be considered notable. BishopRiffe (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would draftifying this make sense for a few months until we can see if there is any long(ish) term notability? Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
draftify or just delete per above. This needs time to demonstrate notability, as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plearnpichaya Komalarajun[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, tagged for notability, no change in notability since. No significant coverage, no evidence of multiple/significant roles or any musical significance. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Thailand. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a question of whether the article should be deleted, as at worst the result should be redirecting to List of BNK48 members. That said, I'd argue keep since the subject has had multiple significant works as an individual, outside of the group. Her role in the TV series One Year (itself notable but lacking an article) was significant enough for a Best Newcomer award at the 2020 Asian Contents Awards,[16] and she plays the lead role in Bad Genius: The Series. With her starring role in the upcoming film OMG!: Oh My Girl,[17], her career should satisfy WP:NACTOR independently of her BNK48 membership. Even discounting that, there's plenty enough Thai-language coverage of her to satisfy the GNG.[18][19][20][21] --Paul_012 (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012 references. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Busan Asian Contents Awards is not a blue-linked award. First source 'The Cloud' is an interview. The second is an interview about her makeup routine. Third Kapook! is indeed a piece about her beauty and career - and fourth Sanook is a word-for-word carbon copy of Kappok! - a photo feature which sounds very much like it was derived from the same press handout. Starlet to watch? Maybe. GNG pass? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of news coverage from Google News [22]. Sanook is word-for-word copy of Kapook? Even Google Translate should show different content. It's like saying an article in Wikipedia is carbon copy of the corresponding Brittanica one. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple significant roles in notable productions as per WP:NACTOR. Some of the references are better than others but there is enough for a keep, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion may be useful to reach consensus. Suggest review of the sources provided, which do not seem sufficient for notability, being lightweight celebrity/beauty articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding potential sources, the The Cloud interview is the most in-depth among those linked above. While it is an interview, it does provide a substantial introduction (seven short paragraphs) and many background statements presented in the interviewer's voice, which should count as a secondary source. The The Standard makeup interview has a very brief introduction that isn't in-depth. The Kapook and Sanook pieces are their usual celebrity profile pieces. The Kapook one is more detailed and in-depth, covering all of her personal and work life, while the Sanook one has a short list and a paragraph covering the basic biographical details and some tidbits of her personal life. Both come with the usual caveat of Thai celebrity columns: they don't score the best in the reliability department, and often rely on information already present on the web. On the whole, though, considering these together with general news coverage, I do think there's enough to satisfy the notability guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushmita Ruj[edit]

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

Is this person really notable enough for an article? I see that she's now senior lecturer at UNSW https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/ms-sushmita-ruj But Google doesn't show up much else in independent sources, and the citations are thin. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear to meet WP:N. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator, per WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's statement that "citations are thin" is false: the citation counts on her Google Scholar profile, 810, 457, 359, 355, ... (12 papers each with triple-digit citations) are easily enough for #C1. As for the previous delete comment, it appears to be applying the incorrect notability guideline; WP:PROF notability is independent of WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein, WP:PROF is what applies, not just WP:N. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability advises that A topic is presumed to merit an article if [it meets] the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; the pertinent such guideline for present purposes is Wikipedia:Notability (academics), of which the first criterion is met as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The highly cited papers are also fairly highly coauthored, and it is a higher citation field, but I am still seeing a credible pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm reading Delete here but not a Strong Delete as comments are framed in phrases like "I do not believe meets NPOL", "may not be notable" and "doesn't not appear to be". No penalty against trying to create a new Draft version of this article that would better meeting current notability standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Muhammad Bawa[edit]

