Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bloom[edit]

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

He is contemplating a bid for an NFL team, and he was invited to take part in OceanGate, which he declined. Both of these had Bloom in the news, but there's no evidence he's a notable businessman. If and when he becomes an NFL owner, he might be notable but I can't find a viable ATD as the potential Vegas team is not a Thing. Star Mississippi 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article is unneccessary in itself and believe it was only made to create more links with Rush. 86.17.54.133 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article, expanding it with several added references and cutting back on the NBA and Titan bits. Not all the coverage is positive: for some reason the article creator removed mention of the Las Vegas Experience, a failed attraction at the Tropicana Las Vegas that went bankrupt after he withdrew as managing partner in the face of accusations of financial malfeasance. There is extensive coverage in the Las Vegas newspapers of these events, and they are mentioned in much of the coverage of the bid to attract an NBA team. However, together those make for a lot of press about him and his business dealings. One of his companies, Pegasus, has attracted wider coverage. Unfortunately since NY Weekly is blacklisted, I can't cite "Jay Bloom Talks Green Entrepreneurship" (May 21, 2021). I was able to cite an interview in Ami, a Jewish magazine, which enabled me to include his being raised Jewish (we had a category but no reference, a BLP violation), a bit about his early life, and several early companies, one of which, Pet Assure, had been covered in the business press in the late 1990s. One of those articles let me replace the uncited date of birth with an approximate birth year, again fixing a BLP vio. There's a gap in his career including when he moved to Las Vegas because the Ami article is not accessible in its entirety, but I believe the enduring coverage as now cited demonstrates notability under GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After the significant expansion of the article I think it is notable enough for inclusion. Coverage spanning from the 1990s makes it enough for this person to receive sustained coverage. HarukaAmaranth 春香 22:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: and thanks to Yngvadottir for rescuing this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the very insightful and helpful contributions made by @Yngvadottir The article on Jay Bloom has been substantially improved with additional references and a more balanced presentation of his career, including both successes and controversies. The inclusion of the Las Vegas Experience and the subsequent bankruptcy adds a critical dimension to the biography, demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources, as per the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The coverage of his business dealings in Las Vegas newspapers, along with his association with Pegasus Group Holdings, which has attracted attention beyond local media, further solidifies his notability. The effort to address previous BLP violations by providing sourced content for his early life and religious background certainly enhancees the article's compliance with Wikipedia's biography policies. The existing gap in his career timeline does not detract from the overall notability established by enduring coverage. Therefore the article should be kept and further improved as additional sources become available.
Cray04 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article expansion demonstrates notability. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:03, 23 December 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. I would personally like to keep this, but I don't see how any of the "keep" opinions have provided anything approaching SIGCOV. ATDs aren't discussed in any depth, but this doesn't preclude a redirect, or a future article with better sourcing; perhaps there is sourcing in other languages. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chilaun[edit]

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

A minor figure in the history of the Mongol Empire, Chilaun does not meet WP:GNG because no reliable source provides significant coverage on him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only reference is a very old source and the current article does a poor job of a making a case for notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:ATD can be a redirect/merge to his father Sorqan Shira. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively spelled Chiraun. Curbon7 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So "non-notable" that pretty much every drama film or series about Genghis Khan has featured him as a character. That says something about his place in the story of Genghis Khan, surely. There appear to be plenty of references in the articles on other Wikipedias (e.g. Japanese). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERLANGS/WP:TRIVIAL. The Japanese version is primarily a genealogy and secondly a summary of a thirteenth-century chronicle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I'm perfectly sure you're aware, neither WP:OTHERLANGS nor WP:TRIVIAL actually relate to what I wrote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, you outlined two arguments for Chilaun's notability Necrothesp: 1) that most entertainment about Genghis Khan features him, and 2) that other Wikipedias have articles on them with references in them. 1) is addressed by WP:TRIVIAL: "In order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed." Entertainment about Genghis khan is not "significant coverage that addresses the subject", and "That says something about his place in the story of Genghis Khan, surely" is original research. 2) is addressed by WP:OTHERLANGS—just because interwiki articles are referenced does not mean that the references are reliable. Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not what WP:OTHERLANGS says though. It merely says that just because a subject has an article on other wikis that doesn't mean it's notable enough for English Wikipedia. What I said was that there are references on other wikis, which is a different thing. As to WP:TRIVIAL, that doesn't refer to what I said either. My point was merely that the fact he is featured in most versions of the story of Genghis Khan suggests that he is a notable figure in that story. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - very notable. Known as one of Genghis Khan's "Four Knights", he was one of 4 commanders of Genghis Khan's personal guard. This Google translation of the Mongolian Wikipedia's article gives a good summary of Chilaun's importance.
The article already cites as a reference The Secret History of the Mongols which is described this way:
    • "The Secret History is regarded as the single most significant native Mongolian account of Genghis Khan… The Secret History is regarded as a piece of classic literature in both Mongolia and the rest of the world."
Chilaun joins Genghis Khan's army in chapter 4, section 137, page 65 of this translation of the Secret History. (They're referred to as Čila'un and Cinggiss Quahan in that text). After that Chilaun appears frequently in the history.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A. B. I wasn't aware that a 13th-century semi-legendary chronicle was considered a WP:RS—my rewrite of our Genghis Khan article would have been a lot easier if that was the case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I know zilch about the Mongols but if a character has been fake news since the 13th century isn't he/she/it just notable as part of the legendarium that's grown up around the definitely real Genghis Khan? This guy sounds like an important part of the storytelling if maybe not the historical record per se? jengod (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you mean by this Jengod. He was not "fake news", he was a real person who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries. He is just not described enough in WP:RS to be notable and thus have a Wikipedia article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @AirshipJungleman29 I was thinking he was something like Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood stories. Like he's not necessarily historical but he's in most of the stories. Like if the unreliable sources are very old, and then people keep repeating those tales, even if they're provably incorrect or something, doesn't that myth making become notable in its own right? Like, "he shows up in movies X Y and Z but they're just making up stuff and it's ahistorical and fictive." The other thing I was thinking of is Sisi's mother-in-law and their relationship which has this whole public fanfic element that's been going on since the 1950s movie that is maybe not at all what it was like. I'm so totally not a Mongol person so I shoulda probably just kept quiet but it seems like (maybe?!) this guy needs some context where we explain--he's in zero reliable primary sources on the Mongols, but here's where people are getting their ideas about him and here's where that quasi-historic de novo character who was created ex post facto appears in the next 600 years of Mongol literature. Ok now I'm shutting up sorry jengod (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree with GNG. Apparently he was an important person. I added some new sources. It didn't take much time to find them. Instead of deleting we can find more sources and modify the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:SIGCOV, Aredoros87. Two of your "sources" are clearly Google Books searches for "Dai Chopan", whoever that is, another does not mention Chilaun, and the fourth simply says "eles e o filho do guarda, Chilaun, eventualmente se tornaram generais de Genghis Khan". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now it looks like "No consensus". A source analysis of the references cited in the article and discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG. There are no sources for a merge, no objection to a redirect. Source eval:
Comments Source
About a genetic test, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. Wen, Shao-Qing; Meng, Hai-Liang; Li, Hui (May 2021). "A genetic test for three historical hypotheses of the Mongolian Golden family origin of Tusi Lu's family, a response to a commentary on molecular genealogy of Tusi Lu's family reveals their paternal relationship with Jochi, Genghis Khan's eldest son". Journal of Human Genetics. 66 (5): 551–553. doi:10.1038/s10038-020-00861-2. ISSN 1435-232X. S2CID 254116339.
About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Elizabeth Emaline Bacon (1951). The Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan: A Study in Social Organization. University of California, Berkeley. p. 32.
About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Robert L. Canfield, Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek (2010-10-04). Ethnicity, Authority and Power in Central Asia: New Games Great and Small. Routledge. ISBN 9781136927508.
Name mentioned, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ "Gengis Khan". history-maps.com. Retrieved 2023-12-13.
The Keep votes provide opinions, but no sources to eval except an unsourced Wikipedia article [1]. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No other wikipedias have sources with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy, you omitted the most important ref. You noted that I provided a link to the Mongol Wikipedia article. I did not cite that as a source but rather to provide quick context for editors at this AfD without their having to read the entire Secret History of the Mongols.
The reference I cited was The Secret History of the Mongols including links to a translation as well as chapters and sections.
There are arguments above as to this famous piece of literature/history's reliability. As Jengod noted, that may not make a difference. The Bible is the main source of Juedo-Christian history about Abraham. Did Abraham really exist? Is the Bible historically reliable? Abraham is notable however you answer those questions. I argue that the same is true of Čila'un/Chilaun. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: As was explained above by AirshipJungleman29, The Secret History of the Mongols is not a historically reliable source, and it does not contain WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  22:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no more Abraham or Bible, then? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding. There is an entire academic discipline dedicated to the study of these topics. In case you are unaware A. B., these are what we call reliable sources. The Bible is not a reliable source, and neither is the Secret History of the Mongols. Thanks TimothyBlue for doing the source analysis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: If your comparison was valid (the Bible with the Secret History of the Mongols), you'd be able to show plenty of reliable sources showing notability and the discussion would be closed. I'm not taking your discussion bait on the Bible or Abraham, the discussion needs to stay focused on sources and guidelines, not speculative OTHERSTUFFEXISTS claims.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We’ll see. Right now, Timothy, I don’t think there’s consensus either way. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Timothy I don't believe GNG is met, and I'm not persuaded that we should ignore GNG in this situation based on the arguments above. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 24 December 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. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goldback[edit]

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

This article is very clearly WP:PROMO. I tried cleaning up a lot of it yesterday since the sources used to get the article through were, uh, not what they claimed. I don't think this meets WP:N.

