Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 05	October 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cringe pop

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

First, the scope of the article seems too subjective to be meaningful. The article fails to establish how the subject is notable or discussed extensively in reliable sources. The few sources provided are merely essays about songs that some people happened to find cringe Python Drink (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This genre has been gaining significant attention lately. It has been recognized by academia. I don't see why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Here are some scholarly /academic sources recognizing it as a musical genre-

Hirmer, Monika. "Taking Cringe Pop Seriously." Economic & Political Weekly LIII.18 (2018): 62–63. Print. [1]
The relatively new music genre known as cringe pop, notorious for its jarring, often discordant tunes and barmy texts, has been particularly prolific in South Asia in recent years.....
Sandeep Kour. Cringe worthy symbol of India: Human creativity and neglected emotions in select cringe pop videos. Int J Appl Res 2022;8(2):351-354 [2]
Cringe Pop, a genre of pop music, is a ubiquitous and popular behavior among young pop singers in the contemporary era. There have been numerous reasons for their widespread prominence and penetration into the internet world- constant repetition of their lyrics, trivial entertainment, schandenfreude, low production value and alike.
Humour and the Performance of Power in South Asia: Anxiety, Laughter and Politics in Unstable Times. (2022). (n.p.): Taylor & Francis.[3]
Cringe pop Is a vast category of songs and music videos that are popularly classified as awkward and are essentially "bad' art. These songs are produced and created by content creators on the internet and widely shared on social media. The element of how cringeworthy the music comes out to be is a factor that determines the virality of the content. One must note, however, that the characteristic that demarcates them from other productions that could be perceived as awkward is that they are created with an intention of producing this awkwardness.
Dutta, Ankuran. "Why Cringe Pops Are Popular in Social Media? A Closer Look on an Indian Cringe Artist and Virality of His Cringe Creativity." South Asian Journal of Communication Studies (2019): n. pag. Print.[4]
The new media has also given birth to a new genre of entertainment, popularly known as "cringe pop" . Because of social media platforms like Youtube, Facebook, this genre is gaining much popularity and the cringe artists are turning to be internet sensations within a very short time. The digital media is stated responsible for giving birth to this new genre of entertainment. With an easy access to internet, cringe pop has penetrated our entertainment industry. The contents of cringe pop becomes viral and even though it annoys the viewers, people cannot stop watching them.
Ramakrishnan, D. & Sharma, R. (2018). Music preference in life situations – A comparative study of trending music. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 4(6), 262-277.[5]
Cringe Pop: It is genre of pop music accompanied by music and music videos which are described as so bad that the one cannot stop watching it. The music is annoying, yet viral.
Martell, James (2021). "Archephonai: The Dangers of Music". [6]
.....on of video-game music (chiptunes), dubstep, electronic, future-pop, etc., ends up being part of the recent genre "cringe-pop." This genre, apparently inaugurated by Rebecca Black's song "Friday" (2011) (a song of which she recently did a remix with Dorian Electra)
Here a few more scholars discussing the sunject- [7], I will be adding more sources..Akshaypatill (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I was just about to post some sources myself, but Akshaypatill got many of the big ones I came across. It's clearly a notable subject and already has a bevy of sources already in the article. However, the scholarly journals above can prove that the page isn't just subjective or original research. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The citations are a mix of references from educational and news sources. I feel that while the noteworthiness is weak, it is there. The best thing to do would be to expand this article with more information on the topic, and to include more citations that aren't from the same internet domain. Avoid using sources that are merely opinions of distaste for particular songs, but instead focuses on explaining the genre. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rabi Pirzada Foundation

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

Zero evidence of notability. Sources are all either primary or social media and searching returns very few hits specifically to this organisation, except more social media hits. Top 3 google hits, besides the website itself, are twitter, instagram and facebook. Was redirected to Rabi Pirzada as a deletion alternative but author reverted. Possible WP:COI by author as their only major edits are to this article and Rabi Pirzada. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not even sure a redirect is warranted in this case. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Rabi Pirzada. Fails WP:GNG. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Segaton (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Legoktm (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries

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

The article in question is about works of art related to a list of episodes for a television series, but the article does not seem noteworthy by itself. Merging into the main article Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! is an option, but recommend condensing it into a single paragraph without the table. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in several reliable sources, passes GNG. "Article is a stub and bad" is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC) (article author)[reply]
- It should be known that I had initially proposed the deletion of the article in question for the reasons mentioned above, in accordance with WP:PRODNOM. You removed the tag per WP:DEPROD instructions, but did not explain your reasons for the objection in the edit summary, merely that you objected. The citations in the given article do not seem to justify article, but perhaps the article just needs to be seriously reworked. I still suggest as an alternate option, merging as mentioned in the nomination. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor sources (WP:GNG): Having examined the references by going to the websites, the articles sourced are blogs, with some reading like advertisements; others merely a couple of sentences strung together, not much more than an headline. As mentioned, there are multiple instances in which the sources—already poor on their own—come from the same blog. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of refs suggesting this is a notable thing. JMWt (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am only relisting once to allow for a broader community review. Others may relist beyond once.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The article appears to be well referenced to independent secondary sources. Without a source analysis from the nominator, I'm not seeing a good argument for why these works of art do not meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Christian Academy

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

No apparent evidence of notability, author appears to have a COI. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only coverage I could find on Google News consisted of their sports teams (and even those fail WP:GNG due to effectively being mostly glorified player lineups) and an employee of the school getting shot by a stray bullet while sitting in a van. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 23:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed that this fails WP:NSCHOOL. Not finding any real sources here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources show it exists. Wikipedia requires evidence of more than mere existence to justify an article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luke McCaffrey

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ATHLETE policies. All references in regards to the subject fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage for sports. The article written could be about any football player at any major FBS school. Subject has not been successful in a major competition nor won a significant honor. Moreover being related to other notable people (WP:BIORELATED) does not imply notability Barkeep^Chat 21:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Barkeep^Chat 21:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and probably speedily. First off, there are 25+ reliable sources used as refs and many of them are WP:SIGCOV so WP:GNG is clearly met. This is not "routine" coverage that "any football player at any major FBS school" could garner. There are several sources that go in depth in regards to McCaffrey as "the future" of Nebraska football and both his recruitment and transfer received national coverage. Finally, WP:BIORELATED doesn't apply because these are not passing mentions and there is no assumption that the subject is notable simply because he has famous relatives (ie the notability is conferred). McCaffrey is the focus of most of the articles in relation to his family, and not mentioned in passing. If the sources were solely along the lines of this one entitled "Christian McCaffrey Calls Out Nebraska HC Scott Frost After Brother Luke's Transfer", then BIORELATED or WP:NOTINHERITED would be applicable but this is not the case. GPL93 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I have no idea what this AFD is. Clearly enough sources here for an article.-- Yankees10 22:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the coverage already in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very clear pass of WP:GNG. Failing WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant and ROUTINE is the notability guideline for... events. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comparable guideline for persons is WP:NBASIC, which McCaffery clearly passes as well.Frank Anchor 14:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Very clear pass of WP:GNG with significant, non-routine coverage. Frank Anchor 14:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Electrical Industries Private Limited

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

I don't see how this company satisfies WP:NCORP; nothing substantial or independent is present in the article or comes up in a WP:BEFORE search. ^Complex/_Rational 20:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. ^Complex/_Rational 20:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Am unable to find independent English-language sources. I suppose an Indian-language WP:BEFORE would be ideal, but I couldn't find a proper non-English name on their website. Ovinus (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references here or online meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't got any citation that say Champion Electrical Industries Private Limited "It's the first manufacturer of ac pumps in India". Contributor008 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:CORP.NeptuneFlows (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SalvageData

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources present are trivial mentions, a press release, dubious listicles, and so on. The creator of the article appears to be UPE as well. Madeline (part of me) 19:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. Madeline (part of me) 19:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG and I'd say it meets WP:G11 as well. Uhai (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:G11. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw the reference 1 of CNBC and initially I thought this can be notable but it turns out to be a press release. Fifthapril (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Mint Office

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

The London Mint Office is a predatory mail-order company selling collectible coins. The London Mint Office confuses customers by connoting some official status. Whereas the Royal Mint is the government mint of the UK, the London Mint Office is a private company established in 2006. The London Mint Office is not a notable company, and by having an article there is a risk that Wikipedia is lending credibility to their questionable business.

I have not been able to find reliable sources clearly documenting the questionable nature of the business. However, this is more likely a reflection on their non-notability than the probity of the business. A quick Google search will return many online forum discussions describing the London Mint Office as a scam or a misleading business.

Reads like an advertisement. The article is written in a way that reads like an advertisement. It contains various platitudes about the business, including a list of its various marketing stunts under the ‘promotional events’ section.

Conflict of interest editing. The article reeks of COI editing. The promotional-sounding article about the London Mint Office is the only contribution made to Wikipedia by User:Johnnyp176. Various accounts subsequently making substantial contributions to the article, including User:JPRobin and User:JustinPRob, were blocked for sockpuppetry.

