Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verulam Secondary[edit]

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

This unsourced article was prodded in March 2023, but the prod was (in my view wrongly) removed. Disclaimer: I removed the unsourced material in the article before nominating it. I hadn't planned on nominating it at that point, but I won't restore it, either. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 1 line unreferenced article that fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. No appropriate list or article for redirection either. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Bateman[edit]

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

No indication this is a notable individual, fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I find all of ten GNews hits about him; a general search turns up stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors but not much else. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, United Kingdom, and Wales. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's a few bits and pieces I've found when searching online. This, This and This are all coverage, although whether or not they'd be considered for a GNG pass I'm not sure, however given the timing of his career, and the number of games played, I'd expect there to be more offline and in local coverage in Wales and some of the Welsh rugby editors, such as @RodneyParadeWanderer: might be able to find more. Article does need a good clean-up though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He does seem to pass notability for rugby union per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria as he has played for the Ospreys in Celtic League/Heineken Cup. 79 appearances for Ospreys according to article linked. I'd agree with a weak keep provided we can expand the article with a bit more, but many news pieces featuring him of the era might be gone. I will see what I can turn up. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That page will need to be updated, given that as of November 2022 appearances-based notability is no longer "a thing"; that essay a useful guide but not in any way a guarantee of notability. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like notability was totally gutted without any input from rugby editors. Absolutely no guidance.RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion seems rather pertinent, plus there was the original notice... but we're getting off-topic. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m having a hard time finding enough information to turn the bio into something useful. He made many Ospreys appearances, but whatever was out there is probably long gone and just not enough to justify. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque (rapper)[edit]

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

Believe dosen't meet requirements of notibility stated in WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the article certainly needs improvement and more sources, news outlets reporting that they were Juno nominated does hold some notability. It seems like an article that could be salvaged with additional sources. LemonberryPie (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article does need some improvement, but he has a Juno Award nomination under his belt — please see WP:NMUSIC #8, in which the Junos are explicitly listed as one of the canonical examples of an award that passes that criterion — and there are already sources in the article from the likes of the Toronto Star and Now and Exclaim!, which are solid and GNG-worthy sources. Yes, improvement would be helpful, but what's already here isn't inadequate at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bearcat has provided evidence of notability. Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets notability with nomination for a major music award and coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:SINGER per Juno nom. ResonantDistortion 21:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Langley[edit]

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

Previously PRODed in 2010, but contested on the talk page because "there [was] enough [sources] to show a claim of significance", but the notability claims still remain unclear 13 years later. It is also difficult to find sources as it is easily confused with Jane Pickens Langley. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any information online to improve this article. Looks like she has been involved with an organization named "Blue Patch", but the name of the company + Jane Langley in the search doesn't produce significant coverage. Nor does Jane Langley + 1959 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a source which confirms her as founder of Blue Planet. PamD 08:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But alas,it is the Blue Planet site. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did not find sources to back up the info in the article. The non-profit she founded appears to still be going, but I found only non-independent sources for that. Lamona (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 10:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Six to Ten[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2016 DonaldD23 talk to me 20:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources cited in article. Only media coverage found were passing mentions in articles about the individual hosts. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Masc (band). History remains if someone wants to selectively merge the material. Star Mississippi 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jong-hee[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage about him as an individual to show he meets WP:GNG, was redirected to band, but redirect was contested. Onel5969 TT me 21:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: only properlly sourced material to group article. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Lacks independent notability. Sources in article and BEFORE showed promo, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Singh Saini[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Created by a user currently indeffed for sockpuppetry. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable individual. No sourcing in RS, sock creation as well, red flags. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author wasn't just socking, they were in fact the sock of a long-since blocked account. This is UPE spam. Girth Summit (blether) 16:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balvinder Kumar[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Created by a user currently indeffed for sockpuppetry. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • CU note This article was written by the sock of a blocked user, and would likely be eligible for G5 deletion. Since we're having this discussion however - put me down for delete, this is UPE spam. Girth Summit (blether) 16:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Hazbin Hotel. Star Mississippi 13:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kovach[edit]

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

Violates WP:NBIO, with most of the references being of tweets. Plus, Anime News Network is a situational source (see WP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK), so it probably shouldn't be referenced here. I propose restoring this page back to this revision, where it was a redirect. Jurta talk 19:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. In this case, I support the OP's decision to return this to a redirect. So, the page doesn't need to be deleted, just changed to a redirect to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters#Hazbin Hotel. I just don't see enough sources to support Kovach getting a page currently. Perhaps one day there will be sources, but tweets are most of the sources. While links to the notoriously unreliable ANN Enyclopedia like this and this, don't fly, I'd say Behind the Voice Actors is good, as are the articles in ANN and Animation World Network, but they are NOT enough to justify this being a page. The same can be said for sources like this, this, and this. It should be a redirect instead.Historyday01 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: restore to redirect per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  10:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 13:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McNeany[edit]

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

Fails SIGCOV NM 18:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough coverage to demonstrate notability, for example: New Statesman profile, Manchester Evening News Founder's goodbye to Nord Anglia, City Wire Education's first multi-millionaire stacks up more Nord Anglia and The Observer The teacher who made £15m out of schools Piecesofuk (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The New Statesman profile is no longer on their web page, but there are 3 other articles there. The profile (located through EBSCO) is quite long and detailed. Between those and the Guardian piece, it meets GNG. Lamona (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bolin, West Virginia[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable community; searching brings up nothing indicating a community or settlement here, while there are [1] [2] references to this as a rail point. Topos show a single point on the railroad, which is consist with the passing mentions to this as some sort of rail feature. Given that hundreds of similar articles by the page creator have been deleted as being false claims of a community or settlement, I don't think we should be keeping this when all indications point to this being a non-notable rail feature. Hog Farm Talk 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it is on the 1907 topographical map, with two structures—if it was a railway station, then perhaps only one house, with a few others across the Guyandotte. It is not shown on the 1962 map, and all of the structures are gone. There was no post office by this name, according to U.S. Appointments of Postmasters, and it is not mentioned in West Virginia Place Names. I might suggest that it could be incorporated into an article about Lincoln County, either in a list of unincorporated communities and rail stations, or as part of a stand-alone list of the same. It is clearly not a hoax, but it does seem to have been a very minor, perhaps ephemeral location. P Aculeius (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The railroad station is the only thing we can verify was here; anything else is speculation and in any case there's not enough coverage to merit even a mention in a county article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I found nothing textual, though I must admit that searching is heavily masked by the surname. OTOH the buildings shown on the oldest topos don't seem to add up to a settlement, as there doesn't ever seem to have been a way across the river, which is somewhere in excess of 100 feet wide at this point. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masaili[edit]

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

Not notable village in Nepal. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Mass-created article by Dr. Blofeld. The location given in the article is an empty field. Only two sources are provided in the article - a link to a UN map of village development committees in the Sarlahi district, and a link to the Nepalese census website. The UN website is a 404 link. The Nepalese census website lists a location called Masaili as a Village Development Committee in Sarlahi district. Clicking through the various boxes gives you a text-file output such as this:

Nepal Census Data 2001: Population 1991
vdc_id 3486
vdc_name Masaili
district_name Sarlahi
total_house 528
total_pop 3072
This fails WP:GEOLAND as sourcing for the following reasons -
1) WP:NGEO explicitly excludes tables (and maps) from supporting the notability of geographical entities.
2) Including this content, the only content that can be reliably supported here, violates WP:NOTDATABASE.
3) Writing an article based on this article content would result in a geographical dictionary entry, which would violate WP:DICT.
4) There is no evidence that a "village development committee" is a populated place having legal recognition. It appears to be a low-level census-taking area which is excluded from WP:GEOLAND.
Nothing further was found in my WP:BEFORE, so Delete it is. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flip to Keep based on Aymatth2's Nepalese news sources. Whilst I maintain that pure statistical sources are not sufficient to show notability under NGEO, this does appear to be an actual village that is legally recognised rather than just a statistical-counting unit. The article should be edited so as to recite a village as well as a (former) VDC. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A verifiable populated place with over 4000 people verifiable in book sources like this. This was a former VDC, an official subdivision of a country, not some tiny hamlet in the middle of nowhere. It has its own mosques and schools. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This a frivolous nomination. Per WP:NPLACE, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. A search on मुसैली shows plenty of results, as one would expect of a place of this size. Even the village pond has been in the news: [3], [4], [5]. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep appears in 2011 census with population of 5,190 [6] (p.28). As above, passes WP:GEOLAND. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Poulsen[edit]

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

Fails GNG Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Álvarez de Asturias[edit]

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

One sourced article with no significance of importance. and with no significant coverage Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An attempt at WP:BEFORE was clearly not conducted. Simply Googling his name returns an absolute slew of sources providing WP:SIGCOV indicating he easily passes WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, I am going to reiterate what Jack1956 said at this other AfD that this account only appears to exist to nominate articles for deletion (and to add on) without conducting proper searches before nominating (per the series of rapid-fire bad nominations). Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Before fail. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont Lake[edit]

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

Unnotable lake in Wyoming with no significance of importance. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm usually in favor of deleting articles on ponds and remote lakes that have little human activity, but this is the second largest in Wyoming and has a campground, lodge, and beach on it. Sources with decent coverage include [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Reywas92Talk 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reywas92 and WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Here is another reference, and there are others like it. StonyBrook babble 03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Reywas92, particularly the Gillette News Record article. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the sources cited by Reywas92 have WP:SIGCOV and indicate that the subject of the article passes WP:GEOLAND. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics[edit]

When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, not notable and not enough significant coverage for this to be an article. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdraw‎ . I withdraw to nominate this article. (non-admin closure) Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unbeatable (game show)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. with no sources, and no significant coverage of the article. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article has had sources added to it that I think more than adequately establishes WP:GNG. Seems likes there are plenty of more sources out there that can be used to expand and improve the article. - Navarre0107 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as is, article currently has sources that meet GNG. matt91486 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Moni Das[edit]

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

Other than some passing mentions ( of the sources are in Bengali are just interviews, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Just passing mentions no in depth sources. NP83 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Charles Hood[edit]

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

Fails GNG Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blimey, that was quick! You nominated it for deletion after my first three edits! You account seems to exist only to nominate articles for deletion! Jack1956 (talk
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Jeffhardyfan08, you appear to have nominated this article while it was under construction. If you look at it again, I believe you will see that it now has sufficient references. Would you kindly withdraw the nomination? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how to withdraw nominations, but if someone could kindly do it, that would be fine. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. – Joe (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AVTECH Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Previously deleted. Could not find significant coverage. Note there is a similarly named company from Sweden which isn't this one. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "New Taiwan Weekly article". New Taiwan Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). 2005. Retrieved 2023-04-15 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "公司簡介陞泰科技主要營收來源為 IC 通路以及視訊監控系統,在二 OO 二年時比重約為六:四,後來隨著視訊監控系統的比重慢慢提高(二 O O 三年已提高到五五% ,至二 OO 五年上半年 IC 通路與視訊監控比為四:六) ,公司整體的毛利率也跟著大幅竄升, ..."

      From Google Translate: "Company Profile The main source of revenue of Shengtai Technology is IC channel and video monitoring system. In 2002, the ratio was about six to four. Later, as the proportion of video monitoring system gradually increased (6 O three years, it has increased to five 5%, and in the first half of 2005, the ratio of IC channel to video surveillance was four:six), and the company's overall gross profit margin also soared sharply, ..."

    2. Gao, Shengkai 高聖凱 (2005-06-01). "電子監控股利王 陞泰科技─60分的成功本事" [Electronic monitoring dividend king AVTECH ─ 60 points of success]. Global Views Monthly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-15. Retrieved 2023-04-15.

      The article notes: "比起其他同業，陞泰科技的產品腳步並非最快，獲利卻最耀眼，原因是陞泰業務能力一流，擅打市場游擊戰。 ... 國內監視器業者三巨人悠克、慧友與陞泰之中，陞泰各客戶的營收比重不超過5％，相當平均，其中的關鍵，就是與客戶建立緊密的關係。美國前三大品牌有兩家是陞泰的長期伙伴，而歐洲的前十大品牌幾乎都與陞泰往來頻繁。"

      From Google Translate: "Compared with other peers, Shengtai Technology's products are not the fastest, but its profits are the most dazzling. The reason is that Shengtai's business capabilities are first-class and it is good at fighting market guerrilla warfare. ... Among the three giants in the domestic monitor industry, Yoke, Huiyou and Shengtai, the proportion of each customer's revenue of Shengtai does not exceed 5%, which is quite average. The key is to establish a close relationship with customers. Two of the top three brands in the United States are long-term partners of Shengtai, while almost all of the top ten brands in Europe have frequent contacts with Shengtai."

    3. Liu, Zhiming 劉志明 (2003-10-23). "把九十分當六十分的經營哲學 P.64" [The business philosophy of treating 90% as 60% P.64]. Business Today [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-15. Retrieved 2023-04-15.

      The article notes: "陞泰的產品價格比競爭對手低三成，加上七成是以自有品牌行銷，毛利一直維持在三成，甚至對客戶還一律採取﹁先收款、七天後出貨﹂的管理模式，在競爭激烈的安全監控產業中，陞泰的強勢令人難以想像。「陞泰到底是什麼公司， 為什麼可以連續五年保持每股純益( EPS )達十二元，與立錡互爭興櫃股王？」在未上市股票網站中，最近有關類似的討論相當多。獲利突出但非常低調的陞泰科技，未來的表現將是投資界注目的焦點。"

      From Google Translate: "The price of Shengtai's products is 30% lower than that of its competitors, and 70% of them are marketed under its own brand. The gross profit has always been maintained at 30%. In the fierce security monitoring industry, Shengtai's strength is unimaginable. "What kind of company is Shengtai? Why can it maintain a profit per share (EPS) of 12 yuan for five consecutive years, and compete with Richtek for the top stock market?" On unlisted stock websites, there have been quite a lot of similar discussions recently. . The future performance of Shengtai Technology, which has outstanding profits but is very low-key, will be the focus of attention of the investment community."

    4. Wu, Rujing 吳瑞菁 (2005-02-04). "陞泰 連6年EPS超10元" [AVTECH's EPS exceeded $10 for 6 consecutive years]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 15.

      The article notes: "陞泰產品經營模式與同業差異相當大，陞泰有2大產品線，分別為安全監控產品及IC零組件銷售，儘管IC零組件銷售有『二低三高』的弱勢特質，但由於陞泰IC零組件小而美，主要專注在毛利較高的影像產品，因此相較於IC通路同業，陞泰IC零組件毛利率還約維持15％左右水平。此外，在安全監控產品開發上，由於有IC零組件技術的奧援，陞泰卻創下晚推出DVR產品，卻奪下DVR市佔率龍頭的寶座。

      From Google Translate: "Shengtai's product management model is quite different from its peers. Shengtai has two major product lines, which are security monitoring products and IC components sales. IC components are small and beautiful, and mainly focus on high-margin imaging products. Therefore, compared with IC channel peers, the gross profit margin of Shengtai IC components is still around 15%. In addition, in the development of security monitoring products, due to the support of IC component technology, Shengtai launched the DVR product late, but won the leading position in the DVR market share."

    5. Li, Jiaji 李佳濟 (2003-10-20). "陞泰明舉辦法說會" [AVTech will hold a briefing]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 14.

      The article notes: "陞泰科技半導體零組件代理經銷業務以代理ADI為主，雙方長期維持良好合作關係。AD的產品大多非大眾化標準品，需要精確之說服技巧及Design-in能力以取得客戶信任， ..."

      From Google Translate: "The agency and distribution business of Shengtai Technology's semiconductor components is mainly the agency of ADI, and the two parties have maintained a long-term good cooperative relationship. Most of AD's products are not popular standard products, and require precise persuasion skills and Design-in capabilities to gain customer trust."