To start with, the entire article was written to heavily imply that Goldbacks were either issued by or endorsed by the states where they're marketed. (see the Diff from before I made the edits to remove a lot of that).

Secondly, a lot of the sources were... not actually saying what was claimed. For example, from the pre-edited article:

'Reuters has reported as of 2022 that as many as "a quarter to half of small businesses in Utah will accept the [Goldback] notes"'

But the cited link that went to was uncritically quoting the ceo:

"Jeremy Cordon, founder and president at Goldback Inc, said that around a quarter to half of small businesses in Utah will accept the notes."

And likewise, this statement:

'Meanwhile, Nevada has seen some buyers purchasing Goldbacks as part of an inflation hedge investment vehicle.'

Cited a local news organization paid advertorial written by the company behind these. Basically every source I checked was either an advertorial, uncritically quoting the company's CEO without verification, or contained in video format which I haven't verified.

The article was heavily edited a single purpose account who proceeded to add links to Goldbacks on every article even vaguely related to gold or the iconography used:

All of these were the same account, which appears to have an affiliation with the company. This looks heavily promotional, and the combination of that and the lack of WP:RS makes me think this should probably simply not be here, even in it's de-promotionalized form. A search for more reliable sources mainly turned up opinion pieces from goldbugs. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That Reuters article was the only RS showing notability there. Why did you remove it? Owen× ☎ 23:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very common in certain parts of Utah, numerous sources online. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Most of links now in the article are of iffy quality, but there seems to be enough to cover the concept. This PBS story [2] and a public radio story [3]. This Reuters source (to a lesser extent) [4] Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I restored the Reuters reference. If the article body didn't correctly describe what the source said, we need to change the article, not remove the only RS we have for this page. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that was actually a poor edit on my part. Appreciated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, these things happen to me all the time. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that is common enough in the five states it has made notes for, especially Utah, to be relevant enough to keep. As previously mentioned, there are also numerous sources online. Random123games (talk), 13:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reuters coverage establishing notability. And with Utah passing Section 59-1-1502, and several other states on its heels to allow specie legal tender, notable coverage will only accelerate. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Kulture[edit]

Alien Kulture (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a number of secondary sources on this band - including print/web media, books, and academic. See for example Guardian article [5] and a chapter in the The Oxford Handbook of Punk Rock [6]. A number of books have coverage which is more than a passing mention - including those referenced in the article. The Evening Standard also states that Alien Kulture were the biggest "musical thrill" of Rock Against Racism here. It is worth noting the WP:sustained level of coverage this band has attracted, even though they were active circa 1980-1981 there are a number of recent sources discussing them. ResonantDistortion 14:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG with the added citations. Sam Sailor 06:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clearly meeting GNG, as demonstrated by recently added citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the edition of a number of reliable sources references such as The Guardian, Evening Standard, and reliable books Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 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 00:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Griswold[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR due to a lack of substantial and sustained coverage. Let'srun (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 16 December 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 00:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss American Beauty 1963[edit]

Miss American Beauty 1963 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (twice) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per a request on my talkpage, I'm reverting my closure and relisting the AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This beauty pagent is obsucre, lacking established notability. TH1980 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG per the nom, as well as WP:NEVENT. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This subject fails WP:GNG as another user states. --Artene50 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ABM Yunus[edit]

ABM Yunus (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 notability guideline for academics:

  • Does not have any major contributions-I see six papers from him, none of which seem to be influential
  • Has not held a top-level post at a major academic institution--I'm pretty sure that head of the Department of Haematology at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University does not satisfy this requirement.

AriTheHorse 22:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) (Updated 22:42)[reply]

Hello,
The article ABM Yunus has been edited with authentic source from the official website of BSMMU. Please review it and approve it. Jmnabil (talk) 06:27, 17 December 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 leaning keep. No consensus to merge or redirect, none to delete, and 'complicated' by significant changes during the discussion. Explicit permission granted to renominate (very) early in 2024 if any editor wishes to explore potentially deleting this again, based on the above factors. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

40 Bank Street[edit]

40 Bank Street (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)

Hesitant to BLAR a 20 year old article, but I cannot find any evidence this is a notable building. Its current and former tenants don't make it so, Heron Quays could be a viable ATD as could César_Pelli#1990–2005. Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and England. Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm perplexed. I may yet offer a formal opinion. There is a (false?) premise of inherent notability for many large buildings.yet there appear to be very few sources about this building per se, rather than about the various occupants. This is the only additional reference I have found, and it is simply a set of tabulated facts. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has quite a few language links but the sources listed don't appear to show notability but I'm not sure. You would expect London's joint 36th tallest building to have coverage though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. It's the premise @Timtrent alludes to. The guidelines were created out of "there should be", but it has turned out these buildings never quite attained the anticipated coverage. I think because they became so relatively common in the construction booms of the last two decades. Star Mississippi 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect we have List of tallest buildings and structures in London, and either the "1980s, 1990s and 2000s" or "Tallest buildings and structures" sections of that article would also make useful redirect targets. Alternatively, merging to a new article about tall buildings at Canary Wharf (as I expect several other skyscrapers there have similar issues, although I've not looked) might make sense. This title shouldn't be a redlink though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: after taking sometime to consider and to perform a detailed WP:BEFORE I have concluded that this building is not inherently notable even if individual tenants are, Sufficient other articles exist for this to be mentioned in them, and it is part of a list anyway. There is no scope for an independent article on this. Fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Canary Wharf Group; there's independent coverage in this article by RIBA Journal (an architecture magazine) and this article by CoStar Group, though it's unclear whether it's deep enough and/or focused enough on the building itself to merit a standalone Wikipedia article. Much of the coverage describes the building in the context of the company, so a merge might be an appropriate alternative. Left guide (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage demonstrated by Left guide.Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this stub because there is no evidence of notability. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I find it funny that a village or hamlet of 50 residents would be automatically notable per WP:GEOLAND, even if their "notability" is limited to appearing in some land survey, while the notability of a building that is the workplace of thousands and often mentioned in the news is questioned. I bet more people routinely sleep in that building than do in, say, Nine Ashes, Essex. I realize that WP:NBUILDING and WP:POPULATED have very different notability thresholds. It just sometimes strains credulity the extent to which the two vary. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes Nine Ashes may be legally recognized as its an OS settlement but yes it does seem otherwise a bit funny, the notability of OS settlements has been debated and we don't appear to have a clear consensus on this. Nine Ashes was created (by me) over 13 years ago and GEOLAND may have got tighter since then. Personally my instinct is to say the building is notable but the only presumed notability are for things protected on a national level and even that has been questioned, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I love it that we have articles such as Nine Ashes here. This is exactly what our WP:NOTPAPER top-level policy encourages us to create and keep. When flowed down to the subject-specific guideline level, however, we ended up with wildly varying degrees of notability requirements. So 40 Bank Street, if it were to be classified as a "settlement" (and its "population" is larger than that of many towns!), would automatically qualify under WP:POPULATED. As a building, it struggles for notability. Anyway, this debate would be more suitable for a policy RfC than on this AfD. Still, it's an honour to meet the author of a goodly portion of all UK place articles! Owen× ☎ 17:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess it could be argued that because settlements contain buildings they are more likely to be seen as notable than a single building but clearly the 36th tallest building in London is more important than a hamlet even if it contains many buildings. I guess though it could also be argued that streets contain many buildings yet we tend to be strict with notability of streets. @OwenX: Just out of interest was it chance that you mentioned an article I created when I commented above questioning notability? Just wandering. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pure chance; I didn't even check that article's history. I was looking for a hamlet outside London, ideally with a number as part of its name, to contrast with the street-numbered building. In retrospect, seeing your massive article creation list, it's not exactly shocking I happened to land on one of yours... Owen× ☎ 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think these four sources (two already mentioned above) suffice for GNG, especially when combined with a high probability of offline sources: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I found some additional sources (most of them minor; but at least one book, London High, that might be more significant). The most significant new source is this one, which discusses the architecture of the building. I incorporated all of them into the article. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this discussion of population is entirely wrongheaded. Notability is not about population at all. Nor is it about importance. It's about documentation. Nine Ashes is actually Nine Ashes Farm and has a documented history, more extensive than our article supplies, going back to the 19th century some of which is in the Victoria County History. Whereas I struggle to find more than a mere mention of this building even in the coffee-table book that is entirely about the architectural firm that designed it (ISBN 9783775713290). That is why Nine Ashes passes the test and this building is borderline. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nine Ashes Farm" is a listed house in Nine Ashes hamlet they are not synonymous. There are at least another 2 listed buildings in Nine Ashes namely Walnut Tree Cottage and Hardings. Both the hamlet and 3 listed buildings all have names wile the building we are discussing doesn't even have a name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, they are. Go and dig up the history, and you'll find things about houses being built at Nine Ashes Farm for farmworkers. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Arbitrarily0. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this ever turns into a notability guideline, it'll probably get the shortcut "WP:9ASHES"... Owen× ☎ 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interesting to compare this with 25 Bank Street and the way the narrative is spun and sources used in that article. Rupples (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, if one thinks about this the right way, the simple and obvious way given that Wikipedia is all about verifiable knowledge. That building is documented with things like who unveiled a plaque in front of it in 2004 (ISBN 9781471113567 p.98) and its rather infamous changes of ownership.