Not noteworthy. Per WP:CORP, a company is notable if it “has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. Although 24 sources have been cited, none of them can be described as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources which have been cited include the company’s own website, PR newswire sites, the website of its parent company, the website of their PR agency, and various fleeting and incidental references in newspapers, some of which have obviously confused the London Mint Office for the Royal Mint.

‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Per most of the nom, although "having an article there is a risk that Wikipedia is lending credibility to their questionable business" is not a valid reason. Wikipedia has thousands of articles on businesses about which questions have been raised. As long as the business is notable, that is not an issue. Also the allegations that it may be a scam or misleading does not preclude an article as long as those allegations are reflected. Attempts should be made to address those issues (and the advert-like nature) before deleting. But it does fail WP:CORP IMO, hence my weak delete. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will confess that I initially found it slightly odd that this article was nominated and that the emerging consensus seemed to be to delete. Every few months I get bombarded by their ads so I assumed they were notable. I thus decided to make a thorough source assessment table (see below) to look into whether they were actually notable. The inescapable conclusion is that they are not. As can be seen from the table below, 24 sources were analysed in depth of which 21 were still accessible (3 had WP:ROTTED away). The vast majority fell at the hurdles of independence or reliability. Some were particularly egregious like press releases and financial accounts. While I was surprised to conclude that this company fails WP:SIRS, there seems to be no single independent, reliable and significance coverage out there, let alone multiple such sources. There were two sources that were closer(er) to meeting the guidelines and which merit a particular mention here to head off any possible argument. These were the Times Colonist Article [8] and The BBC news article [9]. While these sources could arguably be independent and reliable, their coverage is woefully trivial. They merely mention LMO in passing and cannot be said to represent significant coverage. I also searched for more sources and could not find any. Please let me know (by pinging me) if more sources appear of if you disagree with the assessment I made. For clarity, per Lard Almighty I also disagree with the statement that just by LMO having an article there is a risk that Wikipedia is lending credibility to their questionable business such that we should delete it. What matters is meeting WP:SIRS and this fails it.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Smaller Huset Grp.	It's LMO's parent company	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
Data and Marketing Association	The DMA seems to be a paid register of companies such that the information is obtained from LMO	It's a paid directory	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
Business Wire	It's a press release	It's a press release	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
London Mint Office	LMO's support page is not independent of itself	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
London Mint Office	LMO's support page is not independent of itself	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
London Mint Office	LMO's terms and conditions are not independent of each other	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
LMO Financial Statement	LMO's own accounts are not independent of it	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
Times Colonist	There appears to be no connection to LMO	Seems to be a local/regional newspaper and the article does not appear to rely solely on quotes and it is written by a journalist with a byline.	The article is mainly about a local resident who was commissioned by the LMO to design a coin. While it does mention other coins by LMO, its coverage of them is arguably no more than trivial.	✘ No
The Olive Press	? Link has WP:ROTTED away	? Link has WP:ROTTED away	? Link has WP:ROTTED away	? Unknown
World Money Fair	? Link has WP:ROTED away	? Link has WP:ROTED away	? Link has WP:ROTED away	? Unknown
Huffington Post UK	~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive	~ While per WP:HUFFPO it is generally considered reliable for non-political topics, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question.	The article barely mentions LMO and then only in the context of a tour organised by its parent company.	✘ No
Daily Telegraph	~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive and the mention that the LMO is giving away replicas at the bottom of the article also raise suspicions.	~ While the Daily Telegraph is usually WP:GREL, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question.	The article barely mentions LMO and then only in the context of a tour.	✘ No
SE-1 News	There seems to be no connection with LMO	? The website is a local news outlet but this article has no byline but instead refers to the editorial team which makes judging the reliability difficult.	It gives LMO a passing mention.	✘ No
Loud Mouth PR	No apparent connection with LMO	It is a PR company	Irrelevant because it is unreliable but in any case it fails to mention LMO	✘ No
Ascot, Windsor and Eton Express	~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive.	~ The article is in a local newspaper with a byline, but the relevant information relies on quotes.	The article has no non-trivial mentions of LMO.	✘ No
MCM Comic Con	? Link has WP:ROTTED away completely.	? Link has WP:ROTTED away completely.	? Link has WP:ROTTED away completely.	? Unknown
BBC London	~ The parts of the video that mention LMO are primary material.	~ While BBC is WP:GREL, the LMO-relevatn material is primary.	LMO is only given trivial coverage in gifting the couple a coin.	✘ No
iTV Wales	ITV is reputable British newscaster. Note that the video is posted at LMO's own channel.	? Given that the video has been reposted to LMO's own channel it is impossible to assess its reliability.	Nonetheless, it gives LMO merely trivial coverage, concentrating instead on the damnbusters	✘ No
BBC News	No connection to LMO.	BBC is WP:GREL	While the headline seems to lead with LMO's donation, the article concentrates on something else and barely mentions the LMO	✘ No
Sussex World	The article relies solely on quotes.	~ The relevant material are LMO quotes but it is otherwise a local newspaper with bylines.	? Irrelevant because not independent.	✘ No
The Falmouth Packet	The article relies solely on quotes for the relevant material.	~ The relevant material are LMO quotes but it is otherwise a local newspaper with bylines.	? Irrelevant because not independent.	✘ No
UK Fundraising	~ No apparent connection between LMO and the source. However, the relevant LMO material is mostly derived from an ad by them.	~ While it is a trade news site, it is written with a byline and with apparent editorial standards. The material relevant to LMO is from an ad of theirs.	No significant coverage other than their advertising.	✘ No
Daily Telegraph	The article relies solely on quotes for the relevant material.	~ While the Daily Telegraph is usually WP:GREL, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question.	While it is irrelevant due to the lack of independence, the coverage is also trivial	✘ No
Marketing blog	~ Possibly somewhat independent, but relies heavily on quotes	it is a blog and it relies heavily on quotes	? Irrelevant due to independence concerns and lack of reliability	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWNA-TV

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

Non notable TV channel, Unreferenced 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User Myrabert01 added a PDF reference which is a list of stations. I have no idea if it can pass GNG. If do pass, I will change my vote to keep, but if not, this AfD will be closed as redirect. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network. Haueirlan (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Tsosie

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

Individual isn't known for anything of note outside of TikTok drama. Sources are shaky at best, other sources are lacking; there's nothing of value here. Xxelyas (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article seem to keep this subject passing WP:GNG. Even if several sources are about controversies, that doesn't matter. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my keep !vote. Looking through sources more closely, I agree with Oaktree b. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is largely about how this person has negatively interacted with other Native people online or about the launch of an Onlyfans. The "controversy" has a fair amount of coverage, but it's not exclusively about this individual. What we do have is rather small mentions of him. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This entry should be deleted as he has added nothing to society and has done nothing but be destructive and this just justifies his view 2403:5808:420D:0:84D7:B6D2:D71:6807 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the issue being discussed, thank you for your input regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tik Tok notability is a difficult construct for biographies of living people. Mr. Tsosie has/had a large following on Tik Tok, but he is outside the top 50 content creators by 10s of millions of followers. He has zero notable accomplishments outside of being a participant in a Tik Tok controversy that gained some news coverage but which may also fail to meet notability guidelines. The discussion of his supposed marriage status is the very definition of "original research" using primary sources rather than secondary sources. He has a few appearances in press about campus activism and nothing else. He is not a published author, journalist, scholar. He is not a leader in any notable organizations. There is no reason for him to have a biography at this point in his life. There are insufficient secondary sources to justify more than a stub. 74.64.143.105 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions and because I've become suspicious of brand new accounts whose first edit is to tag an article for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rats in New York City#Notable incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York City rat chasm

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

Definitely an unusual happening worthy of news headlines, but unfortunately doesn't satisfy WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. All sources in the article and mentions elsewhere seem to be routine coverage in local news, without any indication of lasting impact or significance (e.g., only one brief mention in anything published since 1/1/2021). Not sure if there's a broader-scope article (this could be considered a sinkhole) for a possible merger. ^Complex/_Rational 16:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. ^Complex/_Rational 16:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately there seems to be no enduring coverage of the event. Fails WP:NEVENT on that basis. W42 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further research there is Rats in New York City which mentions this event. Redirecting there would be preferable. W 42 18:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Could be a subsection in "Environmental issues in New York City" perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like Oaktree b's idea, or better yet Redirect to Rats_in_New_York_City#Notable_incidents. (@Oaktree b: thoughts?) Ovinus (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rats in NYC works too, probably better than Environmental issues. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the contents should Merge into Rats_in_New_York_City#Notable_incidents While I now agree that it isn't notable enough to stand alone as an article, it is part of a well documented pattern that is of significant concern to New Yorkers. I believe that the section for notable incidents in Rats_in_New_York_City could be expanded upon more than it is. Apelcini (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rats_in_New_York_City#Notable_incidents per Ovinus. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I would support a (partial) merge to Rats in New York City#Notable incidents, with potential WP:DUE issues to be kept in mind and addressed separately, perhaps as part of a more general expansion/overhaul of the target article. I believe the incident is certainly worth a mention and description, but a full merger would give disproportionate coverage (most of which, as I said, is from routine news) compared to other incidents. ^Complex/_Rational 19:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely be willing to help in the expansion of the target article, as well as assist the merger, if that is the consensus that is reached. Apelcini (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rats_in_New_York_City#Notable_incidents: Selectively, per above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Lazăr

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

“Co-president of a party that has never cracked 0.4% of the national vote” isn’t really a credible claim to notability, and the smattering of press mentions, mostly recycling his quotes, doesn’t do much to boost that. I’d be fine with a redirect to the party, but as a stand-alone article, this is simply overkill. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of mentions would be notable? Bogdy23636374478 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Certainly a thorn in the side of politicians, but just not enough for our purposes. All appear passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepingI am of the opinion that the article should remain. The person appears to be notable due to the sources present in the article, more than 10 publications found on the Internet have articles in which it is about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdy23636374478 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are many lesser-known public figures in Romania, such as the leader of PER or FDGR, who have wikipedia pages. It would be good to keep this page if it has more than 3 sources.