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

Career civil servant who I do not believe meets NPOL. He is not a GNG pass either, perhaps owing to his career be largely pre-internet. Opinion is divided as to whether state-level commissioners in Nigeria are generally notable but I don’t think this one is. Mccapra (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete may be notable as politician though. --Bash7oven (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I’m not sitting on the fence here, I’ll just make my points and leave. NPOL#1 clearly states Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.. This is the policy. I didn't make it up. I’m not making a vote because it will still be neglected by the closing admin (as seen in this AfD). In all, I guess there alot of Nigerian politician on this encyclopaedia (according to Mccapra.). Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 05:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and the question is whether this individual is a politician/judge or not. The policy doesn’t say that any person who has held any kind of state-level appointment is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it obvious that he was a state politician. How many state offices did he hold? You should do the counting to ascertain whether he is, a politician. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Gusfriend (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuesoft[edit]

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

Definitely lacks reliable independent media coverage needed for private companies. WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. 11 years since the Notability tag appeared, and no improvements so far Bash7oven (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find evidence of notability.. Also questionable neutrality. Femke (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also could not find any sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Coldplay discography. ✗plicit 13:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live from Spotify London[edit]

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because as with most Coldplay EPs, Live from Spotify London is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articl reads like a WP:COATRACK for their streaming accomplishments. There's hardly any content present about the actual release, nor is there likely to be any for these platform-specific minor releases. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Coldplay discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Madrid (EP)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because as with most Coldplay EPs, Live in Madrid is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Coldplay discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes (Coldplay EP)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because as with most Coldplay EPs, Remixes is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything is notable in this article then it can be merged to the original discography page. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making some adjustments on Coldplay's discography page and their extended plays section have been revamped to include any notable information regarding this EP and the others I nominated. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mince Spies[edit]

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because as with most Coldplay EPs, Mince Spies is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete at the request of the sole contributor (criterion G7). XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Angelito S. Lazaro Jr.[edit]

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

Not notable as a politician (vice mayor of Calamba). No RS. Fails WP:ANYBIO Morpho achilles (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete. Dissenting views mentioned WP:LISTED, but that alone does not establish notability. No sufficiently strong sources seem to have been provided which enable consensus to keep. TigerShark (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingfish Company[edit]

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

Does not fit WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. No RS provided here. Morpho achilles (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:LISTED applies to this public company. Company recently changed its name from Kingfish Zeeland, and WP:BEFORE using that name does reveal some potential source material, here, elsewhere. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED isn't automatic; it is only a suggestion that RS exist. The link you provided is not independent at all (it says Client: Kingfish Zeeland). Ovinus (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCORP. Another day, another nomination that looked at references instead of sources. Nominator, please study WP:NEXIST! gidonb (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That told him! Although ... which sources in particular? All very well to virtually wag your finger but it is notable that you didn't produce any sources yourself that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find independent significant coverage in multiple mainstream RS, Dutch or English. "Kingfish Zeeland" seems to be the actual Dutch name, see [23]. [24] (in Dutch) seems okay and is likely independent. Perhaps someone can do a deeper analysis of it. [25] is the best English source I can find, but I don't think it constitutes SIGCOV--it's pretty short and does not discuss the company in detail. There are some specialist publications on the company, mostly from SeafoodSource and IntraFish, e.g. [26], but NCORP explicitly states that trade publications must be treated with great care when establishing notability, and based on the tone of these articles it's unclear whether there's true independence. [27] (in Dutch) doesn't look particularly independent based on Google Translate, but it's hard for me to tell. [28] is similar. If more sources are found, or someone who speaks Dutch has assessed these articles, please ping me. Ovinus (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De Volkskrant (your link 2), a national newspaper, and Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (your link 6), a regional paper, are independent sources. De ondernemer, link 5, is a website owned by Algemeen Dagblad, a national paper. That said, the author of the pieces in AD and PZC is the same and in the AD piece he states that the information was provided by the company during a press briefing. The piece in De Volkskrant is basically an interview with the owner of the company. So yes, three articles in independent sources based on information provided by the company. Still, I would say it counts as significant coverage by independent sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar: Thank you for taking a look! With just these sources, it's borderline, then, because we count sources by the same person as just one. How much editorial oversight do you think there was in the DV piece? Is it mostly a transcribed interview, or is there substantial commentary? Ovinus (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about WP:ORGIND. Articles must have "Independent Content" so we need to exclude (for the purposes of establishing notability) pieces that rely on company information and interviews (without adding their own analysis/opinion/etc). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph is an ethical comment about this type of fisheries and leaves the reader free to decide. So yes, there is substantial commentary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph of extra commentary following the interview doesn't feel sufficiently substantial for a presumably rather large European company. But hopefully others can weigh in. Ovinus (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the basis I cannot find any national or regional news sources about The Kingfish Company. Kingfish Maine, cited in a Maine news source, appears to be a subsiduary company, so doesn't count towards notability of The Kingfish Company. There are certainly a number of articles in fish-related news sites, but these are industry specific and not of general interest, so wouldn't help the subject pass WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Perhaps others will have better luck than me but I'm unable to locate anything at all that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mubashir Malik[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Only promtional coverage is this launch. Otherwise, his conpiracy theory book received no "genuine review". I can't find anything about him on worldcat so seems like a run-of-the-mill author. Amon Stutzman (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Soria de Veyra[edit]