    6. Peng, Yixian 彭依賢 (2003-10-16). "監視防盜系統產品出貨攀升 陞泰九月營收創單月新高" [Surveillance anti-theft system product shipments climbed. AVTECH's revenue in September hit a new high in a single month]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 12.

      The article notes: "準上櫃公司陞泰科技 9 月營收為 2.05 億元，再創單月新高，該公司自結前三季營收達17.86 億元、稅前為 5.4 億元；因監視防盜系列產品出貨持續攀升，該公司日前宣佈調高財測，營收及稅後盈餘目標分別由 22.5 億元、9.5 元，調升至 23.27 億元及 12.21 元，並計劃於下月底掛牌。"

      From Google Translate: "Shengtai Technology, a quasi-over-the-counter company, achieved revenue of 205 million yuan in September, a new monthly high. The company’s revenue in the first three quarters of the year reached 1.786 billion yuan, with a pre-tax figure of 540 million yuan; Climbing, the company recently announced that it has raised its financial forecast. Its revenue and after-tax profit targets were raised from 2.25 billion yuan and 9.5 yuan to 2.327 billion yuan and 1.221 yuan, respectively, and plans to list at the end of next month."

    7. Jian, Yongxiang 簡永祥 (2003-10-18). "陞泰下月底上櫃 每股 140元 21日法說會 今年每股要賺 12.21元" [AVTECH will be listed at the end of next month at 140 yuan per share On the 21st, the Fa said that this year, it will earn 12.21 yuan per share.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 20.

      The article notes: "陞泰科技預定下周二舉行上櫃前法人說明會，該公司預定11月底以每股140元掛牌上櫃。 ... 陞泰主要以監視防盜系統及電子零組件代理為兩大業務主軸，..."

      From Google Translate: "Shengtai Technology is scheduled to hold a pre-listing legal person briefing next Tuesday. The company is scheduled to be listed at the end of November at 140 yuan per share. ... Shengtai mainly focuses on monitoring anti-theft systems and electronic components agents."

    8. Chen, Yalan 陳雅蘭 (2005-02-07). "安全監控業 陞泰最賺 連六年賺進一個資本額 看好今年" [In the security monitoring industry, AVTECH is the most profitable, earning a capital amount for six consecutive years, optimistic about this year]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C5.

      The article notes: "陞泰是國內安全監控產業獲利最高者， ... 陞泰共分為兩大角色，一是IC通路商，主攻內銷市場，一是安全監控製造商，則以外銷為主，也達到不同幣值自然沖銷的效果。"

      From Google Translate: "Shengtai is the most profitable in the domestic security monitoring industry. ... Shengtai is divided into two roles, one is an IC distributor, which focuses on the domestic market, and the other is a security monitoring manufacturer, which focuses on export, and also achieves the effect of natural offsetting of different currency values."

    9. Chen, Yalan 陳雅蘭 (2005-08-19). "安控股王陞泰 今轉上市 前七月每股稅前盈餘9.39元 股價表現強勢" [Ann Holdings, AVTECH listed today The pre-tax profit per share in the first seven months was $9.39, and the stock price performance was strong]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C4.

      The article notes: "安全監控類股股王陞泰科技（8072）今（19）日將轉上市交易，並得辦理融資融券交易，上市有價證券數量為6,077萬股，上市代號將沿用原上櫃的代號。陞泰昨天股價表現強勢，終場上漲4元，以155.5元收盤，成交量901張。"

      From Google Translate: "Wang Shengtai Technology (8072), a security monitoring stock, will be transferred to the IPO today (19th), and will be able to handle margin trading and securities lending transactions. The number of listed securities is 60.77 million shares, and the listing code will continue to use the original OTC code. Shengtai's stock price performed strongly yesterday, rising by 4 yuan at the end, closing at 155.5 yuan, with a turnover of 901 contracts."

    10. Chen, Yalan 陳雅蘭 (2007-09-23). "陞泰流通性轉低介入宜謹慎" [As Shengtai's liquidity turns low, it is prudent to intervene]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B5.

      The article notes: "陞泰今年一度攻上318元歷史新高，近期股價向下修正，單日成交量也跌回千張以下，短線支撐點在263元，本益比已接近同業，流通性又轉低，雖有基本面支撐，但介入宜慎。 永豐金證券發表最新報告建議「中立」，預估今明兩年每股稅後純益各為15.4元和17.7元，陞泰雖為國內安控類股龍頭廠商，明年業績仍可望成長三成，但股價已反映利多，目標價283元。"

      From Google Translate: "Shengtai once hit a record high of 318 yuan this year. Recently, the stock price has been revised downwards, and the daily trading volume has also fallen below 1,000. The short-term support point is 263 yuan. Surface support, but intervention should be cautious. SinoPac Securities released the latest report recommending "neutral". It is estimated that the net profit per share after tax will be 15.4 yuan and 17.7 yuan in the next two years. But the stock price has already reflected the bullish trend, with a target price of 283 yuan."

    11. Chen, Zhiping 陳志平 (2010-10-07). "陞泰科技爆醜聞 監視器窺女外勞 外勞控訴：監視器大廠浴廁窺視 畫面列印主管傳閱" [AVTECH explosion scandal, surveillance cameras spy on female foreign workers. Complaints by foreign workers: Surveillance manufacturers peeping in bathrooms and screen print supervisors circulated]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A1.

      The article notes: "生產高科技監視器的陞泰科技公司，爆發以自家生產監視器24小時監視女外勞的醜聞。 ... 陞泰科技是生產高科技監視器排名世界前20的股票上市公司，10名出面控訴的外勞，目前都已被安置，"

      From Google Translate: "Shengtai Technology Co., Ltd., which produces high-tech monitors, broke out the scandal of using its own monitors to monitor female foreign workers 24 hours a day. ... Shengtai Technology is a listed company that produces high-tech monitors and ranks among the top 20 in the world."

    12. Xu, Jiajia 許佳佳 (2010-10-08). "陞泰 安控業全球前廿大" [AVTECH, among the world's top 20 security control companies]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A2.

      The article notes: "監視器大廠陞泰科技在一九九九年到兩千零八年，連十年創下每年每股盈餘超過十元的佳績，除了穩坐台灣安控產業的「第一把交椅」外，在全球也擠進前廿大。陞泰科技成立於一九九六年，同業稱它「市場拳王」，因為它經常出奇不意地給競爭對手「一記重拳」 "

      From Google Translate: "From 1999 to 2008, a major monitor manufacturer, Shengtai Technology achieved an annual profit of more than 10 yuan per share for ten consecutive years. It also ranks among the top 20 in the world. Founded in 1996, Shengtai Technology was called the "market champion" by its peers because it often gave competitors a "heavy punch" by surprise."

    13. Huang, Fuqi 黃福其; Tang, Yawen 湯雅雯; Zheng, Hongbin 鄭宏斌; Yang, Junjie 楊竣傑 (2010-12-17). "烏龍爆料？ 認定不公？ 企業偷窺女外勞 查無實據不罰" [Oolong broke the news? Unfair? Enterprise spying on female foreign workers]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A10.

      The article notes: "上市公司陞泰科技被指控以監視器全天候窺視菲律賓女外勞，主管除監看女外勞的出浴畫面，還列印出來品頭論足；北縣勞工局認為查無實據，裁定陞泰未違反兩性工作平等法，免罰。 ... 勞工局兩度召開就業歧視委員會，都查無實據。"

      From Google Translate: "The listed company Shengtai Technology was accused of spying on Filipino female foreign workers with monitors around the clock. The County Labor Bureau believed that the investigation was groundless and ruled that Shengtai did not violate the Gender Equality in Work Act and was exempted from punishment. ... The Labor Bureau convened the Employment Discrimination Committee twice, but found no evidence."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AVTECH Corporation (traditional Chinese: 陞泰科技股份有限公司; simplified Chinese: 升泰科技股份有限公司; pinyin: Shēngtài Kējì Gǔfèn Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Despite the above, this is a company therefore GNG/NCORP applies and that means we need content that isn't simply regurgitated company info. Some of the selections above are puzzling - for example there is several that extract a sentence which appears sandwiched between quotes from the founder/chairman (e.g. GVM.com. It is obvious that these articles are merely regurgitating company info and there is no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 20:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AVTECH Corporation passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    AVTECH Corporation is a publicly listed corporation. Chen 2007 verifies that Bank SinoPac's SinoPac Securities division has issued multiple analyst reports about the company.

    AVTECH Corporation received significant coverage in Xu 2010 and Wu 2005, articles that do not include any interviews with people affiliated with the company.

    AVTECH Corporation received negative coverage in Chen 2010 and Huang et al. 2010 about accusations that the Taiwanese company spied on Filipino female workers.

    The company has been covered in the Taiwanese media for nearly a decade.

    Here are more sources about the subject:

    1. Wagstaff, Jeremy; Wu, J.R. (2016-11-08). "RPT-After cyber attacks, Internet of Things wrestles with making smart devices safer". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-04-20. Retrieved 2023-04-20.

      The article notes: "For a sense of that challenge, take AV Tech Corp, a once proud giant among CCTV camera makers whose 1990s building in a Taipei suburb hints at the gap it must overcome between hardware factories of a decade ago and those of today. AV Tech, which made the 2008 Forbes list of companies to watch, has seen competition from China shrink its profits to about a tenth of what they were then. Like its peers, AV Tech has moved its products online, connecting its cameras and the digital video recorders that store the footage on to the Internet so users can access them remotely.

      The article further notes: "While researchers have not found any AV Tech devices in a botnet, they have pointed to lapses that make them vulnerable. In a blog post, confirmed by his company, Gergely Eberhardt of Hungarian security firm Search-Lab said he spent a year trying to alert AV Tech to 14 security holes in its products. He got no response, and last month released his findings.

    2. Kovacs, Eduard (2016-10-11). "Serious Flaws Expose AVTECH Devices to IoT Botnets". SecurityWeek. Archived from the original on 2023-04-20. Retrieved 2023-04-20.

      The article notes: "Taiwan-based AVTECH offers a wide range of IP cameras, CCTV equipment and network recorders. AVTECH is said to be one of the world's largest video surveillance product manufacturers. It should be noted that the firm whose products are vulnerable has no connection to US-based AVTECH, which provides environment monitoring solutions. According to Search-Lab researcher Gergely Eberhardt, all AVTECH devices and all firmware versions are plagued by security holes, including flaws that could allow attackers to take complete control of vulnerable cameras and recorders."

    There is more than enough significant independent coverage for the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    Cunard (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Not even close. To date, there is zero significant independent coverage of *the company* which meets our criteria for establishing notability. I'll mention that I can usually access analyst reports but I am unable to find anything appropriate for this company - if someone can provide a reference for a particular report from a particular firm, I should be able to access. Otherwise note that not all listed companies meet our criteria for notability. Looking at the sources:
      • You've plucked three sentences from the first article which is about the totality of the content about the company in the article. It is barely more than a mere mention-in-passing, not even a proper description of the company, and it is not in-depth information about the company. CORPDEPTH says the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered and also that Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The subject is the *company*, not the products, not botnet attacks on IP cameras which may or may not be made by the company and which may or may not be vulnerable.
      • You've similarly plucked 4 sentences from the SecurityWeek article, the opening couple of paragraphs, which like the other article is barely a mention-in-passing and has no in-depth information about the company. Same flaws as above once you understand that the subject is the company and it is this subject that requires in-depth Independent Content.
I don't see anything here that meets our criteria. HighKing++ 11:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bank SinoPac's SinoPac Securities division published an analyst report about AVTECH Corporation in September 2007.

    In my previous comment, I said that Xu 2010 and Wu 2005 provide significant independent coverage about the company. I further said that Chen 2010 and Huang et al. 2010 covered criticism about the company's labor practices. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    I disagree with the description of Wagstaff & Wu 2016 and Kovacs 2016 as not providing significant coverage of the company: Coverage about the security flaws in AVTECH's devices is negative coverage of AVTECH's work and practices as a company. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Coverage about the products is just that - about the product. Security flaws in products do not reflect work and practices about the company, that's WP:SYNTH. HighKing++ 20:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that these sources are about the product. But even when excluding those two sources, there is significant independent coverage about the company in sources like the September 2007 analyst report from the Bank SinoPac's SinoPac Securities division as well as coverage in the Taiwanese sources Xu 2010, Wu 2005, Chen 2010, and Huang et al. 2010. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Cunard analyst reports are gold so long as it isn't simply reguritated financial reporting from an annual report - can you post a link to the Sept 2007 analyst report so I can check? I've already commented on the other sources here. None meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wtf! Clearly notable as a major technology company. Above sources found by Cunard are significant coverages. So passes WP:GNG. (Redacted.) 49.237.39.216 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for reviewing the sources. I agree that there is significant coverage, especially in the many years of coverage in the offline Taiwanese sources I provided, which strongly establishes notability. I've redacted part of your comment since there is no evidence for the statement. Cunard (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing eval. Sources are company profiles, mentions, promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  09:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan (2004 film)[edit]

Darshan (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN film UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that clear cut, it is between no consensus and unreliable and during the RSN discussion it was not refuted that non-controversial content such as film reviews were still acceptable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bruxton (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not to mention that many listed in "Cast" are notable people. Shankargb (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Noncommutative geometry and/or Alain Connes. Consensus to merge the article was clear, where to merge it less so, but that doesn't have to be decided at AfD. – Joe (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connes connection[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Returned without improvement. The JAMS article is a good source, but the other two are primary. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The notability seems clear, mainly because A Connes is a very prominent mathematician and thus what he touches more or less is always notable. This seems to be the case the notability gets inherited. The Cuntz and Quillen reference is certainly a secondary source. I have also just added one. It seems there are enough refernces for me (but I am sure more can be added if necessary). In any case, I don’t see a need for the deletion. —- Taku (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Connes connection might be possible to merge into Noncommutative geometry. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The noncommutative geometry article is about a general topic and so the detailed discussion of connections would be too distracting. It makes sense to isolate technical stuff from a general article. —- Taku (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's too distracting, it is possible that create the Connection (noncommutative geometry) by splitting it from the noncommutative geometry and include "the connection in the sense of Connes" in that article. By the way, wikipedia has a Connection (algebraic framework). --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for letting me know about Connection (algebraic framework). The article is mainly about the commutative case although it has a section that discusses Connes connections in the simplest case (without a reference to cyclic homology). I don't think that article is a good place to discuss a connections in noncommutative geometry, though (quite distracting to those who are interested in the commutative case). -- Taku (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to noncommutative geometry. This notion might well be notable (though that does not seem at all obvious to me) but in any case there is currently no content in the article so until someone cares to add some it might as well be a one-line mention+references in that article. jraimbau (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a stub so obviously the assumption it can be developed further. In fact, I have just added definition. -- Taku (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this makes much of a difference from before, it's just a formal definition without context. Keeping the stub might be useful if there was some substantial content, but as there is a natural target for a redirect which in addition provides a better context, this seems like a much better option. jraimbau (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more substantial stuff that can be added. I don't think the redirect is actually useful: someone is interested in the definition of a Connes connection cannot find it there (and like said above, I don't think it's a good idea to add such materials to a overview article). Keeping the stub is useful to add more substantial stuff later, since such stuff is inappropriate in the noncommutative geo article. -- Taku (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be a bad idea to add the briefest content about this extremely niche notion to the more general article, instead of keeping an essentially empty stub? jraimbau (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, my apology for a late reply (was busy in real life). To answer, as I said above, the materials look rather technical. The references cited in the stub have some discussion of, for example, relation to projective modules. That type of materials looks quite out of place to put in the non-commutative geo article. Just because some articles are short, that doesn’t mean the short articles should be merged into some longer articles. It’s like some small niche battle should not be discussed in the history of Japan article, while that battle itself may be sufficiently notable for it to have a Wikipedia article. —- Taku (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Stub articles serve as seeds from which new articles can grow. The growth that occurs is more natural, and leads to better articles, than trying to take one giant article, and splitting it into pieces. How do I know? Once upon a time, more than ten years ago, I made the mistake of splitting a good, but much too long article on projective geometry. It seemed like a good idea, but I am ashamed of the result to this day. It was butchery. The elegant flow and coherent development was converted into factoid pieces-parts, sterile flotsam and jetsam of mathematics. Stubs are seeds. Plant them. Let them grow. It might take a decade or two. That's OK. I've been here for 18 years. Taku has been here almost that long. Don't let WP turn into an old-growth forest, stately and majestic, but with nothing new growing. It's all good. It will work out in the end.
(Oh, full disclosure, as I am posting as an anon: I've created and edited a dozen or two articles about the more basic aspects of connections. This includes revising and expanding articles created by Taku. Although this article might seem "specialized", I don't see non-commutative geometry going away or being sidelined. It's been growing for decades, and will continue to.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What merge target is best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't merge, for reasons given above. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Guerillero - looking at the options, the best merge target would be Alain Connes.Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2: I think the notion of Connes connection meets the WP:GNG, but I wonder if it is common to call it a Connes connection (WP:COMMONNAME). So, that's why I call this notion: "connection in the sense of Connes", also I think that's why jraimbau says who needs to add some context. Next, I think that Taku is saying that since Connes is a very prominent mathematician, so it's okay to call this notion a Connes connection. So, I don't think the merge target for this article is Alain Connes.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that regarding a merge target the best one would be noncommutative geometry (i think notability of the concept is at least unclear in the present form of the article). jraimbau (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to noncommutative geometry. I think this article provides the best context for the text. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. L. V. Ramakrishnan[edit]