- See WP:WAX.
- No, the leader of PER (Ecologist Party of Romania) does not have an article. Neither does the leader of FDGR (Democratic Forum of Germans in Romania).
- Please demonstrate that Lazăr fulfills WP:POLITICIAN. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-J%C3%BCrgen_Porr FDGR leader have an article Bogdy23636374478 (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not on English Wikipedia. Please demonstrate that Lazăr fulfills WP:POLITICIAN. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.mediafax.ro/politic/geoana-despre-excluderea-lui-marius-lazar-din-psd-mi-se-pare-intempestiva-si-abuziva-9387525?jwsource=cl

https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-8378685-scrisoare-deschisa-catre-victor-ponta-fost-ales-fruntea-partidului-pastrezi-mare-puternic-nu-faci-mic-pui-vrind-nevrind-cosul-liberalilor.htm/amp

https://ziare.com/victor-ponta/presedinte-psd/ponta-despre-excluderea-lui-lazar-din-psd-nu-vreau-sa-plece-nimeni-din-partid-1080994

Marius Lazar is the former adviser to the Deputy General Secretary of Nato, Mircea Geoana. However, Marius Lazar was a prominent leader of the PSD in the period 2007-2010 Bogdy23636374478 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- None of that really amounts to notability as a politician. Let us know if he ever manages to be elected anything. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health Liberation Now!

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

Fails WP:NGO#2 (and WP:GNG, which requires the same amount of coverage). A listing of sources in the article is included below:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Extra Magazine*	I think so	Why not?	Article is about the NGO	✔ Yes
NBC News	NBC News is an independent newsorg	NBC News is WP:GREL	The article includes quotes from a founder of the group, but only provides trivial mentions of the group itself.	✘ No
Time	Time is and independent newsorg	Time is generally reliable	Coverage of HLN itself in the source is trivial.	✘ No
Vice News	Vice News (and the author of the piece) seem independent of HLN	~ Vice news is WP:MREL at WP:RSP.	Coverage of HLN itself in the source is trivial, describing the group in two sentences and including a verbatim quote from an employee.	✘ No
The Independent	The Independent is an independent NEWSORG	The Independent is WP:GREL at RSP	HLN is only mentioned in passing as the employer of someone quoted in the story.	✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (1)	HLN is not independent of itself.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (2)	HLN is not independent of itself.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (3)	HLN is not independent of itself.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (4)	HLN is not independent of itself.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Texas Observer	Why not?	~ Seems to be an established WP:NEWSORG, but the language of the piece indicates that this is an opinion piece rather than a news piece.	Leveille is quoted twice, but HLN itself is mentioned only in two sentences.	✘ No
Health Liberation Now! (5)	HLN is not independent of itself.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Additionally, I was unable to find additional significant coverage of this website after conducting an online search. I did turn up some sources that trivially mention it, such as a story in the LA Blade that basically regurgitates an NBC News story, but trivial coverage in other sources doesn't move the needle on SIGGOV. I can't easily find a place to redirect this to, so I am nominating it for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and United States of America. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To start and provide context, there was a pre-existing discussion at User talk:MaxnaCarta#NPP of Health Liberation Now!.

To sum up the arguments, Xtra Magazine is WP:SIRS coverage of the organization.

Though the Independent only mentions "Health Liberation Now!" once, they are doing an depth interview with the director of the organization about his research, and the article frequently links to the site as the location of such research. On the face it looks like a passing mention but it's an article about Health Liberation Now's research and activities. Therefore that meets Significant Coverage and gives us another WP:SIRS source.

The Texas Observer article is news rather than opinion, as it is an independent source doing an investigation into the effects of the NYT article and focuses on facts about the case. More than that, it focuses on a controversy HLN was involved in and describes their involvement. Granted it doesn't meet the first S in SIRS but it meets the rest and is a strong source in and of itself.

Just to clarify, NBC news only quotes Leveille but does get statements from both founders.

In short we have two sources meeting WP:SIRS and one describing in-depth a controversy the organization was involved in. Therefore it meet both WP:GNG and WP:NGO. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTranarchist: Just so I have this clear, we're in agreement on Xtra Magazine being a SIRS source, and we agree that The Texas Observer does not provide significant coverage of the website (i.e. doesn't meet the first S in SIRS), correct? With respect to the coverage in The Texas Observer, we only disagree on whether it's a news vs opinion piece? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with respect, the source from The Independent seems to indeed be giving coverage of Leveille and their own activities, but I'm really not seeing this as coverage of the organization itself. It's framed as something that's on the side (i.e. Leveille, who has since formed a new advocacy group called Health Liberation Now), rather than the NGO itself receiving coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Texas Observer is more news than opinion as it gives a factual account of what happened and invites expert sources to weigh in. As far as I can tell, they don't have an opinion section, just news separated into multiple categories (in this case, the "Civil Rights" one).

In terms of the Independent, the fact the research they refer to was done by the founder of HLN and published in HLN, which they link to extensively when referring to her research, makes it (in my eyes at least) coverage of the activities/research of HLN. Sadly I don't know any similar cases to draw precedent from, but it's an important consideration. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with using The Independent here is that the relevant guideline is pretty explicit that sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). Analogously, what we have here is coverage of the researcher and the researcher's activities, but without significant attention to HLN itself. In my eyes, that isn't coverage of this organization. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization.

That's true, however HLN is an organization reliable sources agree researches effects of policy on transgender healthcare and the organizations behind the policies. The article is about the founder's research into anti-trans activism, notes he's a founder of HLN, and when discussing his research links to HLN, where it's published. It's not simply covering the researcher/research, but that research as an activity of HLN. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Red-tailed hawk. Other than the single RS, we're looking at a collection of trivial sources with one or two mentions, with some having a couple of quotes, which somehow meets WP:NCORP? The creator's argument boils down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Further, for that Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization, the creator rebuts that however HLN is an organization reliable sources agree researches effects of policy on transgender healthcare and the organizations behind the policies despite everyone on RSN except for the artice creator concurring that this is a self-published source trivially mentioned by RS. Numerous of the quotes per WP:NCORP also falls under in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. Therefore, there is no SIGCOV other than the Extra Magazine piece, and this should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it blatantly fails N, it is barely a year old, their website is a .com, the article looks, feels and acts like an advocacy, it lacks an encyclopedic NPOV approach, and these types of start-up organizations on the internet are a dime a dozen. Making splashes in the ocean, it doesn't pass GNG or N. Where is their organizational information, who funds them, who is behind it as responsible, dedicated health professionals, since their focus is on the mental and physical well-being of people? It also fails WP:10YT and WP:TOOSOON. Atsme 💬 📧 21:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the first review onto this particular article. I did not mark it as reviewed because at this moment, it does not meet notability standards. I did not nominate for AFD because the author has some experience and I try not to nominate for AFD during NPP reviewing unless absolutely necessary. Given how much actual trash there is, when it comes to a decent but *not quite there yet* article like this, I try to find an alternative. I suggested to the article creator they draftify, but they declined. I looped in my NPP tutor Atsme, and given the thoughts of her and others, I agree this warrants deletion. I suggest TheTranarchist copies and saves the article history, creates a new draft if this gets deleted, and only publishes again in the future if and when notability is established. This is why I suggested draftification - the organisation stands a good chance of meeting NORG some time in the future but it simply is not there yet. This AFD discussion will serve as a good benchmark for future assessment anyway, if it gets deleted and then later recreated, we can assess its improvement based on the issues raised. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: TheTranarchist has moved the article to Draft:Health Liberation Now!. Madeline (part of me) 14:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to TheTranarchist, I don't think unilateral draftication is warranted given the amount of people here supporting deletion rather than drafticiation. If the group becomes notable, then it could be easily restored to draftspace, but keeping a non-notable zombie article in the draftspace makes little sense to me, so I would like to note that this is a contested move to the draftspace and I don't think that draftification in this instance is in line with WP:ATD-I. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I had thought references to deletion meant deletion from mainspace and a move to draftspace, I hadn't realized they meant deletion entirely. However, if another WP:SIRS source comes about, we have reason to move back to mainspace as opposed to just returning to draft. In the meantime, keeping it as a draft harms no one and makes such updates easier. Per WP:ATD-I, Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, and I think the article has potential and HLN! enough notability to imply they'll have enough further coverage in future. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take the view, generally, that decidedly non-notable articles should be deleted rather than draftified, since there is not potential for those articles to be polished into something that's worthy of mainspace absent the exogenous creation of new material that covers the topic. In other words, draftification is not a stasis chamber for the hopes that a topic one day becomes notable; it's for improving articles that are likely notable but have significant policy failures in other respects (such as WP:BLP or WP:V) that need to be corrected before the topic is moved to mainspace. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxnaCarta:, @Atsme:, @VickKiang:, @Red-tailed hawk:

Just letting everyone know I moved the article to draft space, I'd thought (apparently incorrectly) the Independent was a second WP:SIRS source. Would like to clarify my decision was never WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but my belief there were two SIRS sources. Would also like to say the article is not advocacy but neutral as possible, I collected and summarized what every reliable source had to say about them. Quotes I used supplemented factual statements about their activities from the sources (an earlier version of the article relied more on such statements).