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

An article on this subject was deleted in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicente-Ignacio Soria de Veyra with the rationale “ On this face of it this is a highly detailed, very well sourced article. However once you get into the nit-gritty it's not sourced at all (not at wikipedia standards). All of the sources are either self-published, non-notable blogs or directory lists. There are a couple of sources that might be considered reliable but the coverage of the subject is trivia.” That rationale still stands. Since 2010 the subject has had one solo exhibition but if we’re looking for in depth coverage in RIS this recreation doesn’t offer it. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous rationale. I looked at all the sources and there aren't any that would be considered independent, reliable, and in-depth. It's good that he was included in a 20th century anthology, but that's about the only noteworthy fact. If the subject continues to produces a body of work that might merit an article in the future. Curiocurio (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

24 Game (proprietary card game)[edit]

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

Non-notable game that doesn't cite any refs, can't find any sources except for maybe a mention here. IMO doesn't meet GNG and should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; insufficent evidence to establish notability. — The Anome (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current sourcing is non-existent, and WP:GNG isn't demonstrated. Also "proprietary" in article name is just plain ugly and demotivates me from even trying to look for more sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources that can be used to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh women's football team[edit]

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

Chandigarh women's football team

Non-notable sports team that does not satisfy general notability. This was first created in article space but moved into draft space by User:Spiderone after being tagged as relying on primary sources. This copy was then created in article space, so that it cannot be moved into draft space, but still is not ready for article space. A check of the references shows that they are all primary sources, and mostly refer to the subjunior team winning its championship, and are not significant coverage. Junior and subjunior sports have very seldom been considered notable, even before the revision of the sports notability guidelines.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.the-aiff.com	Page about the association in the web site for Indian football	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.rsssf.com	List of champions that doesn’t list them	No	No	Yes	No
3	www.the-aiff.com	Page about the Indian football association listing subjunior champions	No	No	Yes	No
4	www.the-aiff.com	Indian football association page that appears to be a directory to other pages	No	No	Yes	No
5	footballcounter.com	Article about subjunior championship	Yes	No	Yes	No
6	khelnow.com	A passing mention of subjunior championship	Yes	No	Yes	No

Neither the article nor the references establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Punjab. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. The Footballean (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oussama Lamlioui[edit]

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

Article relies two weak sources both are just stats about the player. Article does not detail any reason for notability nothing about his training, awards won, personal life etc. Additionally a google search WP:GOOGLETEST does not offer any additional information or sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Fails WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Attempted to speedy delete by NPP Reading Beans as per WP:A7 but was reverted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I couldn't find something either. Fails WP:GNG. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Likely Arab sources out there but I can't find any. Giant Snowman 21:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom, doesn't meet WP:GNG.Alimovvarsu (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of National Rugby League referees. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Atkins[edit]