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

R. L. V. Ramakrishnan

Inadequately sourced stub biography of a living person of an Indian actor and dancer. The one reference is neither reliable, because it is Times of India or independent, because it is an interview. There is also a draft, which has slightly more information but is still insufficient, which was in article space before it was (correctly) moved to draft space by User:Onel5969. This article only states that he exists. The draft states that he is an actor, but does not prove acting notability. The draft should be left alone for improvement, and this stub should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject is a renowned dancer from the state of Kerala and winner of Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award, one of the state's top art awards. I could find significant coverage on a google search 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I also found an academic paper "Men in Mohiniyattam: an ethnographic study on gender binaries", which quotes the subject multiple times. I can make slight improvements on the article based on the information from the draft and from the Malayalam Wikipedia article. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Still doesn't appear notable, the acting parts appear minor. Dancing isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: He is a winner of the state's highest art prize and he is notable as the first famous male exponent of the art form as cited in multiple references. His work is cited and covered in academic journals including one paper I mentioned earlier titled "Men in Mohiniyattam: an ethnographic study on gender binaries". Malayala Sahityam (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b, did you go through the sources, particularly the one from The Hindu [13]? He is not known as an actor, but as the first notable male exponent in Mohiniyattam from Kerala. Most importantly he is the recipient of Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award. Comfortably passes two criteria listed in WP:ANYBIO.
    • The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times (winner of Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award)
    • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field (The journal Men in Mohiniyattam: an ethnographic study on gender binaries has a detailed study on his contribution to Mohiniyattam).Thilsebatti (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Before dismissing the award as "only a state award" remember that Kerala has a larger population than, say, Australia or the Netherlands. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: per Malayala Sahityam and Thilsebatti. Kerala Sahitya Academy Award is a major award so he certainly meets ANYBIO criteria. 103.165.167.187 (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. It has been improved enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a recipient of a major award, and the improvements to the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the quality of the article can certainly be improved (as it currently used the same source for two separate citations, lacks infobox, etc.), its notability is pretty well established with the cited sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Probably in no small part due to lengthy argumentation from the primary authors of the article discouraging participation by uninvolved editors. – Joe (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idiopathic chronic fatigue[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. CFS activists have tried for years to characterise CFS as myalgic encephalomyelitis, because they reject outright any suggestion of anything other than a purely physical cause. Medical consensus is that etiology is unknown. There is no ICD code distinguishing the two conditions. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to "chronic fatigue". It's basically the same thing, not meeting enough "check boxes" to be officially diagnosed as the main disease state. There are no medical journals that differentiate the two; patients seem to want it to be it's own disease, but it isn't, as far as the medical community sees it. This can change of course, at present, it's still lumped together. ---- Oaktree b (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete The fake ICD and WHO references to resources that never use the term speak volumes. If there is anything worth wile it can be added to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random person no 362478479 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please mark up/highlight these references.- Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amousey Sorry for the late response, I did not get a notification. I'm referring to the fact that the ICD and WHO references talk about "fatigue", not "idiopathic chronic fatigue". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below for my changed vote. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - See Idiopathic chronic fatigue#Differential diagnosis from chronic fatigue syndrome - New section added to clarify]. Requester's info on ICD being the same codesis not correct when I checked the footer templates. ICD-11 ICF is MG22 (Signs and symptoms category) but CFS/ME/Postviral Fatigue Syndrome all share 8E49 in Neurological - 8E49 which states ICF is excluded, ICD-10 codes were in the R category for ICF and G for CFS, ICD-9 codes also in different categories. CDC Fukuda 1994 defines ICF and CFS separately with different criteria stating ICF is diagnosed only when CFS criteria are not met. There's nothing on the talk page about concerns. No reverts have been placed for POV, and multiple different editors have been working on this over several years so I can't see why this is an AfD. Multiple sources in new section include exercise testimg differences See :Talk:Idiopathic_chronic_fatigue, source from Nature, Cochrane trial, and others state different prevalence, different criteria, TNF-alpha differences, and different diagnostic codes. Diagram on CDC Fukuda1994 (pdf) might be useful, co-authors imclude Simon Wessely and Michael Sharpe. Keep separate due to the different ICD codes, and different diagnostic criteria, very different prevalence, different age at onset, very different recovery rates and the number of editors separately editing.. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The ICD references do clearly indicate that certain other fatigues, including CFS, are classified elsewhere; but that's not the claim they are being used to support within the article—with neither of the linked conditions actually stating idiopathic chronic fatigue at those codes. CFS has a specific index trail: syndrome, fatigue, chronic and the tabular entry explicitly states chronic fatigue syndrome at G93.3 (in the case of ICD-10). ICF, on the other hand, does not. Nor are there essential modifiers at the fatigue index term for chronic or idiopathic. However, I don't see how any argument relying on the ICD alone to keep ICF separate from CFS, wouldn't be accidentally arguing for the target of a merge/redirect to be Fatigue instead. Little pob (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article Fatigue. The present Idiopathic chronic fatigue article cites adequate sources that state "chronic fatigue" and "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" are differential diagnosises from Chronic fatigue syndrome. Therefore the proper place to merge the material would be in a subcategory to the article on "fatigue". Ward20 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - See Amousey‘s comment above. As he notes, the Idiopathic chronic fatigue#Differential diagnosis from chronic fatigue syndrome section addresses differential diagnosis from CFS which was laid out in CDC’s 1994 Fukuda CFS and ICF case definitions. The suggestion to merge with CFS is a non-starter. Merging with fatigue#chronic, a two sentence subsection of Fatigue doesn’t make sense because ICF (1) is too big a topic and will bloat the fatigue article if this separate article isn’t maintained. And (2) it’s very important to maintain clarity about distinctions between the various terms as they are so easily confused as is shown in the OP and others’ conflation of CFS and ICF. ICF is an extremely common syndrome/cluster of syndromes and Total illness burden is immense. It’s extremely important as an entity in order to timely diagnose those who fit in the category of ICF AND also extremely important to be aware of for differential diagnosis of ME/CFS and the very many other serious illnesses which include prominent fatigue as a symptom. If this page were removed, the understanding of those learning about ME/CFS would be impacted and would almost certainly very negatively impact the large numbers of people who have ICF and don’t see it and thus will probably continue to be unaware of its existence. The article could use some work and I have edited it a bit recently and plan to edit a bit more. Some more WP:MEDRS cites would help. Another editor Amousey has recently been making a lot of edits to the page.JustinReilly (talk) 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Still opposed Further info: User:Ward20 suggested a merge with another page. I added neurasthenia differences which may have been what the OP was thinking of (neurasthenia vs CFS coding being a previous controversy but not on the Controversies about chronic fatigue syndrome page. I added clarification that ICF is physical (neurasthenia was classified as psychological but was deprecated). To ICD classification raised by [[User:User:Random person no 362478479 I added a section that this does not have a unique code on its own but is under general signs and symptoms- see quotes in added citations for coding it. I definitely had the wrong ICD-9 code so will remove but there are other classifications to add plus images. The use of profound in the lede implies always/normally rather possibility/occasionally profound - this may be incorrect since severe ICF wasn't found in anyone in the studies I added. Any refs appreciated. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you can't get round the fact that this is a term coined by militant "ME, never CFS" activists, promulgated by them in an attempt to erect a distinction that the medical community does not make, and not appearing in medical texts. When you google the term, the first hit is Wikipedia, followed by the ME Association and MEPedia, both "ME, never CFS" activist websites.
    This is a WP:POVFORK, written entirely by you and Justito, both long-term proponents of the "ME-never-CFS" agenda on Wikipedia.
    In fact, Google lists only 103 unique hits for this subject in the decade or so since it first appears, mostly from activists, quacks or in predatory journals.
    It is not Wikipedia's job to blaze the trail in changing public perceptions of medical subjects, however outraged you might be by the slowness of the medical profession to reflect your viewpoint. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely not a POV-fork and the term ICF was not coined by activists, AFAIK. The POV is neutral and consistent with that of relevant articles such as that on CFS. As we’ve noted CDC’s ICF case definition was drafted and published by its Fukuda committee which in the same paper debuted CDC’s Fukuda CFS definition, by far the most used CFS definition until CDC released its latest definition, IIRC, in 2017. Keiji Fukuda was hardly a fringe activist, later serving as WHO’s “flu chief” and assistant director-general.
    Yes, @Amousey wrote this article 3 years ago and I am the only other person who’s added substantially to it, beginning recently. I don’t know anything about Amousey, so can’t speak for him, but I am not a “long-term proponent of the ‘ME-never-CFS’ agenda on Wikipedia.” Off of Wikipedia, I am a proponent of using the term ‘ME’ and not using the term ‘CFS,’ as are the vast majority of patients. On Wikipedia I don’t think I’ve ever taken this position. If I have it would have only been many years ago when starting and not knowing the Wikipedia guidelines well. On these two threads on the name change I have strongly supported a change to “ME/CFS.” I do not support a change to any term that does not include “CFS,” since that is not currently nor has it ever (except prior to around 1986) been supported by the sources indicated in the relevant Wikipedia guidelines; so, on Wikipedia my position is hardly “ME-never-CFS.”
    The ME Association is a pretty conservative, mainstream organization which has historically been unpopular with many patients for not being activist enough. It’s a British organization and in Britain the term “ME” is in much more common usage than in the US as historically “ME” has been the term most used there, including among non-patient laypeople and the media.
    The article is not a POV fork. CFS is a particular syndrome characterized by a particular constellation of signs and symptoms. There is consensus that it is an organic, not a psychiatric illness as National Academy of Medicine strongly emphasized in the 2015 report.
    On the other hand ICF is chronic fatigue of unknown cause- it’s etiology is unknown and it is not caused by any disease or syndrome including CFS. Almost all syndromes (and even some diseases) do not have known etiology (ie root cause). For example, we do not know the etiology of MS or ALS. Fatigue is a symptom of both diseases and is prominent in MS. This does not mean that MS and ALS are synonymous with ICF; quite the contrary. Thus, contrary to what @JzG claims, it does NOT matter that the etiology of CFS is unknown or whether the etiology is psychological or physical. The existence and recognition of ICF implies NOTHING about the etiology of CFS including whether it is physical or psychological and nothing in the ICF article does either. It simply says there are some cases of chronic fatigue that neither the etiology is known nor are caused by any recognized disease or syndrome, including CFS and the thousands of other syndromes and diseases which feature chronic fatigue, some with unknown etiology (root causes). Thus, @JzG’s central reason for deletion is entirely without merit.
    I do not know how widely the term is used in medicine or by whom the term was coined or if it was ever championed by patient activists- not to my knowledge and I was pretty highly aware of what’s going on in the patient community for quite a while- probably a total of about 15 years.
    I am certainly open to hearing arguments about it not being in wide enough usage. I will look into what you are saying about that, but I will not be able to do that until around May 20th. I’d ask that the discussion be left open until the end of the month so I can get a chance to check this out and respond (though even now, without being able to look into it, I still Oppose deletion). JustinReilly (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG And holding that ME should be used to the exclusion of CFS is not the mark of an activist patient; as noted earlier, it’s by far the most mainstream position among patients.
    A survey by The MEAction Network in 2016 found that the majority of patients prefer the name myalgic encephalomyelitis (69% said “ME” was an acceptable name) to other names including ME/CFS (28% said acceptable) and chronic fatigue syndrome (only 6% found acceptable).
    See p. 27:
    https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/mecfs/rfi-patient-organizations.pdf
    Most ME NGOs use “ME” only in their names (66 (53%) of 125 total ME orgs worldwide by my count) including almost all of the major ME orgs. Some ME orgs use ME/CFS (38 (30%)) and a few use CFS (10 (8%): most are relatively small Italian or Spanish orgs). A few more use CFS/ME (5 (4%)), CFIDS (3 (2%)) or Neuro-Immune Disease (3 (2%)). None use SEID or CF. JustinReilly (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of @Ward20’s excellent comment of May 2, below, I take back my request for more time to review @JzG’s claims re origin of the term and prevalence of use in the medical literature. @Ward20’s Google Scholar search showing 1,140 results shows that “ICF” is clearly in wide enough usage in medicine to merit an article. JustinReilly (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't care anymoreMerge into Fatigue The article has been improved, questionable information has been amended and further references added. Based on this I no longer vote "delete". I think merging the important information into Fatigue would be appropriate. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Guy: That doesn't seem to correlate when I look at WP:MEDRS sources on Google, Google Scholar and PubMed.
The earliest source I found using "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" was published in January 1988,[14] by Ed Byrne (neuroscientist). He used?, coined?, "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" apparently before "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" was defined or named in March 1988.[15] He wasn't a "militant "ME, never CFS" activist" by any means.
After the three most popular hits for "Idiopathic chronic fatigue"[16] from Google, there is a long list of about 95 sources for "Idiopathic chronic fatigue", mostly medical journal articles. But that search is for the most relevant results. Repeating the search with the "omitted results included" link at the bottom of the page displays many more. Many articles are dups, but I don't know how to separate them. A Google Scholar search shows About 1,140 results.[17]
It seems a bit unfair to call the ME Association a "ME, never CFS" activist website" when it was founded in 1976[18] when the nomenclature for the illness was ME.
Seaching for "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" in PubMed gives about 60 journal results (I don't know why this differs from Google Scholar),[19] and browsing review sources, a good comparison is: "Fatigue is a commonly experienced symptom, but not all patients with fatigue can be diagnosed as having CFS[fig 1]. A proportion of patients with fatigue have chronic fatigue. A sub-proportion of these patients have idiopathic chronic fatigue, i.e. when there are no psychiatric or medical disorders to explain the chronic fatigue.[7] CFS comprises an even smaller part of these patients in whom fatigue is associated with other symptoms characteristic of the disorder."[20]
A 1997 article, authored by Simon Wessely, states very much the same: We have employed three definitions of chronic fatigue as follows: (1) Chronic fatigue(CF) was defined as all cases of fatigue exceeding the predetermined cut-off with a duration of 6 months or more. It thus included all cases of idiopathic chronic fatigue and CFS. (2) Idiopathic chronic fatigue(ICF) was defined as chronic fatigue failing to meet the criteria for CFS. (3) Chronic fatigue syndrome(CFS) was defined according to the operational criteria."[21]
From the literature review, it is my understanding that fatigue, chronic fatigue, idiopathic chronic fatigue and Chronic fatigue syndrome are all defined differently, and "ME activists" were and are not involved in how these definitions are used in the medical literature. Many of these studies go back to early reseach and may not use the present ME/CFS nomenclature used by CDC, NHS and other medical sources. Ward20 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's used occasionally in the literature, yes, as I noted above. But rarely, as per the tiny number of unique hits. It is a term that the ME-Never-CFS community are trying to push. They may succeed, they haven't yet, and it's very much not our job to help them. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care anymore Comment I don't know what this ME/CFS debate is about, but I don't see the relevance to this article. The problem with the article is that ICF is neither an illness, nor a syndrome. It's just an isolated symptom that lasts over six months. There is no need to list dozens of conditions that have to be excluded for ICF. All known conditions have to be excluded. That's the definition of "idiopathic". Seriously anyone who understands the words "idiopathic", "chronic", and "fatigue" knows practically everything that is to know. Add some information about epidemiology and that it is sometimes treated with counselling or antidepressants. Voila, that's it. All the relevant information can be merged into the Fatigue article. There is no justification for a stand-alone article. If you take out the unnecessary information it boils down to this:
Idiopathic chronic fatigue (ICF) is fatigue with no known cause that lasts at least six consecutive months and is not accompanied by connected symptoms. There is no approved drug therefore treatment options are typically limited to counseling or antidepressant medication. Between 30% and 50% of patients recover within one year. ICF affects between 2.4% and 6.4% of patients, with females more likely to be affected than men. Onset is typically over 50 years of age.
That's not an article, that's barely a stub. Therefore delete the article add relevant information to Fatigue. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I don't see any consensus, either from a medical perspective or the Wikipedia community. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There are some dodgy arguments here: subscriber numbers on a social media service aren't, by themselves, an indicator of anything, and even for notable entertainers we still need enough secondary sources to write an article. That said, there also appears to be legitimate disagreement about some of the media sources provided. Although the "delete" arguments are marginally stronger, in my view, there isn't enough of a tilt either way to constitute consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Cooper (commentator)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. Zero independent third-party RS biographical coverage that I could find; total third-party cites are two questionable collections of gossip. There just isn't enough here to sustain the existence of a WP:BLP on the site. PROD removed without action to address the issues. David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MMFA, opinion pieces and Fox aren't usable for notability, Insider and The Week is passing mentions - so there isn't more than the bare fact about her present career. But that's more NACTOR than I could find, thank you - is it enough to swing WP:NFILM? Not sure it passes, but are there any more of the solid RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Keep looks bit young, but with a billion youtube views in very quick time, maybe just a blind spot for the old timers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi Ho Kora (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP. Fails GNG, BIO. Sources found in BEFORE and already in the article: Source eval:
  • Youtube comments section :: 1.  "About The Comments Section with Brett Cooper". YouTube.
  • Fails IS, "About the Author" page with linked articles :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Brett Cooper | People". Foundation for Economic Education. 2015-08-07. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  • Who is style promo :: 3. ^ "Who Is Brett Cooper Daily Wire? Age, Wikipedia Explored | Business Guide Africa". 2022-03-29. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  • Who is style promo :: 4. ^ Peake, Amber (2022-03-24). "Who is Brett Cooper, the Daily Wire host with a 'younger perspective'?". HITC. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
David Gerard addresses the sources above, none of them are IS RS with SIGCOV.
BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  08:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has multiple issues to resolve this. CastJared (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd vote to keep because her channel has over two million subscribers. Besides, she seems to be a rising star as an actress. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and User:TimothyBlue above, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:JOURNALIST. The three short posts above for keeping all appear to hinge on:
    • the notability of her employer (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED on Wikipedia)
    • her YouTube subscriber count (but see WP:NYOUTUBER, as prior consensus is that this also doesn't confer notability).
She could become notable eventually, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. No objection to User:Jclemens' suggestion of a merge to Daily Wire as an ATD, and a tag of redirect with possibilities. Uncle Spock (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Dailywire article. She seems to be a rising star and may become notable eventually. But for now, she doesn't seem to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. So for now, in my opinion, the best thing to do with her article is to merge with DailyWire, where she works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashik Rahik (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist die to the late merge arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see the need for the merge, she's not well known enough, based on the limited coverage of her in RS. She's not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brett Cooper runs a YouTube channel with over two million subscribers. She's affiliated with the media conglomerate The Daily Wire, and she is an actress who still books roles today. Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Dswitz10734 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
    But she fails to satisfy notability under WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. Number of YouTube subscribers, affiliation with any network, doing acting, not strong reasons to keep, since there's no reliable sources to back her notability. Ashik Rahik (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Now have enough notability. CastJared (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources indicate notability per WP:GNG. Prominent Youtuber with 2+ million subscribers. Of course the article needs some improvements. But no reason for deletion:BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources that are intellectually independent of her and each other, so she passes WP:NBASIC. These include the sources about her acting career provided by Jclemens, and this doesn't appear to be a BLP1E situation. That being said, the article needs significant work to recenter it around the things that she is notable for and to actually incorporate the sources described in this AfD; the current state of the article is well below our sourcing standards for living people. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am open to reconsidering my !vote if significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources that are intellectually independent of her and each other are found, but my attempts to find sources with sufficient quality and depth to support notability under any guideline have not been successful. I do not think interviews with her and her mother, e.g. in Chattanooga Times Free Press (2010), Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012), and what appears to be a press release/announcement Chattanoogan.com (2012), as well as an interview with her and her employers Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012) while Cooper was a child actress that have been identified in this discussion are sufficient to support a standalone article. Similarly, a brief mention of "creators Insider spoke with" describing her as an example of a "rage-baiter" and a basic description of her as a "conservative talking head for The Daily Wire with her own TikTok channel" (Insider, 2022), and The Week stating "A new show starring former child actress Brett Cooper aims to capture a Gen Z audience on TikTok and YouTube" (2022) does not appear to provide substantial support for WP:BASIC notability. The MMFA source (2023) has slightly, but not much more detail, noting only that she replayed another commentator's statements on her show, and was one of several commentators who "promoted their anti-trans brand of chocolate." Due to the lack of significant coverage about her in independent and reliable sources, it is not clear if the 2021 FoxNews coverage is about her, but it is also a brief report about one video, and would be limited support for notability. Her own opinion article published on HuntingtonNews.net also does not support notability. This article appears to be WP:PROMO and an advertisement masquerading as an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which all of them are removed, including the birth date per WP:DOB. CastJared (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article appears to be a means of promotion because there does not appear to be significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources that are intellectually independent of her and each other. According to WP:NOT policy, "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the !votes of Keep, Delete, and Merge are crashed. This caused a severe dispute. CastJared (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources indicate notability per WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The citations are the following:
    But some are not reliable. CastJared (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per source analysis by Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Merging with The Daily Wire article is suggested for me. But delete is just an opinion. CastJared (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a large YouTube fanbase doesn't necessarily fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The currently cited sources are pretty questionable on reliability, and not much else can be found about the subject other than trivial mentions. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Lost[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was able to find where one scholar covered this film twice in her works, but unfortunately wasn't able to find much more. I was hoping I could save this one, as I remember seeing this on the shelves of my local video stores all the time and it made me a bit nostalgic for those days. Ah well. If someone can find more, I'm open to changing my mind. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nancy Thayer - No clue why the current source for 1944 movie is in article, but in Thayer's article I found a mention of a source that mentions the book being adapted to this movie (Contemporary authors. Volume 155 p.400). There is more on next page about the book and it mentions and quotes specifically a review of book in Kirkus Reviews [31]. If we can find more reliable sources, could perhaps be an article for both the book and/or movie. Noticed the two book sources added as I was writing this, but as mention same author. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed a review in Neema Barnette's article, from Indianapolis Recorder - "`Spirit Lost' a low-down psychological thriller" June 10, 1995[32]. Saw other articles that mention film, mostly in context of Tim Reid producing it, a fact which never seemed to make into this or his article. A few described it as erotic film although these were before or while it was in production.[33] Without additional reviews I'll still lean redirect. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the additional sources and reviews found by Cunard, I will switch over from redirect. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources added to the page or mentioned above by ReaderofthePack and WikiVirusC attest a certain notability.— MY, OH, MY! 08:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Spirit Lost Reviews". TV Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The film review provides 439 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "Pokily directed, the script is so talky that viewers will feel as if they've been possessed by the spirit of a flock of magpies. Instead of a sexy ghost saga, viewers get characters who do nothing but moan, surmise, and postulate endlessly; the scenes of supernatural copulation are a bust, mainly because leading man Leon brings little to this ghost-fete except a solid physique. Amateurishly acted by a cast defeated by a flimsy script and zombie-esque direction, Spirit Lost delivers the zing of an infomercial about the best way to rid your home of pesky poltergeists."