In regards to Where is their organizational information, who funds them, who is behind it as responsible, dedicated health professionals, since their focus is on the mental and physical well-being of people? They are self-run and the only funding I see is a Ko-fi for donations as they're more concerned with reporting than profit. One does not need to be a responsible, dedicated health professional to report attacks on transgender healthcare, medical consensus is clear that those are bad, and the authors are directly effected by such policies. You don't need a medical degree to say "hey, here's a far right group pushing legislation everyone recognizes harms trans people" and provide sources to support that fact. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do hope that you will come to understand why that article fails NPOV and Notability. The editors at RSN agreed that it and cited sources fail NPOV, and the discussion here demonstrates support for the N issues. I highly recommend that you work with a mentor at WP:Teahouse. Perhaps Cullen328 can help you, or will recommend someone who can. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)^{Correction 12:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Did you intend to link to a thread on RSN rather than NPOVN? Madeline (part of me) 12:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, thx for catching it – now fixed as originally intentioned. That's what happens when you start editing before morning coffee.~ Atsme 💬 📧 12:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. No prejudice on recreation if/when more sources pop up. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator and others above. The article's notability is only supported by one valid source. I am not necessarily opposed to draftifying, but I take Red-tailed hawk's argument that draftspace is not a perpetual incubation chamber and if a subject is non-notable then there may well be no point in sending it to draft. As per Emir, no prejudice on recreation if the sources ever make it appropriate and as MaxnaCarta pointed out, this discussion could eventually serve as a valuable data point if the article ever goes through RfC in the future. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went in to this AfD with a good-faith effort to find other sources in the hopes of this being kept. Unfortunately, this organization is not notable, at least at this time. It fails the GNG requirements as laid out by the nominator. --Kbabej (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (nom withdrawal). Thank you for the Spanish sources! (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 19:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis López (footballer, born 2001)

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

BEFORE does not turn up any SIGCOV, results such as this are about a different person with the same name. Furthermore, this article does not meet the fifth bullet point of WP:SPORTBASIC, as it is a database entry. House Blaster^talk 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. House Blaster^talk 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17] among many many more Spanish sources. He is a young player with an ongoing career with Real Madrid, one of the most successful Spanish La Liga teams. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. Browning

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

Delete. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. A redirect would be ambiguous as the first name cannot be found. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry John Terry. BoJó | talk UTC 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Olympics. BoJó | talk UTC 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NSPORT and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no WP:ATD available since merging and redirecting is not appropriate in this case because there is really no content to merge, and there are other people named W. Browning who are more notable and/or have articles, e.g. William, Walter, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While Wisden and other sources have his initial as a W, French newspapers of the time ([18]) report his initial as J. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely fails WP:GNG as it's pretty much impossible to find GNG passing sources. He clearly existed and was notable, but without this information there's not enough to warrant an article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi Sushi Bar

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

Local restaurant chain that happens to have won some "readers' choice" awards from local food magazines that cannot be concluded to be WP:RSes; as such, fails WP:GNG. Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Missouri. Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like most of the coverage is of the routine variety leaving it a little short of GNG. Frank Anchor 13:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organization for Youth Empowerment

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

In March 2021, there was an edit summary that says "Maybe notable?". Well, I am not sure.

I could not find any significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources in a Google search. As for the sources already in the article, the second one is obviously a primary source, while the third one is a trivial mention.

It remains to check the first one, https://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/oye-fomentando-educacion-empoderamiento-organization-youth-empowerment-CHLP1287360. That source appears to be affiliated with Honduras, so it does not seem to be independent.

So, I believe that the organization actually fails WP:ORG, as tagged since January 2010. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Honduras. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've made a source assessment table. As you can see I disagree with Geoffrey's view that the third source is trivial but agree it should not count anyways because it is not independent. I analysed La Prensa's article. I think it is borderline, depending on whether we can say it is an independent source. It relies heavily on quotes and the tone is a little suspicious in that it is a little hagiographic. In any event, even if it counts as a source, it still fails to meet the requirement in WP:GNG that it should be multiple sources. Please ping me if new sources appear!

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
La Prensa	~ The article relies heavily on quotes from related persons but perhaps not exclusively? it is impossible to be sure it is completely independent, but it may be.	La Preens seems to be a serious Honduran newspaper	The article relates exclusively to the Organisation	~ Partial
OYE Website	Self-evident that the organisation's website is not independent.	Ditto, OYE's own website. Is a primary source.	They give themselves significant coverage	✘ No
Student Newspaper of Augustana College	Relies exclusively on quotes	~ It is difficult to be sure of a student paper's reliability. Doubtful but not clearly an unreliable source.	While the article is about an alumna of the college, it gives OYE significant coverage of its mission and operations.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that individual is not notable (or, at least, they aren't reliably in that position, which hinders showing notability) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palapala

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

Existence is only believed by a single scholar. Very poorly sourced with two sources, one of which confirms the belief that the individual did not exist. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think that he is only descendant of ruler of Pala Empire but he doesn't rule the empire. You can see this list of ruler of the empire https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/list-of-pala-rulers-and-their-contributions-1509103479-1 (Note - This list is made by Jagran Josh)Contributor008 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus has held multiple suitable roles and is notable Nosebagbear (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Jones (actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG, I've been unable to find significant, reliable coverage. the article claims he has had a minor role in a lot of movies and shows, but that is not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR as far as I'm aware. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N is clinched with his main role in October Road and a long overall resume. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several notable roles in major films (8 Mile, Jarhead (film), The Book of Eli). Jones was a main cast member of TV-series October Road which aired on ABC, a major network part of the Big Three. The overall ratings for the first season was 10.5 million viewers. --Bensin (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has the subject received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Notability isn't inherited, just working in some famous shows doesn't automatically provide notability without any sourcing. And I have yet to see any reliable source cited in the article. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, is not only term for being notable! ZanciD (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just did some deep research on the web for "Evan Jones" and he definitely fits general notability guideline. On top of that, I was able to improve the "Evan Jones (actor)" article by adding in references/sources and along with specific categories.
Keep: The subject certainly meets WP:NACTOR, with his roles in films like 8 Mile and Glory Road. WP:GNG is less convincingly made out, but there are a number of hits on newspapers.com, with potentially more than just passing mentions. I think this article is worth keeping and working on. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant roles in multiple notable films, meets WP:NACTOR. Elbatli (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He absolutely is covered by WP:NACTOR but I would like to see more sources added it is a little sparse. Littehammy (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Coe

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

WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for either occupation. As always, neither actors nor filmmakers get automatic notability freebies just because they and their work exist -- the notability test requires much more than just verification of existence, such as notable awards and/or the reception of significant third-party attention from film or television critics.
But the notability claim as a filmmaker hinges on one independent film of at best marginal notability, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the notability claims as an actor are that (a) he acted in the same film, and (b) a television miniseries where he's practically at the bottom of a massive ensemble cast list, and thus clearly wasn't a principal character for the purposes of claiming NACTOR #1 (which hinges on the prominence of his specific character within the story, not on debating the majorness or minorness of the series per se.)
And for sourcing, there's just one article in his own hometown newspaper and a primary source that isn't support for notability at all, which isn't enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one proper piece of media coverage to support the article with. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Texas. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Despite creating A Room Full of Nothing there seems to be basically no coverage of Coe himself. One film is not sufficient to be covered notable under criteria one of WP:NACTOR which requires multiple films. W 42 16:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more coverage on the film than the guy, even what coverage there is of the film isn't much. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undersourced, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Capablanca chess#Postdating Capablanca chess. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capablanca random chess