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

Article relies on weak sources, one the subject is briefly mentioned, another is an about page with some stats. Article does not detail any reason for notability and is mostly about games he was a referee for. Nothing about his training, awards won, etc. Additionally a google search does not offer any additional information or sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Fails WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Attempted to speedy delete as per WP:A7 but was reverted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems surprising, given Atkins' number of games refereed at the top level, that there aren't more articles about him. I suspect with a bit of searching you could find some other articles. In the meantime, the best alternative to deletion is to Redirect to List of National Rugby League referees. Deus et lex (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eric B. Vogel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armorica (game)[edit]

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

Non-notable game with only three refs, the first one is potentially reliable, but the editor is also a prominent contributor to BGG (https://boardgamegeek.com/blog/1/boardgamegeek-news), which according to the Wikiproject Board Games is an unreliable blog. The second ref is not independent, and the third one is too unreliable. Upon a search, I could not find any awards or reliable refs covering this, hence listing this at AfD as there are not multiple reliable independent sources. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly more references out there: https://www.dicetower.com/game/67285/armorica

Is there clear criteria for which board games should get articles and which should not?

I feel like having Amorica relevant to understanding Vogel's progress as a game designer working up to his more successful/award winning titles (dresden files and kitara)

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/293267/kitara

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/187273/dresden-files-cooperative-card-game Michaeleconomy (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, BGG and The Dice Tower (the latter I also subscribe to) are self-published (please see Wikiproject) and unreliable. IMO an article needs more reliable sources with editorial control. Replying to the other comment, I do not think so, although in my opinion an article should be all right if it has two multiple, reliable, indepedent sources, or won (or is nominated) to a SdJ. While I could concur that this is "relevant to understanding Vogel's progress as a game designer", unless you provide more reliable refs, I am unconvinced that this is notable. Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge&redrect to Eric B. Vogel. The article as written fails WP:GNG (we don't have a Wikipedia:Notablity (games), at best, Wikipedia:Notability (products) can offer some futher insight. Is The Dice Tower video review reliable? They are high profile, but not high enough to prevent the article about this show from being merged to the stubby biography of the podcasdter in 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dice Tower (2nd nomination)). Unless we can find more high profile reviews or awards (BGG shows nothing), this is not a notable game. At best we can merge the one liner description of the game to the designer, who has a page (although whether he meets WP:NBIO, that's another discussion): Eric B. Vogel --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to loads of YouTube channels on games, namely SUSD (which I am more familiar with) and Watch it Played; I probably subscribed to Dice Tower sometime ago, or came across on BGG but think all of these are well known and review thousands of games in total! But all of these Youtube channels are probably unreliable, much less notable IMO, so I agree with your assessment. VickKiang (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Eric B. Vogel, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A number of reviews are listed here: [29]. That said, I'm fine with a merge to the author. Hobit (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, while Dice Tower has mostly one face, it's a pretty big organiation at this point. [30]. It's also widely respected in the field. I'd say it is very reliable in its area (board games etc.). Hobit (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is interesting, but below is a source table; at best, there's one source meeting GNG, and two unsures, so merging or deleting are both fine to me.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:VickKiang
https://www.rollthedice.nl/	Indepedent.	? The source is a board game association, but doesn't seem to have editorial policies.	The source covers the subject in detail.	? Unknown
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/keirat/txt/A/Armorica.html	? It's indepedent (?) but sponsored ("Many thanks to Vainglorious Games for sending us a review copy!")	Self-published blog, dated design, not reliable.	The source covers the subject in detail.	✘ No
https://rivcoach.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/review-armorica-by-vainglorius-games/	It's indepedent probably, but the site's deleted.	Deleted self-published site on Wordpress	? The article could not be opened (as "rivcoach.wordpress.com is no longer available").	✘ No
https://www.jedisjeux.net/jeux-de-societe/	The subject is indepedent.	An association that seems reliable enough, but somehow Google translate doesn't work well, and as I can't read French, I am not sure whether there's an editorial policy. But it's all right and probably reliable.	The article discusses the subject in detail.	✔ Yes
http://detafelplakt.skynetblogs.be/archive/2010/07/20/kleine-dingen.html	The subject is indepedent presumably, though it can't be accessed on my laptop.	Blog, also couldn't be opened on my laptop.	? Ref couldn't be accessed for me, but it's unreliable as it's a self-published blog.	✘ No
http://spotlightongames.com/list/nights/a.html#armorica	The subject is indepedent.	Self-published, no editorial policies.	Short, but in-depth enough.	✘ No
https://www.dicetower.com/game/67285/armorica	The subject is indepedent.	YouTube channel turned into webpage, marginally reliable for mundane coverage, including gameplay, release date, publisher..., generally unreliable for subjective reviews, and doesn't contribute to GNG as it's routine.	Long review.	✘ No