      This building barely warrants a 1 line mention in several of the publications that it is found in. Left guide's and Arbitrarily0's sources do a little better, although they are just shy of being outright press releases, with the CoStar one even openly disclosing its promotional conflict of interest at the bottom and the FMJ one following the standard press release format of "Company XYZ has done PQR!" followed by a bunch of corporate officer quotes filled with fact-less buzzwords and hyperbole of how "fantastic" (word actually used in the source) it is.

      If one stops with the whole "But, but, but fame and importance!" (Fame and importance were rejected in 2004.) and "But, but, but population!" and even "But, but, but it is on the same street!" and just looks at how well the world outwith the article subject's creators/promoters has noted the article subject it all becomes very easy. Nine Ashes Farm made it into a history book.

      Uncle G (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      My comment doesn't imply 25 Bank Street is notable (not that you said it did). At first glance it gave me an appearance of such compared to this article and led me to believe this article had good potential for expansion. Though when one checks 25 Bank Street through much of its sourcing seems primary and/or not independent. Rupples (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, Timtrent, Doczilla, Uncle G: please consider re-evaluating based on the sources now in the article. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wasn't sure what to recommend yesterday. Thanks to User:Arbitrarily0 the article is in much better shape today — in particular the new architectural points highlighted from additional sources, sufficient to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 19:22, 18 December 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 Sesame Street Muppets. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yip Yips[edit]

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

A small stubby article with little to no citations. I did a search for sources and for the Yip Yips, but there is little to no discussion about them as characters overall. I found maybe a couple of okay sources, but there are nowhere near enough to build a whole article on. I feel a good AtD is to the character list, where they are mentioned. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayowa Adenekan[edit]

Mayowa Adenekan (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)

Just another non-notable bio. Ref bombed with articles that anyone can get made for them. Nswix (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: The page has citations from notable and credible media houses. Bear in mind that the subject is from a third world country with media gagging. Putting that in context in mind, the citations are good enough. Amaekuma (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete refbombed with lots of links to various stories but overall lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 9 December 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, Daniel (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Obviously doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO nor WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn'see anything that make this article notable. The sources are mostly advertorials and cannot be use as RS for WP: GNG
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Roxbury. This is a difficult discussion to close due to lack of participation, however redirect is less of an imposition than a delete close, and on that basis there's enough support above to action this. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billings Field[edit]

Billings Field (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 interested to see what ohers think. This appears to be a standard park, not anything I could find sources for to show it meets WP:GEOLAND/WP:GEONATURAL or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 8 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Arcadia book has who it is named after and what it used to be named before it was named after xem. The Arcadia books are good indicators when it comes to this, so I suspect that there are going to be a fair number of local history sources on this. Uncle G (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sammarco, Anthony Mitchell (2004). West Roxbury. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738534596.
  • It looks like this might give some historical context, for the sheepskin blokes who came after the one with the lumberyard, although I have no access to it. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wolkins, George G. (Spring 1941). "Village Enterprise". Old-Time New England. 41. Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities: 83–88.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More work needs to be done! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 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, Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 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 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palcrafts[edit]

Palcrafts (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)

An orphan article for 12 years. No significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article fail WP:GNG and the lack of edits on it points to this conclusion. --Artene50 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 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 00:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to completion[edit]

Time to completion (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)

Seems to be just a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Estimated time of arrival: little more than a DICDEF by itself. Owen× ☎ 21:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of the article subject being more than a WP:DICDEF. Oppose merge as the contents are unreferenced and contradict use in sources where the term is used to refer to the time to completion of the project rather than the task (the latter is described in Duration (project management)) PaulT2022 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important project management metric which can be expanded to more than a definition. Some sources: [11], [12]. Merging to Estimated time of arrival doesn't seem like a good idea because this is not associated with project management. Estimate to complete is a related project management term but seems to be specific to Earned value management and refers to remaining work, not total work. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a scholarly source related to project management, a body of knowledge or a textbook that would define it in the meaningless way the Time to completion article does?
    The first link is an SEO blog on a job website, possibly based on the definition taken from Time to completion, the second refers to 'time to completion of a degree', which appears to be a widely used term in education not related to 'time to completion' in project management. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the first 4 Books search results: [13], [14], [15], [16]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't describe a single concept alleged to exist by Time to completion.
    The first two books say it's a date when tasks are scheduled to complete.
    Third and fourth say it's a date when the project is estimated to be completed.
    These sources merely use these words in a dictionary sense and don't indicate that 'time to completion' is a specific metric with a commonly accepted meaning that can be expected to be discussed in literature in-depth. None offer significant coverage. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • TNT -- As the article stands, it is a very poor WP:DICTDEF of a concept that is valued by a subset of project managers. I think that an article might be eventually constructed using PMI publications and related materials, but I can't see this version being salvaged. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nom, this is a dictdef. Oppose merging unsourced OR into another article based on WP:V, WP:BURDEN, no objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the consensus that this is a poor dictionary definition.Tooncool64 (talk) 21:07, 19 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd sniping[edit]

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

Appears to be a neologism. Valereee (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:NOTDICT "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." Also MOS:NEO "(Neologisms) ... should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last." — Maile (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:PERSISTENCE, no indication at all that this term is discussed as a a term in scholarly literature. It appears to fall under WP:NOTNEO and, even if it weren't a neologism, it would be barred through WP:DICTDEF. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may or may not be enough coverage of the term to mention it at xkcd, in which case this should redirect there. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a dictionary definiton. Please see WP:NOTDICT. Even if it were expanded upon to be more than just a definition, the subject doesn't meet the GNG (see WP:Notability). While a few sources outside xckd have mentioned Nerd Sniping, they're essentially just saying the definition, and not enough of those sources meet the criteria for reliability. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 11:41, 20 December 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 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambalavana Navalar[edit]

Ambalavana Navalar (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)

Deleted and declined x 4 at Draft:Ambalavana Navalar and created in mainspace. I can find references to texts written by him, but nothing to indicate notability. I'm sure offline non English sourcing may exist, but at the moment this is cross-wiki spam with no ability to establish whether he meets N:AUTHOR or other biographic notability Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Sri Lanka. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Scattered mentions in Gbooks, but nothing substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Does it have a bearing on notability if his books have been translated into English? If they have, would this likely make him a more acceptable subject for English Wikipedia, than if they haven't (ignoring for now any other aspect of notability)? Rupples (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. And non English sourcing is fine, but as near as I can tell from Google translate, the Tamil ones don't approach N:Book leading to issues for him as an author or poet. Star Mississippi 01:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. This is tricky. The first "exhortation" as its translated in the Tamil Wiki (doesn't look to be part of Wikipedia) is [17]. See page 7, which in translated form under Ambalava Novelist (20th century Area) ties in with what's written in the article. Continues on page 8 and very top of page 9. The book is here: [18]. It's difficult to evaluate whether this is a reliable source. Rupples (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This biography does not appear to satisfy author notability on its face, so a check of the references was in order. Reference 1 is a wiki, and so not a reliable source. References 2 and 4 are images from a book, and are the same, but cannot be machine-translated. They are probably by the subject rather than about the subject. The third reference can be machine-translated, and appears to be by the subject rather than about the subject.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 tamil.wiki/ The source is a wiki, and cannot be considered a reliable source. Yes Yes No Yes
2 archive.org/details/SatgurumanimalaiAmbalavanaNavalar1912 An image of an article in a book. Because it is an image, it cannot be machine-translated, and so cannot be treated as a reliable source. Probably Probably No Probably
3 shaivam.org/scripture/Tamil This appears to be a translation of a writing by the subject. Yes Not about the subject Unknown Probably
4 archive.org/details/SatgurumanimalaiAmbalavanaNavalar1912 Same as 2 Probably Probably No Probably

So the article does not appear to be supported by the references, at least not if verifiability and notability are observed. The subject may be notable based on other sources, so draftification would be in order, except that there is already a declined draft. This article is a better draft than the current draft, and so can reasonably replace the current draft. The submitter should be warned that tendentiously resubmitting a draft without improving it is disruptive and may lead to sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment if it can be verified that he started Vaddukoddai Hindu College, that could be a redirect target. However that article has issues of its own which I've just tried to address. Star Mississippi 15:23, 19 December 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 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Thompson Foundation Classic[edit]