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

Only one reference, can easily be included as a part of Capablanca chess. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 12:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 12:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capablanca Chess#Postdating Capablanca chess. Could merge relevant content if necessary but without additional sources the main article covers this variant enough. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
selective merge (probably just once sentence and the cite to the current mention of it) as above. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. There's adequate coverage in the target article and not a lot of sourced, unique content to merge, and I can't find enough independent, significant coverage to clearly justify keeping and expanding the current article. ^Complex/_Rational 14:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Andrews (cryptanalyst)

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

Helen Andrews has appointed me as her Attorney and I would like to request that this article about her is removed from Wikipedia. She is a non-notable individual and this material presents a safeguarding threat in that it reveals where she lives. It states that she is a Chelsea Pensioner at the Royal Hospital Chelsea and she has recently received letters from men requesting to correspond with her. She has no idea how these men have managed to find her but the fact that Wikipedia states where she lives may be the reason. Helen Andrews has full intellectual capacity but, at the age of 96, she is not acquainted with the social complexities of online information nor the implications of engaging with social media. One of my most serious concerns is that one of the men who has written to her will ask her for her email address and open the door to any manner of personal problems for her. In addition, the article is extremely badly written, is littered with mistakes and inaccuracies and offers the reader no insights into Helen Andrews and her life beyond the information already available via its references. I believe it has no place on Wikipedia. SwimHappy (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: statement copied from Special:PermaLink/1114422077. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the editor who created and wrote the article. I believed that Andrews was notable due to her work in the war and the fact that she had been profiled by the BBC, but I can see now that she is of marginal notability. Wikipedia can only source information from already existing public sources, so the article reflects the paucity of information available. You should request that the Royal Hospital themselves remove the two articles on her [19] and [20] from their website to safeguard her privacy. I do believe that the publicity that the Royal Hospital have generated is the greatest threat to her privacy. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. The BBC source is an interview with little info specifically about her. The other website probably isn't reliable or independent of her. Good luck on persuading the BBC on taking their interviews down. Dougal18 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fair enough, but doesn't "Helen Andrews has appointed me as her Attorney" represent a legal threat? Just wonderin'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, that's silly. It is a statement of how and why the user is posting a deletion request. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Alexandermcnabb: I don't think that statement is a legal threat, and even if it is, the person who made the comment registered their account for just this purpose and I'm sure they do not know how things works here. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the UK, the word "attorney" more often means someone who has power of attorney rather than acting as someone's lawyer. I would guess this is a relative or friend of hers, not her lawyer. There are a couple more odd items about this message, firstly that the Royal Hospital and the BBC first gave her the publicity and identified where she lives, and secondly the bit about "men" contacting her which seems to imply that she has received unwanted romantic overtures which seems a little unlikely. I find it hard to believe that a real lawyer would write in these terms. She's not notable but neither has No Swan So Fine done anything wrong in taking three reliable sources, presumably created with Andrews cooperation, and turning them into a short biography of one of the unsung people who helped win the Second World War and went unacknowledged for decades. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to say, trying not to reveal too much, that you are pretty much correct on your points regarding "attorney". If anyone wants further explanation feel free to shoot me an email. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly enough, the page creator is justifying deleting the page (which amounts to reason enough, taking from all the arguments and cases already made against the page's existence). Failing to achieve any large-scale level of significance to either the finer details or the bigger picture, why the page would warrant an encyclopedic treatment is highly difficult, for me, to reason. (P.S. SwimHappy's overview of the nomination is... unusual, to say the least, barely helpful in affirming the irrelevance of the page in a way - an intellectually in-depth overview of factual information wouldn't necessarily breach any form of privacy, just as listing educational achievements of a figure or mere facts of a similar sort wouldn't infringe on any rights.) ^^ Though I believe there's solid consensus here, would anyone else like to join in? TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a frankly bizarre request since Ms Andrews presumably co-operated with both the Royal Hospital and BBC articles on her, which are still online. Why has Wikipedia in particular been asked to take its article down? I'm not commenting on her notability, but this whole thing is a bit weird. "She has no idea how these men have managed to find her..." Well, er, maybe look a bit closer to home? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besart Xhaferri

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

Being a chairman of the youth wing of the party does not mean notability, failing WP:NPOL. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Youth wing role not notable. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chair of a political party's youth wing is not an WP:NPOL pass, and the sourcing is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an NPOL fail Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Besana

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG for cyclists. They competed but didn't finish the Tour de France in 1938 and their date of death seems to be unknown also in this [21] date base used in the article Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cycling. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG at all. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet GNG or NCYC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable history participating in major competition and limited current info doesn't mean there is nothing out there giving more details of more notability. Transparenter (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Factoring in what appears to be a changed position from the nom as a result of the harder to find Dutch sources, consensus notability is shown Nosebagbear (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Amstel Gold Race

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

No sources, couldn't find anything exclusive to the 1971 race that is more than a trivial mention. Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. I propose redirect to main Amstel Gold Race. VTVL^Talk 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Netherlands. Skynxnex (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I wouldn't have bothered with the AfD! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other years of the race which have sources, so I thought I it would be better. VTVL^Talk 14:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - better safe than sorry! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely random nomination. The Amstel Gold Race had a lot of WP:SIGCOV in 1971, as any year. Specifically in De Telegraaf,[22][23][24] Algemeen Dagblad,[25] Het Parool, Het Vrije Volk, and in the Limburg province press. I only started adding links. There's much more. Telegraaf and AD, btw, are the two most-read newspapers in the Netherlands. This nomination is a giant nothing burger. gidonb (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I am newer, I'll make sure next time to check those sources for Dutch subjects. Or avoid, altogether, nominating articles about subjects outside my home country. VTVL^Talk 04:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! In general, there is an abundance of AfDs. In any language. The best editors work in the article space and only occasionally nominate an article. When something really stands out. Wishing you the best of luck and welcome to Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Golconda diamonds#Controversies, scandals and heists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes surrounding Golconda Diamonds

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE grouping. Diamonds get stolen, but that they are also Golconda diamonds is not really relevant (no one sets out to specifically steal Golconda diamonds and not other ones, do they?). Fram (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Lists, and India. Fram (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Golconda diamonds article, some interesting facts, nothing enough to build an article on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Oaktree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is much more information that needs to be added to this article/topic. If we merge it with Golconda diamonds, it will simply disbalance the section. I am in the process to seek FA for the Golconda diamond article. :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an RS which has noted these crimes as especially linked to this subcategorization of diamonds? Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are. In fact some are cited in the article, the other reason why I support to keep the article is, there are plenty of heist, theft and scandles linked to these Golconda diamonds, writing them in main article will confuse the readers as well as it will complicate the topic, after realising a lot I created this article, otherwise I would have not done it. Omer123hussain (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of the titles in the article's citations naming this class/source of diamonds. Which ones make note of it and discuss it non-trivially? I don't have time to plow through all of them. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So as a trial let's keep the article it will develop in mean time, even this two week I am shortage of time, I don't still understand why it was nominated in so early stage, it is not the first time i created the article. As I said there are many more information to expand in this article-such as preceding and trials etc, the Sydney townhall heist, the princi diamond trial and the AL Thani collection etc are all about Golconda diamonds. That's why according to me it's immature nomination for deletion in so early stage. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Golconda diamonds, as not only is the length not sufficient to justify a standalone, the sources currently used do not establish the significance of the topic, but only examine crimes related to individual diamonds, collections, or people. As such this is an indiscriminate list, per nom. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what you mention above can be improved, it is a very interesting topic, there is scope to expand this article, as there are many controversies, heists, thefts, and scandals linked directly or indirectly to this Golconda diamonds. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be comparable to an article about, say, "crimes surrounding Italian paintings". Italian paintings are among the most notable and valuable ones (e.g. the Mona Lisa), and many Italian paintings have been stolen, destroyed, ... That doesn't make the combination, the grouping, a good subject, as there is nothing special about "crimes surrounding Italian paintings" compared to crimes regarding French, Dutch, American... paintings, it hasn't been treated as a separate subject by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

selective merge to Golconda diamonds#Controversies, scandals and heists. Most of the reliably sourced content is already covered there. If additional reliable sources can be developed to show this intersection is notable, an article can be spun back out. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romuald Lauverjon

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

Borderline notability. I did not any combination of clear sources to maintain it Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the review, it's my first page so I needed some feedback. I will try to add more sources later today. Max Pstl (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference in which Romuald is the main subject.

It's from the French news section of Radio Nova's website, one of the most important French radio stations for indie, electro and world music. Max Pstl (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still no sources found, even limiting it to FR websites. Social media then phone book listings. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, possibly WP:TOOSOON. No objection to draftication, however. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added a reference in which Romuald is the main topic. It's from the French news section of Radio Nova's website, one of the most important French radio stations for indie, electro and world music.