http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/bring_gauls_and_romans_together_in_armorica/	The subject is indepedent.	? It seems to have about section and an editor, but the author now posts on BGG, which isn't reliable.	Fairly long article.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The other refs, including BGG link and the publisher's link, are clearly unreliable. VickKiang (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I largely agree with you other than Dice Tower. That it started on YouTube as a one-person show doesn't really matter--it's a non-trivial company at this point, probably the leading English-language board game review site in the world. But it doesn't really matter in this case given we both want the same outcome. Hobit (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments but only one editor advocating a Merge and redirect. Other opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO I initially voted for delete, but as of right now I think both deleting and merging are fine. VickKiang (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would note that Piotrus did propose merge to the author as an alternative to deletion, to which Hobit agreed, and now the nominator as well. I have no opinion at the moment, but if it helps to establish a consensus then I would lean merge as well. BOZ (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. TigerShark (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Bailey (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and a candidate must demonstrate either that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or a credible reason why his candidacy can be seen as much, much more nationally significant than other people's candidacies such that people would still be looking for information about it a decade from now even if he loses. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that are not support for notability at all and purely run of the mill local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets, thus not marking him out as more special than everybody else.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing here is already enough to earn him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for public office are not default notable for such, and the coverage is not to the level to justify an article on an unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. Per nom., not notable per WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, so not presently qualified for a standalone article. His prominent standing as his party's nominee in the upcoming statewide election does warrant a redirect, however. Also per nom., no prejudice against the article's re-creation should he win the general election in November. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bailey is twice the nominee of a major political party for statewide office. Only about 2% of the vote kept him from winning in 2018. Is it truly the case that he has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Such would establish general notability, and per the end of the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, make him notable as a politician. —ADavidB 04:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show campaign coverage, and thus claim that WP:GNG exempts them from having to pass WP:NPOL — but if that were how it worked, then NPOL would be entirely unenforceable, because nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. So no, a non-winning candidate does not get an article just because run of the mill campaign coverage exists: as I noted in my nomination statement, candidates get articles only if they (a) had another claim of notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much, much more important and special than most other people's candidacies. And no, running twice isn't more notable than running once, and coming close but still losing isn't more notable than losing by a wider margin, either. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How was it established that this state-wide nominee's coverage is only 'run of the mill'? If this is so far an assumption based on the current article status, my comment serves as an invitation for editors to look for and include more significant coverage. The article is only a week old. —ADavidB 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate for statewide office isn't any more "inherently" notable than being a candidate for local office either — candidates for statewide office still always get campaign coverage by definition, and thus what I said before about how nobody would ever have to be measured against our inclusion standard for politicians if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt them from it still applies the same way. Simply put, a candidate only gets to claim notability on the basis of campaign coverage itself if that campaign coverage expands to a volume and geographic range far beyond what would merely be expected to exist, because the test for a non-winning candidate requires him to demonstrate that he's so much more notable than most other candidates that even if he loses he would still pass the people will still be looking for information about his campaign in the year 2032 test anyway.
If a person is running for statewide office, then campaign coverage within the state where he's running for office is merely expected to always exist, and is thus run of the mill — if a candidate in Georgia breaks out to such a degree that he starts getting covered in California and Iowa and Michigan, then he might be getting somewhere, but if he's only getting coverage in Georgia then that coverage is not demonstrating that he's more notable than other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with treating major-party-elected statewide nominees as 'local', but acknowledge that is how things are being done. —ADavidB 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary for reasons stated by Sal2021, adding more from this article there. —ADavidB 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Keep. Due to him actually winning the Democratic run-off, he's garnered a lot of coverage from local stations and reputable papers, about how he will compete in the finals, plus an Axios article on his views on abortion. A redirect or merge is another alternative, although it does not make the most sense since he has ran for two elections, and a single page can't exactly redirect to two pages at a time, ya know. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 04:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that a single page can't be redirected to more than one article. In this case, redirecting to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary would be the most appropriate course of action (if redirect is the result of this discussion) because it is the higher office sought by the subject. That, I believe, is the standard procedure for redirecting politicians who have run for multiple offices. That's why it's the particular target being proposed. FYI and FWIW. Sal2100 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  His background in the previous election should also be brought up in the redirected article if we're going that direction. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While exceptions to WP:POLITICIAN do exist (see Christine O'Donnell), I do not see anything here that is indicative of such notability. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations, no agreements, no embassies, no significant trade. The relations seem to be limited Ministerial interaction and a Spanish company building a road in East Timor. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Asia, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly not notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Article is built entirely on primary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry V. Jardine[edit]