John Thompson Foundation Classic (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 WP:SIGCOV is present for this preseason football game to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 18:15, 16 December 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 23:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad Azizi[edit]

Sajad Azizi (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 notability, this guy's major achievement is winning "Asian Junior title" which is far from making him notable. Sports2021 (talk) 18:04, 16 December 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen M. O'Sullivan[edit]

Kathleen M. O'Sullivan (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)

Discussed in a bulk nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Marie Sweet, which was closed as keep for essentially procedural reasons. O'Sullivan's notability was not specifically discussed. Neither the planned nor actual nomination by Presidents Obama and Trump were successful, and I see no other path to notability for this attorney. Star Mississippi 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Law. Star Mississippi 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Washington. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. In the previous mass-nomination, I noted that this subject "was nominated by one president and then declared, but not submitted, as a nominee by the next president, which is also a highly unusual and noteworthy circumstance". While I do think that this adds an extra layer of possible notability, I think the correct outcome here is to merge to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies, with a note indicating that the subject was also proposed, but not formally nominated, by President Trump. BD2412 T 18:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article, but here we have a related article as a ATD with regards to her failed judicial nomination, and a sentence noting her failure to be renominated under Trump can be included there as well. User:Let'srun 15:51, 17 December 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. in light of discussion and article improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Neslin[edit]

Scott Neslin (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 sentence biography article with no in-depth sources to establish notability. The two references are both career summaries that read like resumes. After searching, unable to find independent sources with coverage of this person. Article created on 22 April 2017. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The subject holds the "Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing" at an Ivy League school. He's got 8,000 citations, 25 papers with 100+ citations on Scopus, and an h-index of 42. Clear pass of NPROF.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 16 December 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 Procedural close‎. Duplicate nomination; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olusola Oyebade. (non-admin closure). Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola Oyebade[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Olusola Oyebade (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)

Deleted three time check here, and eventually modify the name. Also ref bombed with citations that are either pass mentioned like this https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/27/fashion.pressandpublishing here

Pass no message with unreliable sources like this,

And inaccessible source

like this

Not referring to the subject

like this

Sources Focusing on the Fashions Finest Africa show

like this. 

Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 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 23:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola Oyebade[edit]

Olusola Oyebade (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)
  • Deleted three time, and eventually modify the name check here
  • Also ref bombed with citations that are either pass mentioned like here
  • Pass no message with unreliable sources like this,
  • And inaccessible source like this
  • Not referring to the subject like this
  • Sources Focusing on the Fashions Finest Africa show like this.

Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
Many thanks for your observations. The inaccessible source have been fixed. It was active when the page was created.
Also, he is the founder of Fashions Finest Africa and Epic show so that citation was only to reference the information.
Most importantly, I could create the page because I noted that the subject is notable enough and meets all the Wikipedia requirements for notable people — and as per evolving circumstances since the last attempt in 2017.
Also, the reference on “The Guardian” was relevant as a secondary source to further show notability. For further clarification and based on my research, the subject was one of the notable fashion personalities who activated for the “Black Issue” on Vogue Italia in 2008, which you can also verify yourself.
Regardless, thanks for bringing my attention to the inaccessible source. Many thanks. Mevoelo (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mevoelo: Thank you for your response. I am mostly concerned with the citations as most of the reliable and objective citations focused on the Epic Shows and Fashions Finest Africa anyways let's have the view of other editors.Thank you. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I really and sincerely appreciate your objective observations. But if you check the references properly — you’d see a lot of reliable citations that focused on him as well. But I’d still do well to see if there are more available reliable citations to be added to strengthen this part.
Once again, thank you and warmest regards.
Cheers! Mevoelo (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Fashion, Nigeria, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly full of paid advertorials, all its sources read like repackaged publicity and articles Pulse, Vanguard, and The Nation all have profiles of him with the exact same wording. Just another Nigerian profile with the same sources that have been deemed 'RS', when they clearly aren't. Nswix (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Prepackaged publicity? The subject is clearly notable and founded one of the largest fashion shows in Nigeria. Also an actor who have featured in renowned Nigerian blockbusters.
    thanks… Mevoelo (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He may be notable, but the sources certainly don't prove this. They prove he has a PR team that hires semi-reliable media companies to write up similarly-worded, florid articles about him. Nswix (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-reliable companies? Pulse Nigeria, Vanguard, Punch, the Independent, Telegraph, ThisDayLive, the Guardian… non-notable or semi-reliable? These are literally some of the most reliable sources in the region concerned. He was also mentioned as one of the key advocates in Vogue Italia in the popular 2008 Black Issue (also found in the Guardian UK). The only inaccessible source has been fixed, the sources to the Fashion Show was just to reference significant information, the passing mentions are just a few which was used as secondary sources.
    Perhaps, there may be ways it can be improved for better projection. But deletion on the basis of non-notability is more or less a misunderstanding of the subject, in my opinion. This is also a way for me to learn more and gain more expertise.
    Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Mevoelo (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is a very notable personality in Nigedia. Has won notable awards, and has featured in some top-rated African movies. Clearly meets all the notability requirements and is well sourced.

Mevoelo (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Police officer that got promoted with the same name, nothing found for this event promoter person. Award seems dubious, it's also poorly sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Acting career is trivial roles. Event promoter is so generic it could be just about anything. I don't find much for the fashion/model agency he founded either. I'm still not seeing notability, does come across as puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello
    I have made some major edits which you may want to check out. Also, he is
    most known as “Sola Oyebade” but I used “Olusola” which is his full name because of a protection (I’m not familiar with what this means and I didn’t think it was a problerm). I guess this is why you’re not able to find a lot of sources with that name.
    Let me know what you think please.
    Thank you. Mevoelo (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an example of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's almost certainly a paid advertorial, masquerading as a legitimate article, but we can't prove it one way or another. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 18 December 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 Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willowbrook station (SkyTrain)[edit]

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

as per the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley City Centre station and my incorrect attempt to nominate multiple articles there: redirect to Expo Line (SkyTrain)#Surrey–Langley extension based on the same rationale as the recent redirect of Langley City Centre station Joeyconnick (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bakerview–166 Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fleetwood station (SkyTrain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
152 Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Timbers station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hillcrest–184 Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clayton station (SkyTrain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Joeyconnick (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:57, 16 December 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 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch in heroic Shahnameh[edit]

Baloch in heroic Shahnameh (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. Sourcing seems to be of insufficient quality for mainspace. Alternatively, a merger to Shahnameh could work. Star Mississippi 16:49, 16 December 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 01:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power sign (astrology)[edit]

Power sign (astrology) (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 meet the general notability guidelines (GNG) due to lack of significant coverage (SIGCOV) of the topic. PROD was recently removed, but searching for "power sign" astrology on Google search and Books did not yield any relevant results. This is not surprising since "Power sign" isn't an actual concept in astrology (as compared to positive/negative sign, cardinal/fixed/mutable sign, fire/air/earth/water sign which are actual concepts in astrology). Describing certain astrological signs as 'powerful', 'energetic', etc. does not mean that it's a "Power sign" (as if it's an actual concept or categorization in astrology, which it is not), and doing so violates the WP:Original research/SYNTH policy. Some1 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as synthesis at best, and probably synthesis of unreliable sources at that. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find anything that suggests this is a real term, so I wouldn't redirect. The reasons at nom are more than sufficient for deletion. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've reviewed the Books results that prompted me to deprod and I don't find WP:SIGCOV. ~Kvng (talk) 01:10, 17 December 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. WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Sabharwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sandeep Sabharwal (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)

Filled with press releases and announcements. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 14:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article removed under G5, therefore this afd should be closed. Macbeejack ☎ 15:00, 16 December 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. WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omkar Prasad Baidya[edit]

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

Unable to pass WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 14:19, 16 December 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. WP:G5 by User:Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heer Kaur[edit]

Heer Kaur (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 yet passes WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 14:13, 16 December 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 List of DC Comics characters: B. "Light merge", whatever that means, probably only a little bit? Sandstein 14:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brutale (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no reliable secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:36, 16 December 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 11:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Gilbert[edit]

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

This article was deleted in 2013 due to lack of notability. It was recreated in 2014 and a 2015 AfD resulted in a "keep" decision. The 2015 AfD decision seems misguided in hindsight. Her entire notability hinges on one statement by her in a CNBC story. That is not substantial RS coverage. There is no RS coverage of her aside from being quoted once in a story from 2012, which is not even coverage of her. Thenightaway (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yeah I don't get the last AfD either; she was interviewed, so she's notable? Regardless, I tried her name and "coffee", nothing turns up. I can't see anything we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant (in-depth) coverage. Note that 3 of the 4 of the "keep" comments from the 2015 AfD are from now-blocked users, including 2 sockpuppets. Neutralitytalk 02:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing any significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I can't see enough in terms of reviews to warrant a pass of WP:NAUTHOR either, but would be happy to be proved wrong. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:04, 19 December 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 Jon Levy (behaviorist). Sandstein 14:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Influencers Dinner[edit]