If it's not enough I can move it in draft again. Max Pstl (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:TOOSOON, In addition to what others said above, I also couldn't find any SIGCOV abot him or rewiews of his tracks, at least in English. The provided sources does not seem to be individually about subject.Yüsiacı (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danushka Samarakoon

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Also fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to having no instance of significant coverage in the article. History at AFD has shown that significant coverage very rarely exists for players such as this. There is no WP:ATD, as a valid merge/redirect target, i.e. List of Sri Lanka Police Sports Club cricketers (or similar), does not exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - instead of telling me things like "guildelines have changed, you were there for the conversation", please show me the guidelines have changed. As far as I can tell, they still read "has appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level." If people show me, then I'm more than happy to accept and to stop de-prodding. Telling me "I was there for the conversation" is of no use. I've literally lost interest. I've been suggesting "List of X cricketers" for years and the same people who want to delete first-class cricketers and not make lists are now insisting they be created. I don't have the energy or the will. I'm sure if these articles existed I'd change my !vote in a heartbeat, and all these !votes would change to "redirect if necessary". Bobo . 10:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the feigned ignorance. You were advised exactly this a little over a week ago during this AfD. So to repeat, only international cricketers for Test playing nations meet WP:NCRIC; WP:SIGCOV is a requirement of WP:SPORTCRIT; WP:GNG is the bar that must be met; WP:CRIN is an essay (not a guideline) that does not enjoy community support (even more so since the WP:NSPORTS2022 RFC that removed all participation criteria from WP:NSPORT) so it is worthless as a yardstick for determining notability – and Sri Lankan FC competitions are not included in WP:OFFCRIC anyway. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG and updated WP:NCRIC guidelines. No suitable redirect exists currently, as nom states, so delete unless one is created in the time the AfD runs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIC. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Macedonian border shootout (April 2010)

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

This minor police shootout, with no fatalities, fails WP:NOTNEWS, it received coverage for a short period of time in 2010 with no sustained coverage since. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Kosovo, and North Macedonia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:NOTNEWS! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written like a news article in my opinion (WP:NOTNEWS) and doesn't have a lasting effect.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. Star Mississippi 01:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC) ETA and delete H. Terry redirect due to the redirection of the article with all of the cricketer's names. Thanks for flagging my omission. Star Mississippi 12:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry John Terry

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

Non-notable cricketer, does not meet WP:GNG or the revised version of WP:NOLY, while he did win a medal there were only two teams competing in the event. A search brought up nothing outside of directory listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Olympics, and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created this stub as Terry was the only one of the French Olympic players without an article but I cannot see any potential for expansion. I think the same must apply to all the players who took part in the match. Five of them have already been redirected to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. Those are Arthur Birkett, George Buckley, Francis Burchell, Harry Corner and Alfred Powlesland.

(List withdrawn per suggestion below)

I suggest redirect (per WP:ATD) to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists for all of the following, as none of them meet WP:GNG:

William Anderson (cricketer, born 1859)

William Attrill

C. B. K. Beachcroft

Alfred Bowerman

John Braid

W. Browning

Frederick Christian (cricketer)

Frederick Cuming (cricketer)

William Donne (cricketer)

Robert Horne (cricketer)

Timothée Jordan

Arthur MacEvoy

Douglas Robinson (French cricketer)

H. F. Roques

Alfred Schneidau

John Symes

Montagu Toller

Philip Tomalin

If that needs a new AFD, please let me know. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 14:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with redirecting these, however some have been expanded, e.g. William Donne (cricketer) (although there doesn't appear to be much, if any, significant coverage there), and I would suggest carefully examining those whose first name we do not know with likely ambiguous initials before doing do, which includes the subject of this AFD and especially Browning (could be William, Walter, etc.). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see amended !vote immediately below). Fails NSPORT and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Redirect is not appropriate in this case because of the ambiguity of having just an initial and there are other people named H. Terry who are more notable and/or have articles, e.g. Helen Terry, Harry Terry, Henry Dwight Terry, etc., which means a list of Olympic cricketers would be a surprise target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Henry John Terry to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists; and delete H. Terry as an ambiguous redirect to a surprising target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change of title. Terry's forenames have been found on the CricketArchive database, also his date of birth, but there is nothing else. Beachcroft's first name was Charles (that is in the article), but we have initials only for Browning and Roques, although the latter shouldn't present a redirect problem. Perhaps we should delete Browning and redirect the rest? BoJó | talk UTC 08:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe just boldly redirect those without substantial content/sources (i.e. more than just the usual database entries and scorecards) following this AFD and PROD/start a new AFD for Browning? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed the list and will redirect all except Browning (new AFD to follow).

Redirect Henry John Terry as above; delete H. Terry as above. BoJó | talk UTC 12:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists Fails WP:GNG, and although he did medal in the Olympics, all competitors here were medalists. There's not really much on him I can find, so redirect is appropriate and a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Habib Reza

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

Bangladeshi heritage management expert fails WP:GNG, article sourced to subject's own work, two organisational websites. No evidence of notability, some academic work but no evidence of an enduring impact on a discipline or widespread recognition of contribution or award. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Bangladesh, and West Bengal. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking independent coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Moreau

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

David Moreau

Fictional character whose article does not have any properly formatted independent references. Naïve Google search on David Moreau and Genegineer finds that he has fandom, but does not find any reliable sources. If no independent references are found within seven days, this article should be moved to Draft:David Moreau (Marvel Comics) because there is already a draft for a living person in draft space, and a redirect may be made in article space to a list of characters. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. I have found and added several independent sources. I think in total they are not enough to build a full article, but they exist and therefore deletion is not warranted either. Daranios (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: M in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ECWA Academy, Demsa

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

No significant coverage, article's an orphan, GNG fail, doesn't look like it can be saved. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Association of Nurse Travelers

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

Unsourced since 2019, no significant coverage, likely GNG fail. Article seems to have the sole purpose of advertising the association, and misses out from being an orphan by only 2 articles. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Unsourced pamphlet. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Campbell

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

The only things known about her is that she played in the AAGPBL in 1949 and her hometown. No stats, no position, not even which team she played on. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this could redirect to List of All-American Girls Professional Baseball League players (A–C)#C, which has just as much of the voluminous info about her. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her team isn't even known?!? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Baseball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in light of lack of any meaningful information about the player, let alone sources, satisfying WP:GNG. Oppose redirect to list; no one is looking for this Ruth Campbell, which is quite a common name. And if anyone is looking specifically for the AAGPBL player in 1949, they can still find it on the list page referenced above or on the AAGBPL.org web site (of which Wikipedia is not a clone/mirror). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding evidence of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the weakest parts of the old WP:NBASE was the granting of 1 game auto-notability to players in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, a World War II-era women's novelty league that sought to economically capitalize on the fact that the quality of play in MLB had declined significantly during the WWII era, as so many MLB players were fighting in the war and were not available to play baseball anymore. After an initial blip in publicity during the war years, this league quickly faded into obscurity once the war ended and all of the MLB players came back, and was more or less completely forgotten until nearly 50 years later when a Hollywood movie was released that thrust it back into public consciousness. The end result of all this is that we have created Wikipedia articles about many of the players in this league that are lacking even such basic details as dates of birth and death. In the case of this player in particular, we have no stats at all on her (so, we really don't know if she ever played in this league or not, she could have very well been a benchwarmer who never actually made it out onto the field), or even what team she supposedly played for. To summarize, I would be shocked if any player who played in this league after 1945 has received any type of significant coverage at all. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transportify

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

Philippine delivery app company, subsidiary of redlinked Thai company. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Article fails to establish notability, search returns ads, routine announcements. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Websites, and Philippines. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found some more coverage 1, 2, 3 about the company. Fifthapril (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alex. I appreciate the help. I have adjusted the content and added the links you found online. I wasn't able to see them when I was conducting research for the company. Can you clarify what you mean by redlinked Thai company? As far as my research went for this company, i've seen nothing that says it is tied to a redlinked Thai company. Realmel.martin (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the sources above, this is an interview and everything relevant to the company came from quotes from a company representative. Remove what the company rep said, and there's nothing about the company; it's not an independent source. This is just a republishing of this press release and was written by the company itself in such an overtly non-neutral and self-congratulatory way that gave it away immediately that it was a press release. This is similarly an interview that consists entirely of "X said". The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. - Aoidh (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows a handful of interviews, including the ones presented by Fifthapril. SBKSPP (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for helping me out on this. I have adjusted the content and added few more published news as reference in both the first and second paragraph. I added reference to ABSCBN, Business World, and Technode Global. These are I believe reputable news source locally and globally. Looking forward to your feedback. Realmel.martin (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comes from a press release and everything relevant in the source is attributed to the company (e.g. "Transportify Philippines on Friday said..."). Textbook churnalism and not independent coverage. This is a press release and is not shy about being overly promotional either. This is a press release. This doesn't actually appear to be a press release, but is a summary of the startup raising capital, which is routine coverage per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage. This is similar to the first link in that everything relevant about the company is taken from the company's press release (e.g., "Southeast Asian logistics firm Deliveree announced..." and "Deliveree said in a statement..."). None of the sources recently added to the article help in establishing notability for the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Internet Radio