    2. Books authored or co-authored by Robin R. Means Coleman:
      1. Means Coleman, Robin R. (2011). Horror Noire: Blacks in American Horror Films from the 1890s to Present. New York: Routledge. pp. 182–183. ISBN 978-0-415-88019-0. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

        The book notes: "Spirit Lost (1997), like Embalmer, was no blockbuster. However, it was the rare horror film that was nearly an all-female affair. Spirit Lost is based on a book of the same title by Nancy Thayer. ... The screenplay was written by Joyce Lewis, who changed the New England location to Catch Hook Island, presumably much farther south. The independent straight-to-video "Black horror" film was directed by Neema Barnette, the rare (Black) female horror film director, who has an extensive television-directing portfolio. Spirit is interesting in that it moves "Black horror" out of the urban to the seaside while recuperating out-of-the-Caribbean Voodoo myths."

      2. Means Coleman, Robin R.; Harris, Mark H. (2023). The Black Guy Dies First: Black Horror Cinema from Fodder to Oscar. New York: Saga Press. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-1-9821-8653-1. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "With a significantly smaller budget and a greater reliance on soft-focus lenses, Neema Barnette’s Spirit Lost (1996) likewise is a supernatural drama in which the protagonist becomes entwined in a codependent relationship with a ghostly presence. In this instance, the victim is an aspiring painter named John (Leon. Just Leon.) who moves with his wife, Willy (Regina Taylor), to a small coastal town to focus on his art. What he ends up focusing on, though, is the thirsty, oft-naked woman in his attic. Turns out she’s the lovelorn spirit of a slave woman named Arabella (Cynda Williams), who was spurned by her White owner/lover in favor of a “proper English woman?” She died of a broken heart—or possibly rickets, since vitamin D supplements were hard to come by in the eighteenth century."

    3. "Spirit Lost (Live, 96) D Neema Barnette, S Joyce Renee Lewis, P Tim Reid". Psychotronic Video. No. 25. 1997. p. 11. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Internet Archive.

      The film review provides 128 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "John (Leon), a painter, and his wife (Regina Taylor) move into an old house on an island. The seductive widow ghost of Arabella (Cynda Williams) shows up in mirrors, windows and in John's dreams and nightmares. She eventually lures him into moving into his attic studio while she tries to scare his now unhappy and pregnant wife away. Williams has nude scenes, but the sex is mostly undercover. The Black Entertainment Network Production (based on a novel) is more concerned with black women supporting each other, so don't expect the usual exploitation. With Juanita Jennings as a Jamaican nurse and James Avery. It was made in Virginia. The producer was Venus Flytrap on WKRP. "

    4. "'Spirit Lost' to be shot in Neck: Errotic horror movie set in White Stone". Richmond Times-Dispatch. 1995-04-16. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""Spirit Lost," an erotic horror film, is scheduled to begin filming in White Stone on May 1, said film publicist Kenneth Reynolds. No cast has been announced yet. ... The story involves an art dealer and his wife who move to a new house -- shot in White Stone, though the town will be fictional. A beautiful ghost inhabits the attic studio and initiates an affair with the man, which leads to dire consequences."

    5. "Video Review: 'Spirit Lost'". Entertainment Weekly. 1997-04-04. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The film review provides 86 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "hough Spirit attempts to satiate — combining a beautiful black couple, an exotic island locale, obsession, African-American folklore, and even the requisite spirit-meets-human sex scene — blah acting by Leon and Cynda Williams and a contrived ending prevent this gumbo from bubbling beyond a simmer. C-"

    6. Mustazza, Leonard (2006). The Literary Filmography: 6,200 Adaptations of Books, Short Stories and Other Nondramatic Works. Vol. 2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 521. ISBN 0-7864-2471-0. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "4221. (Nancy Thayer, 1988). A painter and his pregnant wife move from an apartment in Boston to an old house on Nantucket island, where the ghost of a beautiful woman tries to lure him from his wife. Adaptation: Spirit Lost (Live Entertainment, 1996). Dir: Neema Barnette. Scr: Joyce Renee Lewis. Cast: Regina Taylor (Willy), J. Michael Hunter (Harrison), Cynda Williams (Arabella). DVD, VHS."

    7. Nowlan, Robert A.; Nolan, Gwendolyn L. (2001). The Films of the Nineties: A Complete, Qualitative Filmography of Over 3000 Feature-length English Language Films, Theatrical and Video-only, Released Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1999. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 510. ISBN 0-7864-0974-6. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Robinson quits his job and moves with his wife Taylor to a remote seaside house where he can pursue a career as a painter. After discovering she is pregnant, Taylor begins to see apparitions of Williams, a 200-year-old spirit. The latter entices Robinson into a sexual relationship and seeks to get rid of Taylor."

    8. "'Spirit Lost' a low-down psychological thriller". Indianapolis Recorder. 1995-06-10. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Hoosier State Chronicles.