Influencers Dinner (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)

There is very lttile to indicate that this is a notable company or business concept. This received some flash-in-the-pan coverage in 2013 and has subsequently not received any meaningful coverage in RS. If there is any content worth keeping, it can easily be merged with Jon Levy (behaviorist), the person who runs this business. Thenightaway (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist). Both articles have a very strong feel of undisclosed paid editing and meat/socking. This one has a single source that would help here, the Forbes is by a "former contributor" and can't be used to support notability. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist) - It's hardly what the article claims is a "a secret dining experience" when it has its own website. And not a new concept, considering the entertainment business has been doing such things for over a century. William Randolph Hearst was famous for his gatherings. Heads of government do the same thing - gather a variety of people to a given event. Since the onset of the internet, "Influencer" has become a common label, but there's nothing new about a gathering of diverse dinner guests. — Maile (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist). This dinner is secret like Fight Club and thus by definition cannot independently meet WP:GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:22, 19 December 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. There is less discussion of the substance of the sources than I would like, but sourcing is clearly present, and the merge argument is off the mark. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Guyana Defence Force helicopter crash[edit]

2023 Guyana Defence Force helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Accidental helicopter crash during a political crisis and no armed conflict. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the helicopter was flying near the border because of the crises. The goverment increased border patrolea. Due to the crises this helicopter was flying and thus crashed. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems almost certain that the crash was an accident and unrelated to the actual crisis. It doesn't affect the crisis itself. I have also mentioned in the talk page for it that WP:NOTNEWS, and while it's true that the reason it was there was because of the border patrols, that is only incidental to the crash, itself a fatality. Similarly, a Brazilian army truck full of munitions crashed and exploded near the border as part of reinforcing the region, but that deserves no Wikipedia article, and neither does this. FelipeFritschF (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per longstanding consensus, routine military aviation accidents are not considered notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is already mentioned in 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis in a "missing" section, which I will update have updated. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While it can possibly be included in the larger article, it was also one of the deadliest incidents that the Guyanese military experienced since its independence, it resulted with the death of a high-level officer and the notability of the crash itself has received international attention.--WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now then check back after sometime if it ever had WP:LASTING impact or not. Capitals00 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it is the other way around. It is WP:TOOSOON to determine lasting impact, and we should come back to this once the time passes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page since the Guyanese Defence Forces PROBABLY were preparing for an invasion from Venezuela, and one of the helicopters prepared had just crashed. The page may be a WP:NOTNEWS but so is many of the recent aviation accidents in 2023. 71.223.172.140 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC) — 71.223.172.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - I see no rationale that Wikipedia would be made worse for keeping this article, and it has the potential to marginally improve Wikipedia. I also just read the NOT NEWS bullet points, and could not identify which of them would be used to justify the deletion of this article. Thanks to all for their contributions. KConWiki (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge key details to Guyana Defence Force - we have very little on the air wing there. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, as this appears to be a well-sourced incident. BD2412 T 02:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced incident, notable if it happened in the U.S. Tooncool64 (talk) 07:31, 24 December 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 11:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Abouelenein[edit]

Maha Abouelenein (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)

There is very little to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject appears to be a consultancy influence type who has received no coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not intended to be a platform to promote subjects or make them notable. Thenightaway (talk) 11:05, 16 December 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 11:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-party leads[edit]

First-party leads (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)

There is very little to indicate this is a notable term. A search on google search results in no academic discussion of the term. There doesn't appear to be any discussion of this term in other reliable sources. Thenightaway (talk) 10:51, 16 December 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 Shahzada Dawood#Personal life. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Dawood[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are profiles, WP:SPS sources and PR. UPE. scope_creepTalk 08:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles falls on Wikipedia's guidelines of Notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)), which doesn't state that you can't have a wikipedia page if you are not a published author. Her page has over hundreds and thousands of views, shouldn't that be a reason to keep this?
The idea for Wikipedia is to give public access of knowledge to all. If people are looking for Christine and finding it helpful, it serves the purpose. I find it baseless to delete. Inthejungle32 (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is a WP:SPA likely a WP:UPE sent in by the agency to save this dreadful article. scope_creepTalk 18:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information about what? There is more information on her husband's death than about her. I"m not sure why people would be looking for her on wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agree. this article is not noteable other than her husband's death and whom has his own article. there are many sources online about her and there is reallt no need for a wikipedia article. 86.17.54.133 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Outside of her husband's death, there is nothing about her. I can't find any mentions of her that aren't in relation to her husband; her career seems rather routine/non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shahzada Dawood#Personal life as an alternative to deletion, I did not find sources that would satisfy GNG or NBASIC. No SIGCOV found, if there are at least WP:THREE sources that satisfy notability guidelines stated above, please ping. The reasoning for "keep" stated above is not convincing. ~ Tails Wx 16:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Samad Dawood[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources in the article are about routine business dealings. This was all I could find [21], a trivial mention. Non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 16 December 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 or redirect to a yet to be determined article‎. There is no agreement about the target article, and so interested editors are invited to either discuss this further on the article talk page, or just be bold and do what they consider most appropriate, subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 13:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 13 (Philippines)[edit]

Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 13 (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete because DENR-MGB Regional Office No. 13 isn't notable, it fails the notability guideline for organizations. References for it are just mentions. There is little mention in outside sources. Mines and Geosciences Bureau has its own article, and the little bit (there is almost nothing other than its mandate) about Office #13 could fit in there. The bulk of the content of this article doesn't deal with the Regional Office, instead it is a rehash about the minerals and geology of the Caraga Region of northeastern Mindanao, more appropriately covered in Philippine Mobile Belt where much of it already is. Since none of that geology material is referenced here, and it is duplicative of material there, any useful material should be moved there and subject to improvement at its more appropriate location. --Bejnar (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article currently seems to focus on the geology of the Caraga region, rather than the geologic bureau in charge of it. I haven't done a copyvio check, but provided that's not an issue, we might just be able to rename the article "geology of the Caraga region (philipines)" remove some superfluous information, and suddenly have a pretty decent article about something else entirely.--Licks-rocks (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is two fold, (1) the geology of the Caraga region is not significantly different from that of the Philippine Mobile Belt, but the other problem is that (2) none of the geology that this editor put forth is referenced to any sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, that's a real shame. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merging with the Philippine Mobile Belt is my recommendation in agreement with User:Bejnar. Paul H. (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about a bureau/sub-unit of a top-level government organization. To use an American-centric example, it's as if hte county/city office of the DMV decided they should have their own Wikipedia article. With that in mind, I'd argue in favor of a redirect to DENR. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mines and Geosciences Bureau and disperse relevant content to different pages (geology of Caraga region to the Philippine Mobile Belt page, mandate and relevant work of the regional office to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau page and so on.) -Ian Lopez @ 15:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Philippine Mobile Belt per Bejnar's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are multiple Redirect/Merge targets suggested. This looks like a possible ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still have 3 different Redirect/Merge targets mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 16 December 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. I'm not seeing a strong argument to keep, and I am seeing a persuasive argument against redirecting. If a list entry is created at some point, this discussion does not preclude a future redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Spill Magazine[edit]

The Spill 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)

Article about an online music magazine, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMEDIA. As always, websites are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to have their significance externally validated by being the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis -- but this is referenced almost entirely to the magazine's own self-published content, either on its own website or on Google Groups copies of it, and the only third-party source is not reliable or GNG-worthy either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires WP:GNG-worthy sourcing in third party media independent of itself, and that requirement cannot be bypassed by length of existence, access to artists or any other criterion that isn't supported by GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing's pulling up in terms of 3rd party coverage
Mach61 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Paulie302 above, weak Keep. 30 years of existence for a magazine is very notable, and I see it quoted (I mean, OUTSIDE Wikipedia) as independent reference (see GB). But due to lack of coverage about it that I can see, redirect to List of music magazines#S would work for me, if we accept to have a non-blue item in that list.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. How do folks feel about a Redirect here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 16 December 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. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadidia Diarra[edit]

Kadidia Diarra (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 subject, a Malian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 08:35, 16 December 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 Myanmar women's national football team as an ATD. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nilar Win[edit]

Nilar Win (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 subject made a single appearance for the Myanmar women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Myanmar women's national football team per nom. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:43, 18 December 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 Merry Christmas One and All!. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to All! Tour[edit]

Merry Christmas to All! Tour (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 meet WP:NTOUR "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." There are not adequate sources that analyze the tour ie critical reception/synopsis. Most are only an announcement that it occurred/was to occur. Information about the tour/TV special can be summarized in the background of the far more notable successor tour Merry Christmas One and All! and List of Mariah Carey live performances. Heartfox (talk) 07:47, 16 December 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. Although there is some disagreement as to whether there are sufficient sources for notability, the concerns voiced by the nominator and the other "delete" opinion have been addressed by citing additional sources in the article. Their pertinence has remained contested only by the nominator, but not convincingly; they have not made any argument as to why the sources do not meet WP:GNG's requirements. (I revised this closure after being approached on my talk page.) Sandstein 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorino Milanesio[edit]