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

Mainly being a nominee as an Ambassador. I don't think this is notable. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 01:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not default notable, and those sent to very small countries especially by large countries very far away from the small country, are normally not for such. broadly the majority of people who are ambassadors who are notable are notable for other things, and Jardine has nothing else to indicate notability, and being nominated for the post he was nominated for is not anywhere close to enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have never heard of the two countries, actually (not one), does not mean the ambassadors are not notable. He is as notable as the other ambassadors on this page as well as as notable as the ambassadors appointed by the Trump administration, all of whom have pages on both counts. You also treat nomination as if it is not the first step to confirmation. The fact that he has not yet been confirmed has nothing to do with notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahlaitinen99 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winslow Fegley[edit]

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

Actor does not meet WP:NACTOR, let alone WP:BASIC. Need to prove it meets these, not just invoke them. Additionally, three of the four references WP:NOTRS. I would also support converting this to a draft. But it definitely should not be in mainspace as it stands. Amaury • 17:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Amaury • 17:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Currently way, way too undersourced to demonstrate WP:BASIC. Let's see if others can come up with enough sources here to demonstrate notability. I am skeptical. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 8 Bit Christmas certainly qualifies as a major role[31], uncertain about the others. Lyle[32] absolutely will when it is out. Artw (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant role" as per WP:NACTOR has to be proven, and the way that's proven is with significant coverage. It's not about cast listing order – it's about whether a role generates significant secondary coverage. We've had cases before where someone arguably "technically met WP:NACTOR", but the article was still deleted at WP:AfD because those roles got no significant coverage (so WP:BASIC was failed). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds a bit redundant to general then, TBH. Artw (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meeting WP:NACTOR means it's likely that WP:BASIC will be met, but not certain – it's not a guarantee. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added refs. Artw (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #7 is the only one of those that can probably be considered "significant" coverage. The rest are passing mentions, or worse garbage like the IMDb "ref". Still looks well short of WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to disagree with you there. Also have replaced the imddb ref (not one I added, FWIW). Artw (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think a 3rd relisting would induce more participation here so I'm closing this AFD as "No consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Logan[edit]

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

None of the references shown here demonstrate independent in-depth coverage-- the second one appears to be to the subject's own personal website. No evidence of any awards won, no notable credits, lots of evidence he exists and was interviewed once but I don't see a viable notability claim here. A loose necktie (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Mentioned here in a discussion about his film at Cannes about an Israeli agent [33], here [34] and here [35], with a DVD review at Electric Sheep [36] and at Diabolique [37]. Was featured at the Belfast Film Festival in 2016 [ https://belfastfilmfestival.org/assets/uploads/2016/03/bff-2016-programme.pdf]. Discussed in a magazine(?) in 1988: [38] I can only see a preview. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loose Necktie

Thank you for your concern on this page. I will attempt to answer your notes below.