      The article notes: ""Spirit Lost" is the third feature film to be produced by veteran actor Tim Reid, his United Entertainment and BET Films. ... "Spirit Lost" is the story of a "brother" who is caught between two women, one of whom happens to be a ghost. Directed by Neema Barnette, the film stars Regina Taylor of "I'll Fly Away" and Leon from "The Five Heartbeats." It is based on a novel by Nancy Thayer."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to All TV. History remains should there eventually be enough to spin out Star Mississippi 13:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All TV News[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Unsourced except for Facebook page.  // Timothy :: talk  17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Arise (Sepultura album). Star Mississippi 13:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under Siege (Regnum Irae)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. No objection to redirect to Arise (Sepultura album).  // Timothy :: talk  17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arise (Sepultura album): Article has zero sources and I found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Salvio giuliano 20:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reál Sangria[edit]

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

This is an old article that never cited any independent reliable sources. The only citation was to a company website that appears to have been taken over by a Chinese spam site, and that link was just removed. The product does exist, and there are articles that mention it, but I am not seeing anything complying with WP:Golden Rule or WP:GNG standards. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Spam with no citations. Blatant advertising. Reál Sangria is a specific brand. Products section tells you the various sizes and types you can purchase. Distribution sections lists the retailers where you can purchase the product. — Maile (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional material of a non-notable brank of drink. No citations included. Alan Islas (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Scheyern. Star Mississippi 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fernhag[edit]

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

This is absolute nonsense. There are no reliable sources to prove it. The only accurate sentence is the first one, but it doesn't contain a lot information. And there is not really more information, even the German wikipedia hasn't an article about it. Furthermore, this village could also mentioned in the article Scheyern, which is the article for the municipality of Fernhag. 958s (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I spend hours to write accurate and well researched articles that get deleted without discussion here at enwiki while nonsense like that needs to be discussed instead of the obvious speedy deletion? --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not sure if this article meets the criteria for speed deletion, because the first sentence is technically correct, but it doesn't contain a lot of information. 958s (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The first sentence is technically correct but incomplete. The rest is unsourced POV. --MB-one (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No POV, but obviously complete fiction. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the nonsense should be removed, but what is left is hardly worth a redirect to Scheyern, the municipality this vollage belongs to. —Kusma (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirectto Scheyern, after Deleting the page. I did rm the nonsense, but it should be deleted as a hoax or attack.  // Timothy :: talk  11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Kinsley White[edit]

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

Fails WP:SBST and WP:GNG. While the shooting is sad and unfortunate, it also is a WP:INHERENT concern due to the event happening around the Shooting of Ralph Yarl, which it has received coverage alongside. Unless it gains substantially more notability, it should be removed for now. Wikicontributor93 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar circumstances doesn't determine notability. Searching Google News: shooting of Kinsley gets ~300 hits, Washington and Yarl get ~3000 hits each. So it is not similar coverage at all, its 10x less there for example. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the minimums specified? Is 3000 a lot? The minimum? Is 30 the minimum? If so, 300 would be 10x the minimum. Just trying to get a sense of how this works. --FlameRetardant (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no minimums or set numbers. I only gave those numbers as you compared it to those two as if it was outlandish that those weren't nominated for deletion, when they both have a very noticeable difference in coverage compared to this. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Co-production (approach). Salvio giuliano 19:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Co-production (society)[edit]

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

Page content has been merged into Co-production (approach), page needs to be deleted and redirected to that location. The page has been very muddled for a long time, with two articles covering very similar/over-lapping concepts, the merged article is now much neater. This has been proposed on the talk pages of both articles for some time. Mountaincirquetalk 14:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Salih Bengali[edit]

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

Very few references, and they only mention this person very briefly. Notability is not inherited, so who his predecessors and successors were does not denote his notability. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, I tried my best to find anything about this scholar in Nuzhat al-Khawatir as claimed in the article that he has been mentioned by Abd al-Hayy Hasani, I did not find anything in any of the six volumes (quite possible that it is in the later two volumes). I then tried searching in this book, but I couldn't locate anything. I would appreciate any help. Ishaq Bhatti gives a paragraph to our subject here and refers back to two sources, of which I analyzed six volumes of the one. I will return back with a deeper search. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination fails WP:GNG, and no significant coverage. বাক্যবাগীশ (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Let me know if something is found.  // Timothy :: talk  22:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of House episodes#Season 5 (2008–09). ✗plicit 14:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Thirteen (House)[edit]

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: No sources state its notability. Worth keeping the link as a redirect to List of House episodes Season 5 LemonberryPie (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Muscle Magazine[edit]

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

Per the article flags, also just doesn't seem to be notable. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JKFZ Cambridge International School[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary sources in English to fulfil WP:NSCHOOL requirements. Page has previously been nominated for CSD. There are no sources given on the page, with the exception of a link to the official school website at the bottom of the page in external links, which appears to be no longer available. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG. Ping me if independent (not government) reliable (not promotional) sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  11:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Sylvers. ✗plicit 14:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre (album)[edit]

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

Largely insignificant song from largely insignificant group. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sylvers. Despite what the nomination says, this is an album and not a song. The article has a link to AllMusic, but that is just a bare listing page and not a pro review of the type that is necessary here. I managed to find a few results in Google Books for tomes that list the album as something released in 1984, and it is briefly mentioned in a book called A Touch of Classic Soul 2: The Late 1970s as an unsuccessful late release by a group that had been more popular in the previous decade. That's not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and I can find no other informative coverage of the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sylvers as an alternative to deletion.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to United Malays National Organisation leadership elections. Salvio giuliano 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1978 United Malays National Organisation leadership election[edit]

1978 United Malays National Organisation leadership election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't cite any sources, unfinished article. Move to draft? JJLiu112 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clear. If other articles need to be deleted, feel free to raise them. Star Mississippi 14:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Bangkok[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Just a bunch of routes with no reason why they are notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep NOTDIR doesn't mean NOTLIST. Meets WP:NLIST since multiple of it's sources cover the group as a whole. Otherwise transwiki to Wikivoyage as an ATD. small jars tc 17:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another argument in favour keeping: the lede can demonstrate the notability of bus routes in Bangkok on it's own. You could blank the entirity of the list content and deletion would still not be justified. small jars tc 11:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. WP:NOTDIR applies as there is only one bus route that has its own article. Most of the sourcing is primary sources (timetables) and there is a good amount of sourcing from what appears to be self-published sources (I can't view these references). Wikivoyage is the place for lists of this kind. Ajf773 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About the lack of independent articles, consider the advice of WP:BUSOUTCOMES: Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable; recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common. Having lists of bus routes without their own articles appears to be standard practice. small jars tc 12:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BUSOUTCOMES is not policy. WP:NOT is policy, which contains reasons defined in this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUTCOMES is a well maintained explanatory essay that indicates that your interpretation of NOTDIR is not standard. You seem to think that lists exist for solely navigational purposes. small jars tc 11:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that they exist for "solely navigational purposes." Actually, my problem is also not notability. This falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL and would fit much better on Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the policy, I see no relevance of NOTTRAVEL to this case beyond the name of the shortcut. It describes the context of an article about a place, not a list, and what it prohibits is subjective recommendations, not just anything which might be useful for getting around. small jars tc 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a better page to use here is WP:ITSUSEFUL. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is useful" is an argument to avoid, not in itself a grounds for deletion. If you treat it as such, it would seem you have reached the bizarre point of arguing against keeping an article on the grounds that the article might be used by someone. small jars tc 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing that it should be deleted per WP:ITSUSEFUL. I am arguing that it does not meet WP:LISTN, and reads a lot like a travel guide, therefore it also falls under WP:NOT and should probably be transwikied to Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're going round in circles:
    1. You don't have a problem with notability, but you do with NOT: Actually, my problem is also not notability. This falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL
    2. You don't have a problem with NOT anymore, so you cite ITISUSEFUL: Maybe a better page to use here is WP:ITSUSEFUL
    3. You don't actually have a problem with ITISUSEFUL, but you do have one with notability: I am not arguing that it should be deleted per WP:ITSUSEFUL. I am arguing that it does not meet WP:LISTN
    small jars tc 20:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem lies with WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. If you can prove this passes both, I will be impressed. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained that NOTTRAVEL is irrelevant, and that the article has enough RS covering the set to pass LISTN, and each time you seemed to agree with me until you didn't. As for NOTDIR, it's essentially another way of describing a non-notable list, so it's the same argument as LISTN. small jars tc 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, most are primary, and two are from the local city newspaper, which is really only worth one point for WP:GNG. And judging by the fact that bangkokbusclub.com has "wiki" in the url, it is almost certainly unreliable. This leaves 2 notability points, which is not enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OUTCOMES, offers really only inferential information about the outcome for AfD's. It's not policy and it has no value in discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has value in that I have used it to infer that your argument relies on a distorted interpretation of NOTDIR, and that keeping lists is a standard alternative to having tons of semi-notable bus route stubs. If non-policy pages had no value in AfD discussions, we wouldn't keep them as subpages of WP:AFD. small jars tc 10:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On top of sources like the BMTA website that list individual buses, it's easy to discover that there is enough news coverage of Bangkok bus routes to pass GNG [34][35][36] and even some academic coverage [37]. small jars tc 08:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think this reads like one, I have to ask: have you ever read a travel guide? small jars tc 20:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's actively maintained and properly referenced. No other English sources out there are as accurate as this. Bus routes in Bangkok should be a notable topic on its own. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bangkokbusclub.com has all the hallmarks of being a fansite. I couldn't even view those webpages either way. Lots of the other sources are just timetable links. Ajf773 (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's bad practice to decide that a source has all the hallmarks of being a fansite when you can't even view it. I suspect the reason it's unavailable is that we're in the wrong region, but wayback machine works none the less. It looks like it might be at least partly wiki based, but it's not the most important source in terms of NLIST anyway. What matters is the notability of the set, not the items. small jars tc 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is determined by the presence of reliable, independent, secondary sources. Wiki's are self-published and therefore none of those. And it is a big verifibility issue if a source is cited but cannot be reached any longer. Ajf773 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we actually acted in accordance with the idea that sources some people can't access aren't usable, we'd have to ruin countless articles relying on paywalled academic sources. This source is not key to demonstrating to notability of the set anyway. small jars tc 11:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "no other English sources" part of your argument is WP:ITSUSEFUL, and you are more than welcome to write one on Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the core of their argument but you're still using it to attack them. God forbid we mention that an article is actually worth reading when considering whether or not to delete it! In fact, it seems that happening be useful for a practical purpose like travel is treated as a reason for deletion in its own right. I imagine that an list of ant species in Bangkok would have an easier time, since such a purely academic concern would remove suspicions that the article might be read out of anything other than an armchair. small jars tc 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably nominate a "list of ant species in Bangkok" as that fails WP:LISTN, and I do not have any bias against buses. Properly referenced, actively maintained, those are good for an article, but do not make it meet WP:LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Properly referenced" is the only factor in making a list LISTN! small jars tc 16:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can have all of the entries in a list be verified, but that does not make the overall list meet WP:LISTN. For an example, see here. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, it is the references to sources covering the group as a whole that matter. The entries do not contribute to notability. small jars tc 20:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CastJared, London is of course not a country yet is an even larger city. Both lists are very valid entries! gidonb (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even New York City as well. CastJared (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. All of the above! gidonb (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this is for Bangkok, not Singapore. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Bangkok is even larger! gidonb (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and due to weak sourcing. The majority of the citations are to the website of Bangkok Mass Transit Authority which operates or contracts other companies to operate many of these buses (not an independent source). The next most common source is Bangkokbusclub.com, which appears to be a bus fansite (according to the archived versions I have seen, as access appears to be currently forbidden) and has not been shown to be a reliable source. Yes, Wikipedia does have lists of bus routes in some other cities, but lists of bus routes in yet other cities have been deleted at AfD as well, because some of those lists have not been worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails both NLIST, there are not IS RS discussing this as a group; and fails CLN/AOAL, there is not navigation purpose served by the article.  // Timothy :: talk  11:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Phillips (rugby union)[edit]

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

I am not seeing any indication that this player meets either WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG; no significant coverage outside of stats and hiring announcements as would be expected of a popular sport. Of course, he might be getting drowned out by a (popular?) YouTuber of the same name, from the same damn city... which is why I'm going with AFD instead of PROD to get some more eyes on it. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage.
RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Abdo[edit]

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

Fails to Wikipedia:Notability.-- فيصل (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Brennan, James (2020-11-17). "'Aleppo: A Taste of the City That Was' by James Brennan". Fine Dining Lovers. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      From https://www.finedininglovers.com/who-we-areInternet Archive, "Fine Dining Lovers is an international digital platform, supported by S.Pellegrino and Acqua Panna, the waters accompanying the best dining experiences around the world. ... Launched in 2011, we are a multimedia magazine publishing original videos, podcasts, long-form articles and more. ... The magazine’s editorial staff is based in Milan. Stories are also written by a freelance network of more than 50 people covering the globe."

      "The article notes: "Down a dusty lane, a few people had gathered outside a signless cafeteria. It was Al- Fawwal, and the man behind the counter was Abu Abdo. He was making ful medammes, which wasn’t a great surprise. Because that’s all he had ever made. Every day, from 3am to just gone noon, for the best part of 50 years. ... Abu Abdo’s ful medammes consists of large fava beans, slowly simmered in copper urns until soft and mushy, served with red chilli paste, garlic and a choice of either lemon juice or tahini. That’s it, no alternatives. You either like lemon or tahini or you don’t like Abu Abdo’s ful. Watching him work is to see a man truly in his element, like Steve McQueen behind the wheel of a Shelby Mustang. Fluid, graceful, elegant. His body moves like mercury as he goes from tahini, to beans, to chilli paste to olive oil. Splashing them into bowls or plastic bags in a flowing, liquid ballet of functional movement. You worry that if he stops he’ll seize up and crumble into a billion pieces. He’s as much a part of his restaurant as the dented worktops and the big blue gas canisters that fire up his ful. Take away Abu Abdo and the walls would crack and the heavy wooden shutters would bang themselves closed in resistance."

      The article notes: "Abu Abdo’s really is one of the last true bespoke dining experiences - you know exactly what you are going to get, you know who’s going to cook it, and you know you can’t quite get it like that anywhere else. It’s been in the community for 150 years, handed down from father to son with a responsibility to keep on doing what they’ve always done."

    2. Dryef, Zineb (2016-12-30). "C'était au temps où Alep vivait… Des souks à s'y perdre, une cuisine raffinée, des communautés cohabitant dans une relative harmonie… Ainsi allait la vie à Alep, avant les bombes. Une ville riche et vivante qui n'était pas pour autant une cité idéale" [It was at the time when Aleppo lived... Souks to get lost in, refined cuisine, communities living together in relative harmony… Such was life in Aleppo, before the bombs. A rich and lively city which was not an ideal city.]. Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Haj Abu Abdo Al-Fawal only served one dish, ful moudammas. Dried beans that he cooked overnight in large copper pots, seasoned with lemon, sesame cream, a drizzle of olive oil and Aleppo red pepper flakes. The best foul moudammas in the world. Behind the counter of the eatery founded by his grandfather in 1885 in the Christian quarter of Jdeideh, he poured generous ladles of this creamy white puree from seven o'clock in the morning to an uninterrupted procession of Alepps who left with the preparation in a plastic bag. ... This stopover at Abu Abdo's, like the peaceful evenings, the boring mornings, the simple life, without fearing for oneself or for his family, is now only a pre-war memory. From Aleppo before the deluge of fire. "It was exquisite," recalls Anissa Helou, a Lebanese-Syrian cookbook author."

    3. Datian, Christine Vartanian (2023-02-16). "Recipe Corner: Memories of Aleppo's Favorite Foul (or fūl)". The Armenian Mirror-Spectator. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The article notes: "Aleppo’s Abu Abdo, for example, is a ful parlor specializing in ful, a typical breakfast meal: fava bean soup with a splash of olive oil, lemon juice and Aleppo’s red peppers. This family business has been open for over 70 years. “On a recent day, the owner ladles ful into plastic bags for the to-go crowd — workers as well as businessmen — because it’s the best in town. Abu Abdo has become a kind of trademark for the ful in Aleppo,” says Samir Akkad, a regular customer and a native of the city.”"

    4. Brennan, James (2010-09-01). "Syria seen through the eyes of a foodie". Gulf News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The article notes: "It's 6.30am in Aleppo, and the cobbled backstreets of the Christian neighbourhood of Al Jdeideh are all but deserted. The morning's first rays of sunshine are blearily spreading across shuttered shopfronts, which remain firmly shut. Except for one. Hajj Abdo Al Fawwal is a tiny restaurant that's been feeding the same dish to Aleppo's early risers every day for the last 150 years. And a small crowd is gathering in anticipation of today's fix. The dish is ful medames, a traditional Syrian favourite of soft-boiled fava beans, served either with tahini or lemon juice and drizzled with red pepper paste and olive oil. But it isn't just the locals who start to clamour for one of the few tables in the cramped dining room - a few inquisitive tourists have joined the ranks to experience one of Aleppo's legendary dining institutions. In the 55 years that Abu Abdo has been serving his famous ful, he's never quite seen so much interest from foreigners. "

    5. Amos, Deborah (2010-01-05). "Food Lovers Discover The Joys Of Aleppo". NPR. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The article notes: "One, known as Abu Abdo, specializes in ful, a typical breakfast meal: fava bean soup with a splash of olive oil, lemon juice and Aleppo's red peppers. The family business has been open for more than 70 years. On a recent day, the owner ladles ful into plastic bags for the to-go crowd — workers as well as businessmen — because it's the best in town. Abu Abdo has become a kind of "trademark" for the ful in Aleppo, says Samir Akkad, a regular customer and a native of the city."