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

Fails WP:BCAST. Two sources mentioned is not connected to the subject. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No significant coverage found. Fifthapril (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. Sources in the article don't mention the radio station. Nothing showed up in a WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't show any general notability. Station's transmitter already destroyed Ploreky ^{talk to me} 07:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC+8)
Delete: Barely found anything about the internet station, not to mention it's unlicensed in terrestrial radio. Easily fails WP:BCAST, WP:WEB and WP:GNG. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks any sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Germany. Dan arndt (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to fill in more of the page yet. I only created it today. This new page was needed because both pages for "Galeria Kaufhof" and "Karstadt" still presented them as current, operating companies. I changed those two pages to the past tense, but the new company that resulted from their merger, "Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof," still needed its own page. I linked to the German page for "Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof" on the side, where it says "Languages." That page is filled with detailed information and sources. I brought oevr the opening paragraph and translated it. I just didn't have time to bring all that additional information over and translate it into English. Jamesluckard (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no reasonable case that this fails WP:NCOMPANY. There's extensive coverage of the firm in Der Spiegel [26]. It gets covered in major German newspapers like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung e.g. "Galeria will aufholen"[27]. It's been covered in English by Bloomberg, Deutsche Welle, the Financial Times, and Women's Wear Daily[28]. Jahaza (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the best known chains of department stores in Germany with a turnover of nearly 5 billion euros. Just take a look at the German Wiki article and you'll see it has extensive coverage. It just needs expanding. Bermicourt (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a lack of sources in the article is not the same as a lack of sources about the subject. A quick search would have shown there to be lots of coverage about this company, as noted above and as seen in the improvements to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major company in Germany. It even has its own category at RND [29]https://www.rnd.de/themen/kaufhof/ WatkynBassett (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage about company significantly that shows notability. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aisyah Sativa Fatetani

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 197, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noh, I have replace source #1. and add source for Lithuanian International.

As fellow Indonesian, I feel dissappointed with you because you didnot help to expand this article.. Look at malaysian, their new player already has pages in this encyclopedia.. Pathetic.. Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NBAD. Haueirlan (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winner of international badminton tournaments. Clearly meets WP:NSPORTS.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Legoktm (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saifi Rizka Nurhidayah

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

what information are you trying to cite from source #1 to include in the article? No sources about notability and personal information. I think the creator only copy paste from other articles. Source #2 never mentioned about Saifi Rizka Nurhidayah. This is BLP article, so every statement tht you added should be support with inline citation. Stvbastian (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hai basti, sorry about source#1, I already replaced it. Source #2 not mentionde Saifi because she did not play in the finals, but she play in the tournament and get medal.. Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tournament might be notable, but we need more sourcing. Any stories about this person in local media? We need more that talks about them as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. gtgamer79 (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The arguments to keep here are numerically in a substantial majority, but they are considerably weaker than the arguments to delete and (especially) merge; so we are left with no consensus. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that notability is demonstrated by coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources. And we have created specific guidelines to cover cases where sources may be hard to come by. Nobody has made a persuasive argument that anything besides GNG or NLIST should apply here, and nobody has provided substantive evidence that this topic meets either of those guidelines. A lot of the argumentation is outright wikilawyering that I'm not going to even bother to discuss; anyone not involved with this dispute can see it for what it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special routes of U.S. Route 76

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

Fails WP:GNG, I can't find even a single reliable secondary source which covers the topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I will start off by saying that I personally do not like this kind of article: a bunch of routes that don't deserve their own article, but have to be mentioned somewhere. Previous discussions (WP:USRD/P) have established the notability, at least in some form, of all components of federal and state highway systems, however then we get articles like this. Which would be fine if it was just a paragraph or two describing the route, linked to Google Maps or a state government log, but then we wind up with editors wasting time adding junction lists for a 2 mile route, and routes that may have existed at least on paper but never made their way to the map.

Anyway - I am inclined to keep because at least some of them are detailed in government documents [30][31], and we are considered a gazetteer (WP:5P) - however if this got condensed to a table somewhere it wouldn't be a big deal. --Rs chen 7754 01:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:ROADOUTCOMES, though that is not policy, it does reflect precedent. --Rs chen 7754 03:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time to set a new precedent then! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI you are mistaken about WP:5P, it says we have features of gazetteers but it does not say we are a gazetteer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information about the "gazetteer" thing - The North Carolina Gazetteer by William S. Powell does not have entries for highways. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to U.S. Route 76. There's clearly no source coverage for this as a topic. There might be some content that fits on U.S. Route 76, which I presume is more notable, although it is somewhat lacking in sources as well. CMD (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look for sources and found something about a bicycle route with the same number, a United Airlines flight with this number (a false positive) and not much else. If there are no sources, we can't have an article. WP:5P says we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Carolina and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge - I tried giving newspapers.com and proquest a search, in particular for the extant route in Carolina, and couldn't come up with anything except classified ads and a single closure notice. I suggest taking a look at Ontario Highway 40#Suffixed routes for an example of how I handle minor "side routes" of a notable major highway. That said, this is a subject that requires coverage as part of a larger system, so if it can't fit into a parent article because of size constraints, it will be the first portion subject to a legitamite content fork. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that from a WP:DUEWEIGHT perspective an article without reliable secondary sources has nothing in it which should be merged into another article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are more than fine to say it existed and went from A to B, as I have done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A question for another day perhaps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists of special routes of a U.S. Highway are notable per the precedents set at WP:USRD/P. Dough4872 21:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no basis to this claim whatsoever. The only similar page on this list is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special routes in Michigan. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5P2, WP:5P5, and WP:NODEADLINE. The relevant text of 5P2 says "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person." (my emphasis). This list is neither controversial nor is it about a person, so what's with the urgency? The relevant text of 5P5 is "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time." Yes, eventually, this article should have citations to reliable sources, but it doesn't have to be right this second. Side note: I am the creator of this article, but if you look at the page history, I am not the creator of the content and my edits to the content are largely negligible. –Fredddie ™ 23:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—per Fredddie's considered analysis. Also, to have complete coverage of the components of the United States Numbered Highway System and the various state highway systems, we'd need to have places for content such as this. Per WP:SIZE, we aren't always going to be able to merge stuff away into other articles, so collecting it into "listicles" such as this is a good option. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge No, you can't just cite 5P to exempt yourself from the concept of AFD. I see no need for this to be a separate article from U.S. Route 76 so anything worth keeping should be merged there. USRD/P is NOT a policy or guideline that decides this page is notable, it's just an archive of AFDs that only has two entries in the last decade, but that does not exempt them from actual notability guidelines (WP:GEOROAD). Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that roads should be forever exempted from AfD, that's ridiculous; but I see the path we're going down. All I'm asking is that the next deletion discussion starts after the first discussion dies off or closes. Not everybody here has the time or energy to pay attention to multiple concurrent AfDs. –Fredddie ™ 13:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is merged, it would be better to merge them to the state specific articles as applicable (ex. Laurens business loop gets merged to U.S. Route 76 in South Carolina). I don't have a strong opinion regarding merging vs keeping, but the contents should definitely be preserved in some form. Jumpytoo Talk 07:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Fails GNG (and NLIST). Sources here include a blog, Google maps, and various technical government reports. The descriptions of what buildings and what towns the routes pass and where they turn are not guided by any substantive secondary sources, just observations made by looking at maps. This wholly violates the spirit of no WP:OR, if not directly the letter (WP:SYNTH specifically). I also reject the above keep votes citing "no deadline" without any reasonable indication that substantive sourcing (like if a journalist actually wrote about these routes) actually exists. If that was how Wikipedia worked, AfD would not exist. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does not fail GNG because at least some of the sources someone might consider primary instead of secondary comply with the policies about appropriate use of primary sources. V C 02:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? CMD (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're usable in the article but they generally don't contribute to notability as GNG says: ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." I don't see any exceptional primary sources there, can you point them out? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References 2, 5, 13, 16, and 22 are works of a national-level policy-making organization of state officials. If they are primary sources, they are reputable sources and they make statement of facts. V C 02:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with them providing evidence of notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the GNG - "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. We cannot just pretend otherwise. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should vs shall. Big difference. Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at other uses of "should" in our standards:

information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. -This is also from the GNG, so I guess writing standalone articles with no reliable information is perfectly acceptable? Because we only "should not" do it, not "shall not" do it?
From our policy page on WP:Copyrights - If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material–and the whole page, if there is no other material present–should be removed. So I guess our legal copyright policy is also optional? Better tell the admin corps.
From WP:NPOV - Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. And we're allowed to act in bad faith and promote some views over others?
From WP:BLP - BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Oops, guess that's also optional! -Indy beetle (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists, sounds like those policies and guidelines were written by someone without technical proficiency in the English language. Shall=must, should=best practise. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that not follow for the GNG? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:CSC: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.). There's too much content here to merge into the main article on U.S. Route 76, and that content is worth preserving, so having an independent article is ideal. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too much to merge into the slightly over 1000 word article how exactly? CMD (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content would take up a disproportionate amount of the U.S. Route 76 article, compared to how important it is to the topic. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted we don't have any sources that would help evaluate how important they are to the topic, but if we do the solution to that would be to appropriately expand the Route 76 article. CMD (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
\We don't need to have a secondary source analyzing importance to include information -- basic editorial judgement isn't considered original research. Google Maps is not an ideal source, but it is a generally-reliable, secondary source for information about roads. We have enough reliably-sourced information to confirm that these routes exist, and some details about them; they clearly should be covered in some form on the encyclopedia. Merging them into the parent article would not improve the encyclopedia over keeping them in their own separate article, so I oppose doing so. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have consensus that Google Maps is generally reliable We do actually have to have a source do the analysis, remember that analysis performed by editors falls under WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a source requires some amount of effort to understand doesn't mean that citing it constitutes original research. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make it generally reliable, you'd need a consensus for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a consensus for a source to be reliable. Google Maps at WP:RSP is listed as "no consensus" and there have not been any well-attended discussions about using it for sourcing on articles on road routes.