Vittorino Milanesio (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 SIGCOV found; sources intended to establish notability only mention Milanesio in passing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like it should be a keep; this source comments that he was the joint-subject of a book. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't know Italian but in addition to the above book I was able to find another book from 2021 that says it has "an important section of the book dedicated" to Milanesio, which I added to the article. Thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it by adding that other source. --Habst (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Book sections focusing on him from decades after his career indicate notability and show a pass of WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would help if editors could identify or link to new sources found so that others can evaluate them as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The book in question is recounting the gatherings hosted by the committee the author is president of and just contains anecdotes from the subjects. This is not in any way independent enough.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for voting. In addition to the two books we found so far, I found several more sources -- the ones I could machine translate I added to the article, which include important information that he ran alongside world record holder Pietro Mennea in winning the 1977 national championships. I also found several recent magazine articles about Milanesio (this isn't even including contemporary coverage) -- the problem is, I couldn't find a way to extract the text from them for machine translation, so I added them to Talk:Vittorino Milanesio. Do you by any chance know Italian so you can help us translate those three sources for the article? --Habst (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to get another review of additional sources added to the article and listed on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –  the new sources added don't seem to fulfill notability guidelines –  presiding over ceremonies and being on the cover of a book don't make you notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InvadingInvader, thank you for the comment. If the books (there are two we've found so far) cover the subject in an independent, reliable, and significant manner, then they would fulfill WP:GNG per the letter of the policy. This isn't even considering the more recent magazine articles we've found on the talk page that still can be added to the article. --Habst (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – More sources have now been located by Habst, and there are certainly more offline. Svartner (talk) 13:28, 23 December 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 Propranolol. ✗plicit 00:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idropranolol[edit]

Idropranolol (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 meet WP:GNG. Only search results in google scholar are non-significant coverage in a retracted review [22] and listed on a table [23]. The only other sites I can find are database entries with no description. I do not have access to the offline sources, but I am doubtful they are both significant coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philopoemen Constantinidi[edit]

Philopoemen Constantinidi (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)

looks like nonnotable artist. No articlre improvemebt since it was tagged in April - Altenmann >talk 06:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable per collection at Centre Pompidou and Benezit encyclopedic entry. Article needs improvement Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like the article on in Hellenica World The site looks so old, that it might precede the Wikipedia article. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Philopoemen+Constantinidi&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hellenicaworld.com%2FGreece%2FPerson%2Fen%2FPhilopoemenConstantinidi.html So sorry. Hellenica World was copied from Wikipedia and says so. Looking for a citation for death date. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - still a very ugly article, but I think it now has enough citations for WP:ARTIST. Very close paraphrasing of parts of Benezit. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, can we please have arguments based in policy and guidelines that focus on whether or not notability can be established? Please be specific and avoid general statements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry I wasn't more specific... I agree with Hermann Heilner Giebenrath that being in the collection at Centre Pompidou and Benezit encyclopedic entry establishes notability WP:ARTIST for purposes of being included in Wikipedia. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The arguments opposing deletion are entirely deficient in their applicability to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, while the arguments presented to delete are largely focused on a failure of meeting WP:GNG. Daniel (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Raval[edit]

Sanjay Raval (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 author and producer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. --Gazal world (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Gazal world (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. MisterWizzy (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Give chance to edit becauseit is partially notable. Tablasingh (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Gujarat. Kpgjhpjm 07:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to meet WP:GNG. Freinland (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable right now . fails in WP:GNG Worldiswide (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Wiki97828)[reply]
  • Keep It should not be deleted because he is very popular amoung people in Gujarat. Takarsinh (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is an eminent personality amongs gujarati community as writer, motivitional speaker and as a film producer. Due to which many people search about him on internet. But because of not having Wikipedia article about him many people will not able get proper information about him. And many time people get wrong information about. so as per my point of view this page should not be deleted.ShahBhai (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Wikipedia doesn't care if an article subject is "popular", what matters is if sources can establish notability which no one here seems to be talking about. Please offer some policy-based arguments focusing on references either in the article or ones you have located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I find not substantial mentions of this individual, [24] trivial, but I'm unsure if it's even the same person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 16 December 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 with no prejudice to renomination as per scope_creep's last comment. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chawarin Perdpiriyawong[edit]

Chawarin Perdpiriyawong (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)

Bit part actor who started work yesterday. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR, profiles and interviews. scope_creepTalk 11:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Not sure how the individual "Started work yesterday" when the article says it was in 2022. I'm unsure of the awards won/listed in the article, so I'm not !voting until we can comment on how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not commenting on the sources but for his notability, as WP:SINGER he's had (at least) a song charting on a national music chart [25] (link found there [26]) BloubDeFontenilles (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, I'm assuming there is more coverage of the individual in Thai sources. I can find a few mentions in the Pinoy press, and much coverage of this individual in the "Boy Love" genre, which seems to be very popular in Thailand. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Source 4 in the article seems reliable. Rest are somewhat trivial, we have more than enough though to build out the article. Having a charted single in also contributing to notability. The individual is also mentioned in Filipino sources and in Singapore, suggesting broad popularity across that corner of the world. The individual seems to pass notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 may be reliable but its not significant. It is an interview, stating in the article "Get to know Nunew Chawarin". It reads like a PR piece, nothing more. That is whole problem with the article. The guy hasn't done a thing. All the coverage is PR and inteviews. There is nothing significant. scope_creepTalk 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winner of multiple awards, such as Manimekhala Awards (which is a rebirth of Mekhala Awards which was a top award for TV in Thailand), Nataraj Awards (a prestigious award). I think nominator should also check out Category:Newspapers published in Thailand. Many sources cite as references are well-known newspapers. Before Internet days, those had circulations over hundred thousands, some even reached 1 million copies per day like Thairath. ( --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the original Mekhala Awards were prestigious and the awardees were decided by a panel. This is a different type of award. It a popular vote award, meaning anybody can phone in or vote by app to vote. The downside of the award presentation in 2022 was one of the countries leading actors who has been internationally recognised got 14 votes while this dude got thousands. So its not a good award and can't be used to establish notability. On top of that is based on attraction, more than anything else by its own admission and that is not a good metric to determine if somebody is notable. Model articles are deleted right, left and centre on here for exactly that reason. Also, it hasn't got a wikipedia article. Also paper circulation size is no indication of quality either. The Daily Mail which is banned on here, because its crap has got a readership of 2 million odd on any one day. So that makes no sense either. Well will look at all these PR references in the next day. scope_creepTalk 11:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 5 catergories of Mekhala Awards have popularity vote as seen from the description of this post https://www.facebook.com/ManeeMaekkala2022/photos/a.100878265953558/144850098223041/. The Outstanding Y Couple Award do have popularity vote and he came out second according to vote result https://www.facebook.com/ManeeMaekkala2022/posts/pfbid023fHBttZXkaxyyuE8chKxBTka7hnBHodnKQ18mdBnT1WDeT4ai4C6VgYz6iqNYeEl but get the Outstanding award. (I think they pick outstanding award recipient to be different from popular one). I don't see New Star – Y Series award in the voting so the award is based on merit alone. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going on what it was actually saying on the competition site not on a facebook post. scope_creepTalk 05:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I know the website address of the competition site? --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A popular figure with a very large following in the market he's active in. I'm not sure why profile pieces and celebrity news should be inadmissible as references to establish notability; if that were the case we wouldn't have any references for a large number of celebrity biographies. While they're not particularly high-effort pieces of journalism, profile pieces by major news sites serve as an indicator of public interest, and these ones by Kom Chad Luek (Oct 2022), Sanook (Mar 2023) and INN News (Sep 2023) all provide overviews of the subject's career in the writers' own voices. And while the content of interviews don't usually count as a secondary source, having major interviews conducted by multiple established publications can also serve as an indicator of interest, with commentary from the interviewers that taken together can partly contribute to notability. These include the Thairath piece mentioned above (Jun 2022), (The Standard (31 Aug 2023), and Woody Milintachinda (Oct 2022 and Sep 2023). The subject has also been featured in traditional glossy magazines L'Officiel Thailand (Apr 2022) and Praew (Jul 2022). In any case, he should meet WP:NACTOR #1, having had starring roles in the TV series Cutie Pie and the film After Sundown, the latter of which lacks an article but should be notable by way of reviews in The Standard and Sanook. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting comment you've made on profile pieces which are the majority of these references. The thing that lets me down, in a reflection of the type of comments you've made in the past in similar Afd's, is the fact that you seem to disregard and indeed wholly ignore the huge effect PR agencies make in shaping public perceptions of a particular individual, to try and ensure that person has a successful career in the media. In the article above: [27], choosen for particular reason, it states in the opening sentence "Get to know Nunew Chawarin, a new actor who is famous from the Cutie Pie series", a typical PR agency statement. The article has statement that indicates that its a PR agency. This one: [28], all of it is from social media. Are we supposed to suspend disbelief here due to an argument of quanity meets quality at some level. I don't think so. We will go all the references in the first block today or tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 08:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your tendency to oversimplify and draw unproven conclusions suggest that you don't have a good enough understanding of how Thai entertainment reporting works, or are purposefully ignoring the nuances for argument's sake. That is simply the style of writing used by entertainment reporters. Yes, they often have close connections with celebrities and their agents, which sometimes makes ascertaining their independence difficult, but nothing in those pieces have anything to indicate direct PR material. For an example of actual PR material, the first Thai Post citation in the article is basically identical to this piece on Sanook. This clearly indicates it's a PR piece (and the language is quite clear for native Thai readers). It's unfortunate that it's usual practice in Thai entertainment news not to clearly label these supplied PR pieces, but that in no way means that they contain nothing but PR. They also do original reporting, which the Thairath interview clearly is. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Thai newspapers industry is graded like every other industry. I'll look at everyone of these newspapers along with the references, today or tommorrow. Trying to qualify this argument as though that make is ok is disengeous and dishonest, particularly on a paid article. scope_creepTalk 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Este actor y cantante es uno de los más reconocidos actualmente en Tailandia a pesar de que su primera serie fuera transmitida en 2022 ha alcanzado numerosos premios como actor y cantante otorgados por especialistas. Es solicitado para interpretar OST de diferentes series. Sus fans son numerosos en Tailandia y en el extranjero. 152.207.147.61 (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translation. For convenience, here is a Google translation of the above message. If anyone with a knowledge of Spanish notices errors in Google's effort, please post corrections. JBW (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This actor and singer is one of the most recognized currently in Thailand, despite the fact that his first series was broadcast in 2022, he has achieved numerous awards as an actor and singer awarded by specialists. He is requested to perform OSTs from different series. His fans are numerous in Thailand and abroad.
  • Comment I think it will no-consensus !vote at best with 4 keep !votes. I don't see the point of doing a source analysis. I don't have the time at the moment leading up to Christmas. I do intend to do a source review in the article and remove anything that is low-quality or non-standard. If it comes to it that what is left is junk then I will renominate, but can't do anything at the moment. scope_creepTalk 23:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:09, 16 December 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 Trunked radio system as an AtD which hasn't been objected to in nearly 14 days. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Mobile Radio[edit]