    6. Azzam, Itab; Mousawi, Dina (2017). Our Syria: Recipes from Home. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-9053-0. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Abu Abdo's, the ful maker's shop in Aleppo, is a landmark that is more than a century old. Abu Abdo himself passed away a long time ago, but generations of his children and grandchildren have passed on the secrets of the trade and kept the business going. Before the war, if you wanted a takeout, Abu Abdo poured the ful into a plastic bag and tied it up, but we won't judge you if you use Tupperware!"

    7. Allen, Brooke (2011). The Other Side of the Mirror: An American Travels through Syria. Philadelphia: Paul Dry Books. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-58988-068-9. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The working-class neighborhoods have their own delicacies, and Aleppo even boasts a Seinfeldian Soup Nazi: Abu Abdo, where people line up first thing in the morning with their own plastic containers to take away portions of the restaurant's wildly popular ful, fava bean soup."

    8. Helou, Anissa (2010). Heddings, Kate (ed.). Food & Wine annual cookbook 2010: an entire year of recipes. New York: American Express Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-60320-120-9. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "One of Anissa's favorites is Abu Abdo's in the Christian quarter. "Abu works nonstop from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., deftly ladling ful from a large copper jar into bowls or plastic bags," she says." This is her adaptation."

    9. ""حج عبدو الفوال" لم ترحمه آلة الحرب في سورية فمضى بأطباقه إلى مصر" ["Hajj Abdo Al-Fawal" was not spared by the war machine in Syria, so he went with his dishes to Egypt]. Alraddar (in Arabic). 2013-02-06. Archived from the original on 2013-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: ""Hajj Abdo Al-Fawal" was not spared by the war machine in Syria, so he went with his dishes to Egypt "Abu Abdel-Fawal" intends to open tomorrow, Thursday, a bean shop in Egypt, after the destruction of his famous shop in the Al-Jadida neighborhood of Aleppo during the clashes that took place months ago last year between members of the Syrian Arab Army and militants opposition."

    10. Oughton, Julie, ed. (2011). Ultimate Food Journeys: The World's Best Dishes and Where to Eat Them. London: DK. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7566-8600-0. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "... for one of the city's most traditional and heartwarming experiences, have a breakfast of ful medames at Abu Abdo's tiny restaurant in Jdeideh. The old man has been serving the same dish of fava beans, tahini, lemon juice, and red pepper paste for around 50 years, and he's a legendary character in the city."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Abu Abdo to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Vlasiuk[edit]

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

Not every third-level staffer working under Zelenskyy is encyclopedically notable. Biruitorul Talk 12:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone please do a source review? I need to know about the Ukrainian language sources before I can decide. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a mystery to me why a Wikipedia editor would invest its time in creating a Wikipedia article about this (I agree, indeed) third-level staffer when the current (top level function) Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Serhiy Lysak (since 7 February 2023) does not have his own Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS (to avoid being called a hypocrite) I made a start with the article on Serhiy Lysak; although this is not the best use of my time today... real life issues and whatnot... Obviously some help for the Wikipedia page for Serhiy Lysak is really welcome... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS2 Governor of Odesa Oblast Borys Voloshenkov and Governor of Zaporizhzhia Oblast Yuriy Malashko (also) do not have there own English language Wikipedia page... These people are encyclopedically notable while the encyclopedically notablility of Vladyslav Vlasiuk is a lot more questionable... Actually I find that someone took the time to create a Wikipedia article about Vladyslav Vlasiuk while ignoring the fact that 3 Ukrainian governors had no English language Wikipedia pages absurdity in motion... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least two sources [38][39] come from notable Ukrainian newspapers. Much of the article mentions sanctions against Russia and other war-related stuff, so the article needs some cleaning up. It could be kept as a stub or transferred to the Ukrainian version.--Bexaendos (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Kyiv Post article, at least, doesn’t establish notability. It’s a human-interest story about an up-and-coming young lawyer, of the type that every newspaper runs all the time, without that translating into notability. — Biruitorul Talk 04:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question time Is Senior Advisor to the President of the United States Mike Donilon not just as much a third-level staffer as Vladyslav Vlasiuk? Why has Mr. Donilon establish notability (his talk page does not talk of a request to delete his page) and Vlasiuk not? I know that the USA is worldwide more important then Ukraine and that this is the Wikipedia for the English speaking world. Has Donilon does have a page here on English Wikipedia because he lives in the English speaking world and thus should not have a page on Ukrainian Wikipedia while Vlasiuk should have a page on Ukrainian Wikipedia? Or do you get a page as a Senior Advisor to the President if this President is of a mayor world player? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • This guy isn’t even adviser to the President of Ukraine; he’s adviser to his adviser. — Biruitorul Talk 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you are right... I was not very attentive... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this person is not noteworthy enough. As Biruitorul points out here above an adviser to an adviser of a President is not noteworthy and the rest of Vlasiuk life and career is also not making him interesting enough for his own Wikipedia article (although a translation and move to Ukrainian Wikipedia might be, as Bexaendos sugested earlier here, a good idea). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Agrizzi[edit]

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

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Meets BLP1E. There does not appear to be an article about the event, but his 1E relates to Zondo Commission#Angelo Agrizzi where they have an entry already. Unneeded CFORK for BLP1E where the information is already in another established article. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  02:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, but I wrote it, so naturally! In my view this is not WP:BLP1E. In particular, Agrizzi is not a low-profile individual. He is certainly notable primarily because of his testimony to the Zondo Commission, but the whole thing has always been quite personalised e.g. [40]. Additionally, there are "spin-offs" in several directions, notably one criminal trial involving four Bosasa directors and Linda Mti [41] and another in which Agrizzi alone is accused of bribing an MP [42]. It makes sense to me that we might cover these events in separate articles (testimony in commission article, trial one in Bosasa and Mti articles, trial two in the MP's article). However, having read each of those articles, many people will ask who this Angelo Agrizzi guy is. And in precisely that vein, at this point public interest in Agrizzi transcends his testimony (and even the Bosasa corruption) and extends to his life and personality, e.g. [43] [44] [45][46]. Basically, for the last five years, there is an Agrizzi article in every third newspaper you read in South Africa, and that's exactly the kind of situation in which I think an encyclopaedia entry would be helpful, if only to tie it all together. However, I also see the opposing argument and acknowledge that the article right now is a straightforward content fork (I just wanted to get the ball rolling with a stub). Jlalbion (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet again we have an article at AfD because of bias towards our newspapers. Sites like news24.com, timeslive, etc are our equivalent of the NY Times et al. They are reliable sources. I can understand why this could look like a BLP1E but I think the sheer amount of coverage trumps that Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Timeslive is the online version of the Sunday Times and there is also plenty of coverage in the Mail & Guardian and Daily Maverick, the other top papers. News24 is not a newspaper but is probably the most reputable news agency in the country at the moment. As SAns have pointed out in these threads before, if these sources are not judged to be high-quality then there is no prospect for Wiki to cover contemporary South African politics at all. Jlalbion (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just reiterating that the sources listed above: News24, Mail and Guardian, Times Live and others are WP:RS. Park3r (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, and South Africa. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Gbawden. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources indicate notability per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. A very notable figure in recent political history of South Africa, and citeed repeatedly in every major news source in South Africa in that time. Zaian (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coralline[edit]

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

No valid entries for this alleged disambiguation page, only three partial matches/adjectives and an entry whose linked article doesn't even mention the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if Coralline Rock and Coralline Algae are partial matches, then what isn't a partial match with them? The words "algae" and "rock"? Some of these may be adjectives but there's nothing else to disambiguate the articles by. This is therefore helpful. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful disambig between the rock and the algae- "between a rock and a squishy place" perhaps? :) 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 13:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madhur Sharma[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable singer, article almost seems like a vanity page. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Lagrange[edit]

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

I am not seeing any indication that this player meets either WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG; no significant coverage outside of stats and hiring announcements as would be expected of a popular sport. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, and France. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. There may be coverage in French sources that I'm not finding, but unless someone finds anything, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Article and BEFORE showed nothing but promo, database, and routine sports news, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Sovndahl[edit]

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

Fails NBUSINESSPERSON and NAUTHOR. The first, eleventh, and eighteenth sources are from beststartup.co.uk, a for-profit WP:SPONSORED website, which is certainly unreliable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'm on the fence about notability at the moment, as it's got substantial profiles from the BBC and Money Week. The Financial Times and Guardian sources are also substantial, but both are interviews so not secondary sources. Uncle Spock (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the subject inherits notability from his company Fantastic Services. Much of the sources focus on his company and not the man himself. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant promotion of a non-notable businessman. May need salting. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Fails GNG, repeatedly deleted and recreated, main editor (MediaWatch) blocked for WP:UPE. Flip Format (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, not notable and keeps coming back. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Salt - Completely fails GNG, and yet repeatedly recreated. Also seems to have a veiled promotional angle towards his company as well. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Aliaoui[edit]

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

Aliaoui fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage about him. Dougal18 (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Loxton[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby player. I am not seeing anything to indicate he passes WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG, with the only coverage being either signing info, match reports, and stats pages. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guliolopez found a good amount of coverage, particularly due to the IRB eligibility situation.
RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hinaki Eel Trap Bridge[edit]

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

Not a notable landmark or structure. A quick search shows little in coverage outside of local government sources. The article is mostly promotional in tone for the company that design it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are no reliable sources showing that this is even somewhat notable. LinkedIn is not a reliable source. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Delete merged some into Oakley Creek. Nothing else worth keeping. NealeWellington (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article for company, editor wrote nothing before or since
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guram Kavtidze[edit]

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

Non-notable player, even by the somewhat more lax standards of the old WP:NSPORT (and definitely not by the new). Not finding any significant coverage to demonstrate WP:GNG being met. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, France, and Georgia (country). Primefac (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. I'm not really seeing enough to suggest a pass, although there may be coverage in French sources that I've not seen. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Le Progres might help with notability if anyone can access it, that is. I'm not really seeing much else, though. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source in article is database record, source above is about a game. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parkrun[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Excessively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles. Refbombed with primary sources to detail the minutia of running events, promoting awards and achievements. TNT it and allow the creation of a non advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A quick glance at the article shows multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable and major news sources including BBC News, the Guardian and Reuters plus academic papers. The article could be improved. It leans too heavily on primary sources, I don't think there's any need for a list of Parkrun events and "stylised as" notes for branding are a personal pet peeve but it's not an AfD candidate to me as it clearly meets WP:GNG. Even nom says it needs to be "rewritten" so I'm unclear as to why it's here at AfD. Flip Format (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was surprised to see this nomination, as this is a well-known organised pursuit in recent times, as well as being one whose restrictions during Covid attracted controversy (e.g. [49], [50]). The article text includes references to independent studies of Parkrun and its impact. While I agree that articles should be trimmed of minutiae, that is a matter for normal editing; the present article looks far from requiring WP:TNT. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A worldwide weekly participation event that has attracted WP:SIGCOV clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Agreed, there are too many primary sources (one would question whether many aspects actually need to be referenced at all!), but no less than 50 of the current 117 references are cited to reliable secondary sources, including the BBC, Reuters, running and sports sites, government sources, and medical journals. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very obviously meets GNG. A quick glace at the sources in the article includes [51], [52], [53], [54]. Concerns about promotional tone can be resolved by anyone who wants to - but we're nowhere near TNT territory. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable. Not all the content belongs in here though as the nominator has expressed there is some promotional elements in it. This can be fixed by consensus in the talk page. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nom should be aware that notability is established by reliable sources IN THE WORLD: there is no requirement for the sources to be already in the article, though in this case there are certainly plenty there too. The BEFORE search should be external, and a nominator should be convinced that good sources cannot be found. The case is rather the reverse here. This applies even if the article is short, unstructured, badly-written, contains irrelevant material, is unillustrated, and poorly formatted: which this article isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like Duffbeerforme tried to get this deleted under WP:CSD G11 on March 20 and again on April 6. I'm not sure what the user has against this article but they seem determined to get it deleted. Flip Format (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if neither CSD nor AfD worked, they're speedily running out of options for attacking it that won't get them blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny how so many editors attack anyone who tries to get rid of advertising. Actually it was deleted by CSD. It was then userfied to allow editors to address the over the top promotional nature but of course no one did anything. They just restored it unchanged. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think there’s a problem nothing is stopping you from improving the article yourself. Garuda3 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I know there is a problem so I'm trying to improve the situation by getting this advert deleted so an actual encyclopedia article can replace it. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn’t have to be deleted for it to be rewritten. Instead of letting many hours of volunteer effort go to waste, why not try improving the existing article? Garuda3 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, show us your draft replacement article? You do have one? Right? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, what now? There have been over 30 non-minor edits to the page since restoration. We're volunteers, and there is no deadline. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the dif showing what has been changed. I was wrong, there was ONE change towards fixing the problems, the removal of the Poland list. Otherwise purely superficial. Moving a few words around, more primary sourcing, technical fixes. The only other positive change was the Barkrun note but the cruft, the overly self serving reliance on parkrun sourcing, the how-to nature, etc remains untouched. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely superficial - apart from this change, and that removal, and the new expansion, and the use of additional non-primary sources, and... you really don't like it, do you? 🤣 BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Plenty of reliable sources, including media coverage and academic papers. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs tidying up and more third party refs, but there’s no shortage of those. Mccapra (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no shortage of sources on parkrun. Garuda3 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I didn't even have to finish the reflist before I could tell this was notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly notable topic with encyclopedic content in the article. If some content is not encyclopedic, then that and only that should be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:snow. Not sure why we're having this discussion. ResonantDistortion 15:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please keep. It is very informative 2605:A601:A38F:A500:DD50:8DCB:DB99:D8C4 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Came to the page wanting info and found it. Let's improve, not discard. --Travelite088 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Côme Ferrand[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Not eligible for BLP PROD as contains two external links in the infobox. Already exists in draft at Draft:Come so sending to draft again would be pointless. Due to the notability concerns, I request deletion of the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we can only tag for WP:A2 if the article exists in a similar form on another Wikimedia project already. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than in cases meeting WP:A2, you're incorrect. The treatment of pages posted in a language other than English is discussed at WP:Pages needing translation to English. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if this was machine-translated, it's an article about a non-notable influencer that just has no place here. Nate • (chatter) 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability: the only "references" are to his Instagram and TikTok pages, and the latter leads to a 404. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no sources associating "côme ferrand" or "come.frnd" with "Touch pas à mon poste" and scant sources, on social media/wikis only, mentioning either name in conjunction with "Kev Adams" or with "TikTok". If there are no useful sources associating this person with the main claims to fame being made for him, then it isn't surprising that I'm unable to find anything useful about this person when searching simply on those names, among sources that are about people other than him. Not notable. Largoplazo (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is clear consensus against a standalone article; the merge suggestion didn't get further support, but if anyone wishes to work on a merger they may request a draftspace copy. I can see the argument for a general discussion about area code articles, but I don't see the need for such a discussion invalidating the consensus evident here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01489[edit]