The second website you mention appears to be the subjects own website is not correct. This is the subjects own website, https://saxonlogan.com/, which has been avoided for obvious reasons.

With regards to notability, he won an Emmy award and received an honorary mention from the Academy in USA. Notability must be viewed from both a local and worldwide context. USA and Europe don't have an exclusive hold over who is notable in film and television. In Africa this man is incredibly notable.

His most active period was prior to the invention of the internet so the vast majority of publicity no longer exists, making finding online external links difficult to source. It should be flagged for lack of appropriate citations, not deleted for notability. Shelly Took (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larrye Weaver[edit]

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

Article relies on a single source, and is only linked to by one other article which is a list of football players. Additionally a google search does not offer any additional information or sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Fails WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Attempted to speedy delete as per WP:A7 but was reverted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly notable, but will need to search sources. In addition to coaching, he also played six games for the Giants in 1955. Searches in google books show quite a few hits, being an NFL offensive coordinator usually generates press. Probably quite a few sources in newspaper archives for his 1955 player season and for his OC roles in 1981-1983.--Mvqr (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Cbl62 below coupled with google books and other searchable sources.--Mvqr (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. E.g., [39], [40] [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. And that's without even having online access to the newspapers in San Diego and Cleveland, where he gained his greatest prominence as an NFL offensive coordinator. Cbl62 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, per sources by Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really? This person played half a dozen games in the National Football League and spent multiple seasons as an NFL offensive coordinator. Clearly passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So this is where things get a little gray. If you look at the guidelines for sports WP:ATHLETE there isn't a set for football. But if you review the other sports you'll notice that for most games you need to have done something other than just played a handful of games. Same is true for coaches, there isn't a set of guidelines for professional coaches but there is one for amateur coaches and in if we used those guidelines then I think he would also fail WP:NCOLLATH. I read the newspaper clippings that @Cbl62 provided (thanks for that @Cbl62 that's a good resource) and most of them mention he's a coach and do a short interview but the article is covering the performance of the team. It's a little less cut and dry then I normally like to see when dealing with WP:BLP. I know that the guidelines are flexible and aren't hard and fast rules but it just appears that as the article stands currently he doesn't appear notable. I copied some of the guidelines and put them below because they were the ones that I felt illustrated my point the best and were kind of a rough rubric I used when coming to this conclusion. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball - WP:NBASE

Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.

Basketball - WP:NBASKETBALL

Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft.
Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category, of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA G League.

College Athletes and Coaches - WP:NCOLLATH

Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major NCAA Division I record.
Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Very rarely, a player may gain national media attention despite not being on a notable team, such as Lauren Hill.
Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport.
Served as a full-time (as opposed to interim) head coach for NCAA Division I/University Division football. Other college coaches in other divisions and/or other sports may also meet notability guidelines via WP:NBASIC.

@Dr vulpes: Passing GNG, as here, is all that's required. Q3 in the NSPORTS FAQs expressly states: "If the subject meets the general notability guideline, then they meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if they do not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia." Cbl62 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He'd meet BASEBALL above, had he played that sport. We keep anyone who appears in any game in the big leagues. I've contributed to articles where the baseball player has less playing time than this fellow has. Journeyman plan/coach/higher level guy. Not worthy of the NFL equivalent of Cooperstown, but just did his job for a fair amount of time. I see nothing wrong with keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found above show a clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Another example of a waste of time AfD now that we overpruned NSPORT and people don't understand that if an athlete meets GNG they are still notable even if they don't meet NSPORT. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per sources found by above voters.Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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