This article also has multiple sources that are not Google Maps. State DOTs are clearly reliable sources about the roads they maintain, and references to state DOTs are included for many of the routes on this page. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If its "no consensus then" its not generally reliable, is it? State DOT are primary sources, they don't confer any indication of notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps wouldn't indicate notability either! That's not the point here. We're allowed to use primary sources for article content. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"That's not the point here" you are participating in a notability discussion, that is literally the only point here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have repeatedly misunderstood my argument here. The individual routes are not notable. No one is suggesting an article for them. We are discussing this list, and lists are held to different standards than normal articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You're citing the style page. The list notability page criteria at WP:NLIST states Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. No reliable secondary source has been offered which provides significant coverage of the U.S. Route 76 special routes as a group. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I know exactly what page I'm citing. Note the part of WP:NLIST you quoted says "One accepted reason", which implies there are other accepted reasons. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. is also a part of NLIST, and NLIST indeed links to the style page I mentioned. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This list doesn't fulfill any of those three criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does. WP:LISTPURP, which that criteria links to, links back to the section on selection criteria which I originally cited here. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the three does it fulfill? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not navigational, since that would apply only if the individual routes were notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's informational.
    
    There's really two discussions that are being had here simultaneously: should the content here exist on Wikipedia, and if so, should it be in its own separate article or in the main article for U.S. Route 76?
    
    The answer to the first question is that the content clearly should exist; there is reliable sourcing and content in articles does not need to be notable. If there were only one or two special routes, then it would of course make sense to include this in the main article. However, because there are so many, it makes more sense to split the special routes off to their own article. This isn't really a question of notability at all, but a question of organization. Our guidelines on lists allude to this principle, but don't explicitly state it, but it's part of why WP:CSC is written as it is. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be specific, what recognized informational purpose? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I already explained in my comment. You haven't engaged with most of what I have said. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very sorry I appear to be missing it, what recognized informational purpose does this serve? I'm not aware of a recognized need to cover special routes in the United States. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If what is being proposed were the norm, WP:OR would not matter. Half of the cites here are government reports (the organizations which are fulfilling their lawful obligations and maintain these routes, so while I do not question their reliability on factual matters, I question their relevance as far as notability significance), and the others are Google maps, which could be cherry picked to support all sorts of content. I do think this is a question of notability. Why is it necessary to describe, on an independent page, why the Columbia connector route passes some university frat houses, a library, and an auditorium, or that it crosses railroad tracks? These are all the observations of one editor who looked at Google maps. Trim out these subjective, unguided observations and what is left? Can I have an article on the home in which I live, since my city of residence is notable, and I can describe my apartment complex and cite Google street view, and then say that since it is not DUE to have a full description of my home on the city page, it can have its own article? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If either was on the National Register of Historic Places, then yes. --Rs chen 7754 03:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My complex is not on the register, and neither are these highways, far as I know. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What I'm getting at is that the appropriate organization has said that of this category, this road has significance. --Rs chen 7754 03:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - What orgizational recognition/affiliation do the special routes of US 76 have that grants them presumed notability? -Indy beetle (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The individual routes are not notable, we do not (and should not) have an article on U.S. Route 76 Connector (Florence, South Carolina), for example. These routes are clearly something worth covering though, as they are relevant information to a topic that is notable (U.S. Route 76). The best way to organize this information on Wikipedia is in its own list article. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        are clearly something worth covering though, as they are relevant information to a topic that is notable Then why the lack of secondary independent coverage? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you arguing that all information in Wikipedia articles needs to be supported by secondary sources? Because that is simply not the case. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The group that is in charge of the designations, AASHTO. --Rs chen 7754 00:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        An intergovernmental coordinating body which hands out numbers? I guess we're back to "the government built it, so notable". -06:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a body which represents 330 million people imparts notability onto the topics for which it was the creator or funder. This applies to numerous things, including Acts of government, government departments, states and provinces, as well other pieces of infrastructure including subways, bridges and ferries. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it does not... Thats not at all how notability works. The IP said something objectively crazy to make a hyperbolic point, you weren't supposed to say yes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, but years of precedent has established otherwise. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can of course provide diffs of the consensus that anything which the US Government was the creator or funder of is notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "precedent" is years of roadfans pursuing their interest without much scrutiny from the rest of the community. If this were really the standard, then wouldn't we have articles on all named USDA research stations? All US Forestry posts? All dams and levees built by the US Army Corps of Engineers or the WPA? -Indy beetle (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to two very vocal deletionists? And yes, those should have articles or be covered by a parent article, and split off into individual articles if there is too much to cover in the parent article, as is the case with this article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have I been a "very vocal deletionist"? Diffs or retract, and you're probably going to have to retract because I'm consistently on the record as an inclusionist (if not an absolutist or extremist about it). Tell me, besides for this one how many pages have I taken to AfD? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring. You've blanked plenty of sections in the past week or so, instead of doing a basic Google search and adding references. You then spent far more time than it would have to do that basic search, to devote yourself to challenging the use of Google Maps at WP:RSN, nag at editors for content added a decade ago on several talk pages, and complain about how the word "numerous" is a loaded/comparative term that can only be arrived at by original research and/or synthesis. So no, I will making no retractions. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even on this page, Horse Eye's Back and Indy beetle are the top two editors, both of whom !voted delete. Only Elli who !voted keep is even close in number of edits or bytes added. Again, just on this page, what Floydian says tracks. –Fredddie ™ 02:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how dare those "deletionists", trying to prevent WP:SYNTH! Those scoundrels who believe that Wikipedia articles should be based off of books and newspaper articles instead of Google Maps, so absurd! -Indy beetle (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Elli isn't "close" in terms of bytes added, they've actually added more than me in terms of bytes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hesitate to relist an AFD this lengthy but I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about the road or the special routes either. They exist and are nothing particularly historic. no GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viridiscalculus. TITANOSAURUS 23:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD, national numbered highways are notable; but as these highways don't have easy-to-access coverage, a listicle is a fine compromise that does not harm the goal of the project and place an undue burden on maintenance. Sounder Bruce 01:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna van Aerssen van Sommelsdijk

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

Absolutely no presentation of any case for notability. WP:NOTGENEALOGY totally applies here - she was born in 1640, she was in a family, she was one of a number of sisters who joined a movement, she died. No notability in text or sources. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a six-paragraph scholarly biography in Dutch here which includes a reference list pointing to other sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC as demonstrated by Ficaia and the Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland. pburka (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka. St Anselm (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The six-paragraph biography adds absolutely nothing to the article in its current state and confers no notability whatsoever - she was not a proponent of any act or consequence. The Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland does not even mention her. FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland is the name of the biographical dictionary in which the six-paragraph biography appears. Wikipedia's notability criteria don't require great feats or acts of consequence. Instead, we delegate the determination of notability to reliable sources. If a prominent tertiary source such as DVN has taken note of van Aerssen, then so also should we. pburka (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO as above. Yet another unnecessary nomination. One is supposed to check sources before nominating! gidonb (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Nominators should be especially careful in nominating for deletion articles about women, when their contributions are regularly underrepresented in historical sources, a fact which the Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland already sought to remedy, so let's not disregard that important work. Jahaza (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The sources clearly include Dutch biographical disctionaries. It is long established that people with articles in such works are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is article could easily be expanded to 60k or 80k with not a lot of work. More than than a few sources to support it. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sibghatullah Ahmadi

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

Cross wiki promotional spam for a non notable media spokesperson and PR advisor in Afghanistan. Article creator since blocked for conflict of interest. Existing sources are all routine coverage, his own PR, passing mentions, Wikipedia and an interview with the subject. A search for “ صبغت الله احمدی” did not produce anything better. Mccapra (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. Mccapra (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gut

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

Businessman with a successful career but I don’t see anything that would make him notable in Wikipedia terms. Mccapra (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Switzerland. Mccapra (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable, accountant. Linkedin resume we have here.Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG is my gut feeling. See what I did there? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting hard to digest all the bad puns here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Makes no claim to notability. Arguably even fails WP:A7. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject exist, but fails notability. >>> Extorc.talk 09:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:SIGCOV. We lack sufficient independent references to meet notability. Yüsiacı (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per the nom. Fails notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been blanked per VRTS ticket 2022101310011831.