01489 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stumbled across this article when looking for something else, and I can't see any reason it needs to exist - it contains several pieces of apparent WP:OR. We have a List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom and I don't know why this WP:MILL area code needs its own specific article - the article itself doesn't explain why this code is notable. Flip Format (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See also Special:Contributions/Sigma714. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a broader discussion. The article format here is nearly identical to the others in Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom, and contains the sort of information I would expect to find in an encyclopaedia article, e.g. the full history, not just a description of the present. Rather than singling out this example article, I think it would be much better to have a broader discussion about what is and is not encyclopaedic and what level of coverage we want in Wikipedia, and only after that comparing each article against that standard. The articles in the category seem to have been started by and worked on by a variety of different people so aren't just one person's pet project the rest of the world doesn't care about. I will give a courtesy ping to MRSC who has edits to most of the articles in the category (but not this one). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. I don't think there's a blanket "area codes are never notable" rule. Most (all?) US area codes have articles, and there are some clearly notable area codes such as 020 which has generated WP:SIGCOV over time simply because it covers so many people. I'm not sure this area code is notable - and the article doesn't specify why it would be notable over and above all the other little codes that cover one or more small towns.
    Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom is odd - we have nine articles out of however many hundred area codes exist, and they are a seemingly random selection, with minor towns like Redditch and Romford covered but no article for major city and region codes, eg. 0161 or 028. I freely admit I'm not an expert in the field of area codes, though, so perhaps there is something special about this batch. Flip Format (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was puzzled at the selection too, but equally I'm no expert either. Personally I think I'd prefer an article about Telephone numbers in London or something rather than 020 but I've not read the article in detail nor looked to see what the arguments against that might be. The articles about US phone codes are something I look up occasionally when I want to know what part of the country they cover, and anecdotally I've never found one without an article - and it is another reason why I think we should discuss the set first. If some codes are notable and some aren't then such a discussion would be the best way to get consensus about what things do and don't convey notability. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. This is an absurd level of detail for a very small part of the UK phone system, and even if it's verifiable it's not encyclopedic. I could understand having an article about telephone numbers in London or another large city, but I've barely heard of any of the places covered here and I live about fifty miles away. Nor does the article cite any reliable sources, instead it's entirely sourced to self-published web pages by people who are apparently very interested in UK phone numbers. Hut 8.5 18:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that there appears to have been no discussion to determine what area codes in the UK are and are not encyclopaedic in general, but this article (if verifiable) would appear to be equivalent to e.g. Area code 802 and Area code 925 (picked at random) which seem to have been determined as encyclopaedic with a similar scope. That may or may not be a problem, but it is something I think should be first addressed on a systematic level before keeping or deleting individual articles. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact we haven't had a general RfC on whether these are encyclopedic doesn't mean we can't delete this one for being unencyclopedic. I don't agree that this article is comparable to US area codes, for two reasons:
  • US area codes tend to cover a much larger area than UK ones. The 802 area code you linked to covers the entire state of Vermont, which has a population of about 650,000. I added up the population of the villages listed as comprising this area code and got a figure of about 58,000. So the US one is more than ten times as big.
  • Area codes also tend to have a different status in US culture. The article on the 802 code says (with a source) that it "has become a source of pride in the state". I don't see any indication that anything like that has happened here.
And even if that wasn't the case we expect that articles are based on reliable sources (WP:V, WP:GNG) rather than self-published web pages. Hut 8.5 12:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-looked at this article, and if you take out the WP:OR (such as the stuff in the lede about what "residents" "refer to" the area code as) and the stuff that is sourced to (or "deduced from", more OR) one guy's website (like all the historical numbers) then you are left with an article that says "01489 is the area code covering town Z and town A", which is prime WP:NOTDIR territory.
Even articles for area codes covering major UK cities are really thinly sourced, because there's just not that much written about area codes. The article for 0191 also contains heaps of OR, phrases like "it is believed that" (by whom?) and what is sourced comes from things like a supermarket store locator, a random company website and a church yearbook, apparently to "prove" little more than that these places have a certain telephone number. I also feel like we're in WP:IINFO land with this stuff. Flip Format (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flip Format and Hut 8.5. We need to work against WP:BIAS in favour of anorak interests, and this article is a particularly egregious example. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • BIAS is best countered by increasing the quality and quantity of our articles about poorly-covered subjects often neglected by mainstream sources for POV (e.g. only relevant to Africa), etc reasons than by deletion of articles about subjects that mainstream sources often neglect due to POV (e.g. only relevant to anoraks), etc reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless someone can show significant third party references which show that the UK area numbers have individual notability the assumption should clearly be IMO that they are not notable. Other area codes in other countries may or may not be notable, that's got nothing to do with this. JMWt (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we assume UK area numbers have or do not have individual notability before we have examined any of the evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Botley, Hampshire. It's weird to let a village in UK to have an article on this code, while it could represent other things elsewhere (say, post code for some other locations). The contents can be used to create a whole dialing code section for the article of the village. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Programmable matter with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Only one editor has provided a policy-based reason for a standalone article, and that isn't enough for a different result. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claytronics[edit]

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

Mildly promotional article supported with only primary references, none more recent than 2009, to the work of a team at Carnegie Mellon University and Intel known as the Claytronics Project whose most recent publication was in 2014. (Though it is not likely COI-created, as most of the current content was added in 2010 by an IP from the University of Wisconsin–Madison as part of a class project.) The topic probably fails WP:GNG, but it is nonetheless synonymous with Self-reconfiguring modular robot and may be suitable for a redirect. The user who added the {{Primary sources}} tag in February 2021 noted:

While I don't doubt that the DARPA grant CMU & Intel team who worked on this (and wrote every source used on this page) knows what they're doing, we need some kind of third party review of this... especially given the apparent lack of new developments in this area. Then again, the sudden lack of new public papers after a certain point could mean DARPA decided they liked it and is blowing a few hundred billion to develop some vomit-inducing new form of weapon in which case it's probably classified and nobody can review it anyway.
— User:A Shortfall Of Gravitas 14:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP for my money. The citations may be mostly to primary sources, but that's nit-picking. There are plenty of citations and from reputable sources. That the citations are not newer than 2009 is not really relevant to anything. Sprhodes (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Either to Self-reconfiguring modular robot or Programmable matter. The article as it stands presents it as a general concept but it's actually the name of a specific research project/group. The other two articles are the general concept. Some of the material could be merged into one of them. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete mildly promotional, most sources are primary, but I would support a redirect if consensus was in favour of redirecting. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect: A google scholar search does yield some results from after 2022, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's an active field of study anymore. As for non-primary sources, I was able to find this tech-radar article, and not much else. Based on my search, I think the more common term for this concept is programmable matter, for which we already have a decent article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it's not an active field of development any more doesn't seem like a reason for deletion. It does present a historical view of some interesting and novel work. Treat it like a history article, rather than a hot-new-breaking-cool-stuff thing. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-written article with multiple sources. Presents good explanatory and historical information (as noted in the iVote above) that would be difficult to incorporate into the more general articles mentioned. Also, this research effort doesn't appear to be currently very active, but that may change. Alan Islas (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to programmable matter I'm not seeing enough of a difference in the topics to support a fork.  // Timothy :: talk  23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to programmable matter, to prevent WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to programmable matter, no need for a separate article on this particular form of programmable matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram ebrahimi[edit]

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

The sources all appear to be about a film, only mentioning the article subject in passing. I would draftify this with the hopes that more sources could be found, but that has already been done twice. – bradv 03:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I know Farsi. The person is famous and the sources are independent and reliable enough. best regards. Shahnam K (Talk) 14:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahnamk (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I would also say to draftify this, but if that isn't working, then deletion is likely the only option. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has enough sources. I do not know the reason for the deletion. خاچی (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keeps provide no sources. Source eval:
Comments Source
Interview primary 1. "Shahram Ebrahimi's narration of his first filmmaking experience" . Art online .
Database record 2. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi" . Son Art .
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject. 3. ^ "Mahrokh's house shines at Russian film festival". mehrnews.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject. 4. ^ "FILM BY IRANIAN DIRECTOR NAMED BEST AT SPIRIT OF FIRE FILM FESTIVAL". russkiymir.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject. 5. ^ "Iranian movie wins main prize at Spirit of Fire film festival in Russia's Khanty-Mansiysk". tass.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject. 6. ^ ""Parallax" named best at Spirit of Fire film festival". tehrantimes.
Database record 7. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi (Shahrkord)" . Iran Theater
Database record 8. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi" . Filimo .
Database record 9. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi" . imdb .
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject. 10. ^ "'Wolf Cubs of Apple Valley' to compete in SCHLiNGEL Fest". honaronline.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject. 11. ^ "The main prize of the festival "Spirit of Fire" in Khanty-Mansiysk was received by a director from Iran" . iz.ru. _
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject. 12. ^ "'Wolf Cubs of Apple Valley' to take part in SCHLiNGEL Fest". en.mehrnews.
WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  23:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Salvio giuliano 19:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Chung (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should look for sources first, or put it into draftspace, before deleting anything. RossEvans18 (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2023 (BST)

BEFORE showed nothing but promo and database records.
WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  00:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pere Egbi[edit]

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

Pere Egbi

Actor who does not satisfy general notability or acting notability. Acting notability requires two major roles. He has had one in The Perfect Arrangement. His other roles have not been major. One of the references is blocked by antimalware software, and so was not checked, but can be inferred to be unreliable. Two of the references are reviews of the movie in which he acted. They are significant as to the film, but not as to him. One of the references is a vanity site that displays celebrity biographies.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 legit.ng A celebrity bio web site Probably not Yes ? No
2 ideaslane.com Online community for students, may be providing biography hosting Probably not Yes ? No
3 www.thefamousnaija.com Blocked by antimalware software ? ? No No
4 premiumtimesng.com Review of The Perfect Arrangement (film) Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes
5 www.pulse.ng Another review of The Perfect Arrangement Yes Not about the subject Yes Yes
6 pmnewsnigeria.com Announcement of nomination for an award Probably not Yes Yes No

There is also a draft that is the same as this article. The draft can be left alone and possibly improved. The article can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. He has only starred in one notable film and I do not think that alone is enough to warrant a stand-alone article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Baedeker on nom source evaluation. Sources in article and before showed nothing with sigcov.  // Timothy :: talk  20:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions. ✗plicit 06:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fireball (roller coaster)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. There are ROUTINE announcement and promo for the ride, but nothing from WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the ride) directly and indepth. No objection to a redirect or selecrtive merge to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions.  // Timothy :: talk  05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cordaid[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Sources comprise a press release and routine business reporting, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Gedreven helpers: a book about the organization and its predecessors written by a Tilburg University professor and published by nl:Verloren Uitgeverij.
  2. A merger with another charity received coverage from major national publications: Trouw, NOS, Nederlands Dagblad, Reformatorisch Dagblad. Using LexisNexis to see behind the paywalls shows coverage about Cordaid's activities and history.
  3. More than passing coverage in the articles Een opgeschud bed and "Condoom splijt de katholieke missie", Omroep Brabant, 5 October 2000 (not online)
  4. Article about jubilee by Reformatorisch Dagblad, also containing background about the charity (also covered by NOS)
Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Residential High School[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to The World of David the Gnome. ✗plicit 03:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom of the Gnomes[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2021

PROD removed with "deprod; ran for 26 episodes; not an uncontroversial deletion", but nothing added to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Goddess of the World[edit]

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

awkward WP:SYNTH. There is no such thing as "Earth Goddess of the World" . Of course there are a bunch of goddesses of Earth, listede in List of earth deities. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete huh? What? This sounds like it’s a made up New Age religion and not a WP:SYNTH mess about various goddesses of the Earth. Dronebogus (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Long Mall[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet GNG or WP:ORG. Just another mall. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KWorld[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Huang, Feihong 黃飛紅 (2020-09-24). "天候變幻莫測 廣寰科、上緯投控、桂盟 風起雲湧" [The weather is unpredictable: KWorld, Swancor Holding, and KMC Chain Industrial are surging]. Money Weekly 理財周刊 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-20.

      The article provides 263 words of coverage about the subject when I translated the text from Chinese to English. The article notes from Google Translate: "KWorld is a digital home multimedia audio-visual entertainment related application product factory. It focuses on the research and development and sales of "PC-TV multimedia". It has its own brand "KWorld" and OEM OEM business. It also masters hardware circuit design, driver program development, Software programs and other research and development technologies. ... In recent years, affected by the development trend of Internet TV applications, consumers' demand for KWorld's video-related products has dropped significantly, resulting in a decline in the company's revenue. However, KWorld has gradually withdrawn from the traditional multimedia application product market in recent years, focusing on earphone products At the same time, it is also actively involved in the development of iOS/Android mobile phone system software platform related streaming application technology. The legal entity estimates KWorld's annual EPS to be one yuan."

    2. Du, Nianlu 杜念魯 (2008-01-16). "360°科技：廣寰" [360°Technology: KWorld]. DigiTimes (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-20. Retrieved 2023-04-20.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "KWorld was founded in 1999. It is one of the main manufacturers of TV cards in Taiwan. The proportion of TV cards is about 93%. The main competitors are AVerMedia and Yuan High-Tech. However, in terms of positioning, the three companies are different."

    3. Economic Daily News  [zh] sources:
      1. Huang, Yixin 黃依歆; Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2009-06-18). "廣寰網站內容不實 罰" [The content of the KWorld website was false]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. D3.

        The article notes: "電視卡廠商廣寰科技因在自家網站刊登內容不實的媒體報導資訊，昨（17）日遭到公平會裁罰20萬元。"

        From Google Translate: "TV card manufacturer KWorld was fined 200,000 yuan by the fair yesterday (17th) for publishing false media reports on its website."

      2. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2008-12-16). "廣寰科獲TIPS認證 全台首例" [KWorld was certified by TIPS, the first case in Taiwan]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. D7.

        The article notes: "廣寰科技 (3287)獲台灣智慧財產管理規範（TIPS）認證，該公司昨(15)日表示，廣寰以台灣精品形象行銷80餘個國家，如今獲得TIPS認證，為全國第一家、也是唯一通過此認證的多媒體視訊廠商。"

        From Google Translate: "KWorld (3287) has been certified by Taiwan Intellectual Property Management Standards (TIPS). The company said yesterday (15) that KWorld has been marketed in more than 80 countries with the image of Taiwan's high-quality products. Now it has obtained TIPS certification. The only multimedia video vendor that has passed this certification."

      3. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2008-11-11). "廣寰科 推藍寶堅尼造型電視棒" [KWorld launches Lamborghini-style TV stick]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. D7.

        The article notes: "廣寰科技（3287）電視棒與知名的義大利賽車藍寶堅尼異業結盟，推出藍寶堅尼賽車造型的電視棒，第一批接獲3,500支訂單，未來一年全球出貨達60萬支。"

        From Google Translate: "KWorld (3287) TV stick has formed an alliance with the famous Italian racing car Lamborghini to launch a TV stick in the shape of a Lamborghini racing car. The first batch of orders has received 3,500 pieces, and the global shipment will reach 60 in the next year. Ten thousand sticks."

      4. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2008-01-19). "廣寰自有品牌 卡進全球三大" [KWorld's own brand has entered the world's top three]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B3.