Specialized Mobile Radio (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)

Seems like a very niche concept of dubious notability. One offline hit on GScholar of dubious reliability. GBook is a bit better, but sems still limited to legal documents/manuals. Our article is mostly unreferenced - effectively two footnotes only to unlinked sources, only one of which seems to use this term and in passing. It is not a hoax (here is the deorted archived version of the EL for FCC definiton of the concept: [29]) but due to problems with notability and referencing I think we should consider WP:ATD-R if not outright deletion, which frankly may be justified due to notability issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete insignificant and dubias, delete per nom. Freinland (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Trunked radio system: the subject certainly qualifies for a section in the merge target, but not enough notability to justify a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Varagić[edit]

Ivana Varagić (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 subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:04, 16 December 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 Albania women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arta Rama[edit]

Arta Rama (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)

Redirect either to List of Albania women's international footballers or List of Kosovo women's international footballers. Perhaps the former since she made more appearances for Albania? All I can find on the subject are passing mentions (1, 2, 3). Not to be confused with the judge of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marija Žižić[edit]

Marija Žižić (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 subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kee (lawyer)[edit]

Robert Kee (lawyer) (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 role does not seem significant enough to merit mention at Human Rights Commission (New Zealand), where Commissioners are named. I see no other route to biographic notability as it news coverage seemed to come from the appointment Star Mississippi 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Law, and New Zealand. Star Mississippi 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find sources demonstrating that he meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO from a WP:BEFORE search. Looks like he's been a Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator in recent years, which is a fairly low-level judicial appointment (the tribunal doesn't even have a Wikipedia page; arguably it should, but kind of demonstrates that the role doesn't add anything to notability). The press around his appointment to an HRC role (and not even the top role!) was mainly about the fact that he was appointed instead of a woman lawyer recommended by officials.
Also seems the article creator was blocked for sockpuppeting during which they created several articles about non-notable alumni from St Peter's College... Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The association with St Peter's College also struck me. We had another editor who mass-produced bios for non-notable St Peter's College alumni and that was a different editor to this article's creator (or any of their socks). We should go through the contributions and PROD other bios, too. Schwede66 17:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% convinced the "other editor" is not a sock, it's too much of a coincidence that there are 2 different St Peter's College promoters with the second account starting shortly after the first was blocked. I agree that there are bound to be many more articles of similar non-notability to this one created by both accounts. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Schwede66, I do believe you may have erred here. Rick570 created a lot of St Peter's cruft articles that were deleted here and went on to sock with Dome1000, Jam6700, Emendment and Yelsorc. If there is another could you please enlighten us as to who so we can check their contributions. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only non press release is single about how a politician gave a mate a high paid job over the recommended candidate. Not enough for a BLP. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:02, 21 December 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 Francina Díaz Mestre. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francina International Modeling Agency[edit]

Francina International Modeling Agency (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 was going to redirect to Francina Díaz Mestre, but as it survived PROD (courtesy @Mirliz and Kvng:, I thought it might be controversial. Mestre is notable, but I cannot find N:ORG level coverage of the agency. Star Mississippi 02:59, 16 December 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. Though it is clear that the sourcing could still use improvement, a persuasive argument has been provided against a merger, and there is no consensus for deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Bank Archives and Museum[edit]