        The article notes: "電視卡大廠廣寰科技（3287）總經理王忠傑昨（18）日指出，去年廣寰在自有品牌市場，打入全球前三大，僅次於Pinnacle及Hauppauge。今年廣寰的自有品牌出貨量可成長三至四成，在全球排名將坐二望一。"

        From Google Translate: "Wang Zhongjie, general manager of TV card manufacturer KWorld (3287), pointed out yesterday (18th) that last year KWorld entered the top three in the world in its own brand market, second only to Pinnacle and Hauppauge. This year, KWorld's self-owned brand shipments may grow by 30% to 40%, ranking second in the world."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow KWorld (traditional Chinese: 廣寰科技股份有限公司; simplified Chinese: 广寰科技股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reslisting for discussion of sources found. If unchallenged, consensus would be keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a listed company and it's getting some ongoing independent reputable press coverage even if that's probably driven by company-provided info like press releases and financial results. There's a product review cited, which I don't think counts for much.
The one exception, and it is a genuine exception, is the Money Weekly story. That is a 2-page[57] bylined article that talks about the company's economic woes and its pivot to new technologies. It's possible this is coming off a press release, but I can't see evidence of that.
I don't see a lot of discussion of their products, which may reflect a decline in this kind of video cards as online news became more prevalent. Here's a google search that turned up 4 reviews, all from 2013 or earlier, and none from what I can identify as major sites.[58]. Even in Chinese, there aren't a lot of reviews. Interestingly, in Google Scholar the hits are researchers who disclose their interfaces as part of their testing apparatus. Oblivy (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Verge. Star Mississippi 13:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WinRumors[edit]

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

Believe it Dosen't meet WP:NWEB 1keyhole (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Verge. Blog by current The Verge journalist Tom Warren operated for 2 years. Gets some mentions by reliable sources for its reports on Microsoft, but not seeing enough context for an article. IgelRM (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Redirect suffices.IgelRM (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any other opinions about the suggested Merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article about a blog which was operated by an industry journalist during 2010-11. While reports by a journalist reporting on a major firm's changing business plans are bound to get some traction, I don't see them or the Blog's award nomination as sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. I also don't see a merge with the article about The Verge, its author's later employer, as feasible: Warren is not mentioned in that article and any content merge would be WP:UNDUE. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2015 National Conference League[edit]

2015 National Conference League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft moved back without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 10:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important: A discussion is already taking place regarding the presence of an article for individuals season of the National Conference League and can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 National Conference League. There is no point starting another discussion about the same topic. Mn1548 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aticle was restored from draft space as discussions linked above has not concluded! Mn1548 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sprudge[edit]

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

I'm on the fence on this one, and you might even count me as neutral unless I'm convinced otherwise, but the included sources for this article don't pass WP:SIGCOV on their own, excepting perhaps the coverage of the event involving Bitter Barista, which seems to be referenced a few times in association with Sprudge. The reason I am not sure is that although I haven't found very convincing sigcov sources, I have found several instances where other news orgs have referenced Sprudge, lending them at least a degree of credibility: eater 1 eater 2 capitol hill seattle robb report tasting table the verge fox news

I was nearly going to just remove the notability tag but I know the requirement for significant coverage needs to be met, so I figured it's worth at least testing here. ASUKITE 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject by sources seems to be the doxing of "The Bitter Barista", what about a topic change? "2017 Webby Award Honoree" (for what it's worth) might influence Notability (web). IgelRM (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see strong arguments for either Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, based on coverage and recognition received, plus use by Eater and other other media outlets. ---Another Believer (Talk) 11:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete. Noms source assessment is correct, there are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.  // Timothy :: talk  20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This argument relies on some good faith, but the use of Sprudge by various media outlets suggests that it is a significant website for the industry. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a source can be unreliable itself, yet still be notable. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean above, but can you post links the three best sources you found, I'll take a second look.  // Timothy :: talk  13:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The most reliable sources all appear to be about the firing, rather than directly about the subject itself. But it's use by other sources within its topic area, are a positive. It's close to keep, of not completely there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kriwi (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band. I removed the bands email address from the main text, and couldn't find any reliable sources about them. The one source that exists in the article is to a small defunct fan zine without an editorial board Very Average Editor (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning keep on this. There are a lot of foreign-language Google hits that appear to demonstrate sigcov, eg. [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. I can't confidently assess the reliability of these sources, but I think the band is likely to be notable. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this is important, but in 1999 they were recognized as the best rock band in Belarus.--Берберов Иван (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That award doesn't seem significant enough in itself to grant automatic assumed notability, but if you can find reliable sources reporting on Kriwi's win, that could help. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed sources would be very helpful in determining how to proceed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petter Rocha[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who played a few Uruguayan first division matches and one season of semi-pro football in the Spanish third division, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Aside from match reports and statistics database entries, there is very little available online. This Q&A interview is the best I could find, but it is not in-depth and most of the coverage is primary. Jogurney (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 20:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Yarbrough[edit]

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

This qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G14. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Two JYs, each would merit a redirect, no clear PT, so a dab page is needed.PamD 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it doesn't meet any of those criteria. It disambiguates two pages. Both entries meet [MOS:DABMENTION]]. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Boleyn: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "any of those criteria." I only cited one criterion, WP:G14. The page in question "disambiguate[s] zero extant Wikipedia pages." There is no Wikipedia article for either of the John Yarbroughs that it disambiguates. It's pretty straightforward. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Denniscabrams, there are3 parts to the G14 criteria. There are 2 extant WP pages here - it doesn't mean that they need to have their own articles, with two entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL . Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see how this disambiguation page serves the project as it doesn't link to any existing Wikipedia articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I added Jon Yarbrough, American billionaire, the founder of Video Gaming Technologies. It has been my experience at DABS, that names don't have to be spelled exactly alike. That's one of the purposes of dabs, to clarify with variations on spellings of a name. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worthwhile disambig page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Head (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

The Queen's Head (Portland, Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked for notability since January. Only existed for 1 year. Could not significant coverage except in local publications. Even a search in oregonlive.com yielded nothing. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Dyer[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is unnecessary, as there are only two people who have articles named Rick Dyer. I propose deleting it and moving one of the two Rick Dyers (probably the game designer) to this title as the primary topic, while leaving a hatnote that directs to the other Rick Dyer, and a different disambiguation page for the various Richard Dyers. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping (restaurant)[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this now closed restaurant to meet GNG. 2 of the supplied sources are primary, and this source is a 1 line mention about its closure. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hung Far Low (restaurant), considering the brief writeup and existence of Ping (restaurant). Same space. Maybe under a title "Aftermath: Ping" or something of sorts. gidonb (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gidonb: Thanks for weighing in. I have expanded the article significantly and continue to find more sources to add. I think there's clear evidence the subject has been discussed in detail by reliable sources. Can you please take another look? I'd like to see if I can change your vote to "keep". Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep. My concern here was the length of the article and excessive fragmentation, not notability. Now that the text is longer a merge would create a situation of WP:UNDUE so this is no longer desirable. gidonb (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. This is yet another nomination by LibStar, who seems to be nominating Portland restaurant articles indiscriminately, or at least without doing thorough source assessments before jumping to AfD. I've asked them to slow down, or use tags/talk page comments instead of mass nominating, but here we are. I've worked to expand the article and continue to find in-depth articles specifically about Ping, published by reliable sources. The article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Ping was a James Beard Foundation Award semifinalist. It was also included in Alan Richman's list of 10 best new restaurants in the U.S. Are we seriously debating notability? Is the nominator even trying? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easy pass of our notability guidelines with in depth RS. Lightburst (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re-edited and updated since this nomination. Informative article that needs to be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands Terrier Marching Band[edit]

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

Very promotional, and while it does get some local coverage, does not pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 00:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does get some coverage but it's in very local media outlets like the Redlands Daily Facts or Redlands Community News, which I don't think is enough (and newspapers at that level probably aren't very reliable anyway). Possibly redirect to Redlands High School, which doesn't mention it but certainly could. Hut 8.5 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is local, run of the mill, and despite the fact it has won competitions, these are run of the mill scholastic-level competitions (not sure if that's the right term). It seems a vanity page by an editor who, in general, wrote/contributed to several articles about this high school. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only the coverage is not enough, but if kept it needs a whole rewrite and removal of uncited content. Pershkoviski (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Touché Restaurant & Bar[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage for this now closed restaurant. This source is more about the building it was in. And this source is more about the redevelopment of the building the restaurant was in. There is also a "Touché Restaurant" in Miami https://chilledmagazine.com/must-mix-ginger-root-cocktails-from-touche-restaurant-miami/ but not sure if it still open. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the WP:RS it was notable per WP:NTEMP. We also have no requirement that RS be national or international, just reliable and in depth. We are WP:NOTPAPER so we have room for such articles. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is yet another nomination by LibStar, who seems to be nominating articles by me indiscriminately, or at least without completing thorough source assessments before jumping to AfD. I've asked them to slow down, or use tags/talk page comments instead of mass nominating, but here we are. The subject has received plenty of secondary coverage in reliable sources. I could potentially see the page being moved, if editors feel the historic building is more notable than the most recent restaurant which operated there, but there's definitely a notable topic here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. No objection to reworking this to the building. Can be done after discussing on talk page. Which begs the question: why was this nominated for deletion at all. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article covers this restaurant, previous restaurants and the historic building. Plenty of reliable, independent references. Passes GNG. Yes, could be it's the building that's more notable. The article does mention a number of previous occupiers (Develan's and Remo's) not just Touché. I'd suggest, if I may be so bold, retitling under something like Fire Station (Touché Restaurant). Also, if Wikipedia allows, there could be redirects for the previous restaurants, unless separate articles can be written for those. Rupples (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ . Speedy deleting this as a hoax, indicated by the recent establishment of this state (two weeks ago) and the assertion of an entire administrative and military framework of governance. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State of Darsah[edit]

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

Contested PROD, pinging contester User:Kvng. Completely non-notable micronation, not a single source on this exists. Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to MrBeast. There seems to be consensus here that there should be some mention of Chris Tyson, but there's not enough to make it a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tyson[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for their relationship to the YouTuber MrBeast. The only WP:SIGCOV is related to their gender transition (good for them) and the subsequent backlash, which is all recent, and doesn't indicate separate notability. The previous AfD was for a completely different person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like some others here, I also have concerns that this article is likely to be a magnet for transphobic vandalism, as already appears to be occuring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any articles about trans people which are not? :-( DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tita Aida doesn't seem to have had any vandalism, but she's obviously not very high profile. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Tyson appears to fail BLP1E. All the recent coverage of him is about his decision to become gender non-conforming, and that's just about the only independent coverage of him at all. Might be a news story more than anything else. However, Tyson has indeed been subject to much independent coverage surrounding their transition, and it can't all be mentioned at MrBeast and stay in accordance with WP:DUE, and much of it shouldn't be since that article is about Jimmy Donaldson and the channel, not Tyson. So, that will lead to this coverage being largely discarded because it can't be placed anywhere else. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's already in the news, why is it beholden to WP to cover this? If the subject can't stand on it's own it needs be deleted. Padillah (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been covered prior to his transition in interviews (the Business Insider one of which is cited in this article). So it think BLP1E is not really a strong argument. But most importantly, he is the second-most prominent host of the biggest YouTube channel. He is not just known for being related a notable person (like Jimmy's brother would). So I think that NOTINHERITED does not apply at all and I wholly disagree with the OP's statement "This person is only notable for their relationship to the YouTuber MrBeast". He is not notable as MrBeast's friend (the relationship), but as a main character on the MrBeast channel.-128.6.36.153 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — 128.6.36.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Neutral There is some coverage that predates people making a big deal about Tyson's personal life but it is not huge and it is not like anybody thought to make an article about them prior to this. I also worry that this article will just be a millstone round our collective necks as it will doubtlessly be targeted by trolls to abuse both Tyson themself and Mr Beast. That's not a reason to delete but it might be a reason to make extra certain that the notability criteria are fully met before keeping. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 128.6.36.153, Therealscorp1an. and DaniloDaysOfOurLives. To refute WP:BLP1E: reliable sources have covered the subject in the context of more than one event. The subject is not a low-profile individual. The subject is the co-founder of the largest YouTube channel owned by an individual (4th largest overall), and has consistently been in the public eye. The recent media coverage only reinforces the notability and solidifies the case for a standalone article. Rowing007 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with the previous keeps, also don’t use the fact that the article is underdeveloped as an argument—with all the coverage he’s been getting recently it can easily be expanded. Chris is one of the founding members of an over-144 Million subscribers channel, has received coverage even before he became gnc, and the coverage on recent events would not disqualify WP:BLP1E because I would say he was well-know even before recently. I agree that he isn’t notable for being MrBeast’s friend, but for being one of the founding members of the channel “Mr Beast.” I believe the subject fulfills WP:NOTBLP1E for these reasons, as well as WP:GNG andWP:NRV.
CanO27sprite (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage (national) exists for him, both for his professional and personal life. Rublamb (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MrBeast. While there is significant coverage it is all within the auspices of MrBeast. I was able to Google the name and got several sources for the subject, all of those sources were concerned with the relationship to (or loss of relationship with) MrBeast. If the relationship disolves and the subject can maintain their own level of notability we can split the article then. Padillah (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or otherwise support merge with MrBeast. This article is not notable enough. Compusolus (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:PAGEDECIDE asks us on whether to have a standalone page Does other information provide needed context?. In this case, since the subject is only notable for their relationship to Mr. Beast, and that's the context for their notability, I don't think a standalone page makes sense with this sourcing. Even if they don't meet the strict criteria for BLP1E, WP:1E (from the notability guideline) still tells us to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. With the only significant coverage coming from the transition, this still appears like it would be a pseudo-biography.
Also, if the only significant coverage is of something personal like them transitioning, it seems like this presents WP:BLP issues. If the primary basis for an article is something personal like that, it seems like it could be invasive. per WP:DEL-REASON, a breach of WP:BLP is also grounds for deleting an article. Given the recency of significant coverage, there's also WP:SUSTAINED to consider. --Tristario (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with User:Tristario and others saying "the subject is only notable for their relationship to Mr. Beast" He is a main presenter on the MrBeast channel. I think that alone grants him notability and that this is a confusion between MrBeast and MrBeast's channel. Also, I believe WP:SUSTAINED applies as the article as there are sources currently cited dating back more than four years ago. After a quick Google search on my hand, I strongly believe that the article, be easily improved with even more prior sourcing, given the notability of the subject. As another user mentioned here on this thread, the context around the very extensive coverage about his transition and backlash was lost on the original MrBeast page, especially its relevance to anti-LGBT rhetoric in United States media. On the original MrBeast article, the context amounted to just "it has been shown that MrBeast now supports transgender people". So this is why I think this page fits positively the WP:PAGEDECIDE criteria. 128.6.36.183 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)— 128.6.36.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The fact that this has relevance to the LGBTQ+ rhetoric adds no support for notability. Padillah (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the IP addresses, both 128.6.36.183 and 128.6.36.153 (who voted above) geolocate close to Piscataway, New Jersey [64] [65] and have nearly identical technical information, and therefore are presumably the same person or are engaging in coordinated ediitng. Therefore they should only be counted as a single voice in the discussion (if counted at all) and not as separate votes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piscataway is in the New York metro area, an area with more than 20 million people. I'm not too sure if those ips are socked accounts, and if you think they are you can go to Sockpuppet investagations. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now that i am looking at it, these IPs are clearly SPAs. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only significant coverage of the subject I can find in reliable sources is about the transition. WP:BI, the source from more than four years ago, has no consensus for its reliability. So I don't think WP:SUSTAINED is passed. In the future an article may be justified here, but I'd want more of a diversity of significant coverage than just focusing on a single personal thing like transitioning. Tristario (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into MrBeast, or perhaps better, into a page about other MrBeast “characters” in the same way we might treat the cast of TV shows. There is no demonstrated need for a standalone page, but there is real potential for these variety of individuals to be discussed at greater length, separate to the bio-slash-channel page of MrBeast. This sort of collective page would satisfy the fans, without burdening us with a potentially increasing variety of borderline-notable personality pages for each of the cast. — HTGS (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tristario. Besides being in MrBeast videos, there's nothing notable about him to warrant a standalone page. Some1 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd consider this to be a WP:1E + WP:NOTINHERITED (per nom). Most of the coverage is about the HRT/transgender news which would fall under one event. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from MrBeast. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_26&oldid=1153546850"