State Bank Archives and Museum (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 any 3P significanr coverage of this specific mueseum, lots of coverage of other monetary museum Sohom (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article contains a significant number of independent sources. The nomination seems to be unusual Ldm1954 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I express my gratitude for dedicating your valuable time to assess the content of this article. I am puzzled by the inclination to remove the article based on its perceived limited coverage in the media. The article has been meticulously supported by a substantial number of citations, which serve to underscore its relevance when juxtaposed with other institutions classified under the umbrella term 'monetary museums,' as appropriately characterized in your review. The relative obscurity of the museum in question should not be construed as indicative of its lack of significance or as a rationale for excluding it from Wikipedia. The SBI Archives and Museum, despite its lesser-known status, stands as a pivotal resource for both economic historians and inquisitive citizens, providing a foundational point for delving into the intricate history of banking and financial economy in India/Bengal. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that other monetary mueseums are relevant. However, this specific article is about the SBI museum in Kolkata, and I personally have not been able to find any third-party coverage of this specific museum. If you cannot provide enough sources on this specific museum, then that means that this specific museum is not notable and should not have a article. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I appreciate your reply; however, my intended point may not be fully grasped. I do not intend to address the pertinence of other monetary museums in general. Rather, my focus lies in delineating the significance of the SBI Archives and Museums vis-à-vis other institutions of similar nature. Specifically, despite potentially receiving limited media coverage, its salient relevance and prospective importance should not be obscured. Simply put, your rationale positing 'less coverage = not notable' is particularly flawed in this specific context, as the crux of the issue lies in the distinctive nature of this institution being the State Bank of India Archives and Museum, and not some independent private initiatives. In the case of the latter, or even if it were some lesser-known government initiatives, perhaps I would have agreed with you. This Wikipedia article functions as a guide for researchers and the general populace, facilitating their exploration of the SBI Museum and Archive and promoting its global recognition. I kindly request that this article not be subject to removal or merger but rather undergo enhancement. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few instances of third-party coverage:
a) Sahapedia: https://museumsofindia.org/museum/12396/sbi-archive-and-museum
b) The Hindu: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/SBI-MUSEUM-A-peek-into-the-evolution-of-Indian-banking/article20468064.ece
c) Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/best-crypto-exchanges-apps-in-india-for-2023/articleshow/105462734.cms
d) The Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/governor-visits-sbi-archive-revisits-bapu-s/
e) The Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/a-walk-down-history-when-india-banked-on-calcutta/articleshow/73103013.cms
f) A notable school visit to the SBI Archives and Museum: https://mhsforgirls.edu.in/archive/mhs-archive/visit-to-sbi-museum-and-archives Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the SBI Archives and Museum's scholarly importance from a historical perspective: see, pp 43-46, https://bankinghistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009-1-bulletin.pdf#page=31 Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
b) and d) are the only two that confer any kind of notabiity. But I don't think that passes the 'significant coverage' POV of the notability guidelines. I'm open to the idea of a merge/redirect to the main SBI article as proposed by @Rupples. Sohom (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sneharshidasgupta. This Wikipedia article is not here to facilitate exploration of the SBI Museum and Archive and promote its global recognition — for that interested parties can go direct to the museum's own website. What we're looking for is independent significant coverage in reliable sources to determine whether in Wikipedia's evaluation this museum is notable. Out of the 14 references currently in the article only this one is about the SBI museum[30] and may count towards notability though looking at the raison d'etre of the LBB website makes me cautious of accepting its article as independent, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The rest of the references are about other museums, history of banking in India and history of SBI — not its museum, or they are not independent as they're from the SBI museum itself. Rupples (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to the references above a) is a directory listing; b) maybe OK, can't accurately judge as behind paywall; c) about cryptocurrencies, irrelevant; d) maybe OK, can't accurately judge as behind paywall; e) about the RBI museum; f) school visit, not significant coverage; and the bankinghistory.org piece merely mentions the museum on page 46, the article is about the bank's history, not the museum. Needs more coverage to satisfy GNG IMO. Rupples (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the wrong link for c and e! Revised links, access here: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/sbis-history-cell-remains-one-of-kolkatas-best-kept-secrets/articleshow/4394836.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/guv-seeks-sbi-help-for-coin-museum/articleshow/4225721.cms Nevertheless, based on your comment, I do understand these passing mentions of the SBI Archives would not suffice considering these are not major coverage. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples Thank you for your comment; which, if I may add, is more constructive. I understand the rationale of your argument. Henceforth, exercise your discretion judiciously! As a new editor, I lack familiarity with the procrustean bed of notability guidelines. I shall be careful. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to find coverage in non-English sources, if you're proficient in other languages? I rely on such sources being found by others and evaluating them using Google translations. Rupples (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not. I will go through a few vernacular sources and see if I can find notable mentions. Thanks for the recommendation! Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. SBI's history cell remains one of Kolkata's best kept secrets [31] IMO counts towards the GNG, so getting there. Rupples (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is not the best quality but it definitely counts towards notability Sohom (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge content directly on the topic, namely the Archive, Museum and Library sections, and redirect to a new heading in the State Bank of India article if independent coverage is not deemed sufficient for notability. Rupples (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC). Revised opinion set out below. Rupples (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To make it more explicit, I no longer agree with my previous rationale to deletion and would happily support a merge. I do see atleast some (atleast 4) reliable sourcing here (thanks to the work done by @Sneharshidasgupta and @Rupples) and while I don't think it rises to a keep (due to the fact that the sources are not of the best quality), a I would definitely not support a outright deletion anymore. Sohom (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, two editors are objecting to Deletion and two others, including the nominator, are supporting a Merge but without providing a Merge target article. If this is what you'd like to happen, please mention ONE article that would benefit from the addition of some of the content of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target article for a merge is State Bank of India under a new heading "State Bank Archive and Museum" and redirected, as suggested previously — assuming nominator Sohom agrees. Some, if not all of the existing categories should be added there as well. Rupples (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    State Bank of India is the target article that I had in mind as well. (Maybe @Ldm1954 and @Sneharshidasgupta could weigh in as well ?) Sohom (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to Oppose the deletion. I also Strongly Oppose a merge. Let me explain.
    The State Bank of India is where people will go to find out banking information, for instance where it is, how many countries it is in, number of employees etc.
    The museum, to state the first line is an initiative to document and preserve the history of banking in the Indian subcontinent. That is very different from a bank, and their intent is to cover banking in general. You may question whether it has managed to cover all of India, but that is not something we should do in Wikipedia -- we document.
    To give perhaps an extreme example to illustrate, we would not merge State Bank of India cricket team into State Bank of India. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reading both User:Sneharshidasgupta and your opinions as keep. Appreciate the point you've made so I'm going to take a second look at the sources. The article has been stripped down to concentrate on the museum rather than ancillary topics. We're assessing notability for the museum under WP:NORG and the GNG. The sources that contribute to notability are [32], [33], [34]. [35], strictly speaking is same as timesofindia. [36] in my opinion doesn't count as it seems to be a listing. Sources are not brilliant because most are not indepth. It's borderline, but I think there's sufficient here to scrape a GNG pass. So the question I'm asking myself: "is the content better presented merged into SBI or dealt with in a separate article?". It's again a close call. Agree, it doesn't fit particular well in SBI if the aim of the museum is to exhibit and explain material, not just in the context of SBI but more generally. Based on this I'm going to change my view to weak keep. Rupples (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ldm1954 The first line that you are quoting is misquoted from the primary source The Archives is in possession of the rich documentary heritage of the Bank dating back between 1806 and 1955. It includes the first minute books of the Bank of Calcutta and with other important and valuable records among others. More than 25000 records with proper reference media for retrieval of the records for the research purpose. The series of records are as follows:..... As it stands right now most of sources are press releases and very shallow coverage, and I don't see enough material here to make a standalone article. Yes, Wikipedia's mission is to document, but that does not mean every venture by every notable company must be documented as a seperate article. This is merely a museum established by the for profit company to document it's own history, not the history of banking on the Indian subcontinent. This is no different from a particularly history bank branch/location. Sohom (talk) 19:58, 16 December 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 String Cheese Incident#Discography. As a reminder, do not offer an opinion to "Redirect" unless, at the same time, you identify what Redirect target article you want this article to point to. For those editors who feel strongly for a Delete, please continue a discussion at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Road (The String Cheese Incident)[edit]

On the Road (The String Cheese Incident) (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)

While the band itself is notable, this obscure project is not. It cites no external sources at all. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect. I've tried to find sources to rescue, but nothing. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicky Procedural Comment - The first voter above said "Redirect per nom" although the nominator did not suggest a redirect. The second voter above did not recommend a target for redirecting to. Just sayin'. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Largely because the article title is disambiguated incorrectly, and should be something like "On the Road (The String Cheese Incident series)", and in its current form it is an unlikely search term. There will also be unnecessary confusion with many other items of the same title. If there is a pressing need to avoid deletion, it could be redirected to the The String Cheese Incident#Discography. Regardless, the existence of this series of concert recordings is largely a matter of fancruft with little notice from the reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Doomsdayer's comments above. Between its lengthy and incorrect disambiguation, it's not even worth keeping as a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - changing my view based on Doomsdayer's sensible rationale RE: disambiguation. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The String Cheese Incident: unless resources establishing notability for the project can be found. Owen× ☎ 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely a notable band based on my research but the project in question has no coverage in secondary sources. This would be fine as a redirect to the artist if verification of the project's existence was added there with a reliable source, but something is missing in the title's parenthesis here as we generally do not use artist names alone as disambiguation.--NØ 17:27, 22 December 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 Move‎ to Cobalt Flux Pad. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt Flux[edit]

Cobalt Flux (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)

Most information uncited, fails WP:SIRS DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 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 00:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anserated[edit]

Anserated (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)

Basically a dictionary definition. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The bulleted list is mainly sourced to dictionaries. I went through 4 pages of Google Books search and it didn't turn up anything that wasn't a dictionary, before it started returning what can only be described as "other customers also bought" matches. The remainder of the bulleted list is popular culture (Goethe was ppopular.) references, and inaccurate ones to boot. The source cited for Goethe simply says, for example, that the keys look like something else that is anserated, not what the article claims. The source cited for being known for symbolism likewise actually merely says that one poet saw an answerated cross in a dream. Dictionaries and generalizations not supported by the cited sources, and nothing that I can find for improving matters. Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: DICDEF, already exists on Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. The first sentence doesn't make any sense Anserated refers to a condition where extremities of a creature end in the head of an eagle, lion etc. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no better than a dictionary entry and unclear. GraziePrego (talk) 03:09, 20 December 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 00:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Firuzul Abdullah Haleel[edit]

Mohamed Firuzul Abdullah Haleel (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 spox. Was previously draftified but author unilaterally moved past AfC back to main space, so here we are. Cites only one source, and a search finds nothing other than news of his appointment, or him doing his job ie. speaking for the administration, neither of which makes him notable. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are few links I have found on him. In Maldives Media is mostly in local language.
  1. https://www.presidencymaldives.gov.mv/Press/Article/29102
  2. https://presidency.gov.mv/Government/Officials/146
  3. https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1040656450459406
He is appointed at the rank of Deputy Minister and so far local TV's are showing him since he is the official government spokesperson. On Point (3) found a live of him.
Hope this helps. Existence Leesaaisath 15:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage other than him being quoted as a spokesperson. None of the sources provided by @Leesaaisath provide any significant or independent coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the Boloney sources @Leesaaisath provided and that are on the article. Terrible page that doesn't demonstrate GNG.
AaronVick (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC) — AaronVick (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Comintell (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as User:AaronVick has been found to be a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see a second opinion on the newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if something decent turns up, or his political career becomes more notable in future. The new references do not contribute enough to notability. The first is not about him or his political actions, it's about an issue where he was chosen as the government's spokesman. The second is merely a photograph confirming his name (different latinised spelling) and job title. The third I cannot assess as it's a local TV piece, but even if it contributes as strongly as possible, we're left with it, and the article's source, which merely says he's been appointed transitional spokesperson and two very minimalistic sentences about his education and most recent job. This is way, way short of enough to justify an article. Elemimele (talk) 14:28, 16 December 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 00:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology Summit[edit]

Ecology Summit (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 find no lasting coverage of this Summit and no claim to notability. I do not think a redirect to Richard_Stromback#World_Leader_Summits makes sense as A BEFORE identified several possible ecology summits and a red link would encourage creation. Star Mississippi 00:47, 16 December 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_December_16&oldid=1191787418"