Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 09 March 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Hathiramani

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

Completing nomination for IP editor: "Biography doesn't meet notability requirements. - 180.150.37.213" Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing found beyond interviews. Non-notable businessman. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Sooriyakumar

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but the only notability claim being made here is that he exists, and the only reference is a brief glancing namecheck of his existence as a person who spoke about his experiences as an immigrant in a museum exhibition, and even on a search for other sources I just can't find anything but primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 22:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject matter fails general notability guidelines per WP:PERSON Ñ•ætin👨 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to James Madison University. Star Mississippi 01:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Madison University College of Visual and Performing Arts

[edit]
James Madison University College of Visual and Performing Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG (notability cannot be inherited from its notable parent organization) ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those specific organizations may be notable but no one has presented evidence that the college itself is independently notable. ElKevbo (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs total cleanup. Ñ•ætin👨 (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the mother article is huge and there's info here worth keeping. A quick review of all the James Madison articles shows they all need work. It would be nice if some interested editor grabbed the bull by the horns and reorganized all the JM articles. This article is a necessary content fork, albeit done boldly. 174.212.228.151 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to James Madison University it's a great idea that this could be totally revamped up by an enterprising editor but I have my doubts it will happen. The better plan of action is to merge back into the main article. Nweil (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Pengelbew

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There are two sources in the article, both match reports that mention the subject once. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Montserrat national football team#Coaching history. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Lake (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dice: Afterlife

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

Potentially fails WP:BOOKCRIT. All I can find are retailers selling the book and social media. I can't find any reviews or any other independent coverage. I don't think that the right to participate in the LGBTQ-U International Film Festival is sufficient for BOOKCRIT#2 and I can't see any WP:ATD since the author of the book, Ramil Mustafayev (Kryptohaker), is not notable and doesn't have an article. In fact, all I can find on Kryptohaker is his Twitter page with 50 followers... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Survivor: Gabon. This is a challenging one, however when looking at the policy basis, those against retaining a standalone have stronger weight behind their !votes. That said, no reason not to redirect (or to delete before redirecting) has been made, and this is a viable search, ergo AtD. Star Mississippi 01:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant)

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

May be the oldest Survivor winner to this date, but I fail to see how he is significant outside Survivor. I have doubts that he meets WP:NACADEMICS. Should be redirected to either Survivor: Gabon or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crowley is the oldest winner of Survivor. This could be considered similar to nominating the only minority winner, or the only female winner. Why the oldest as one of the few to be chosen for a deletion attempt? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
    You've been around long enough to know how useless the OTHERSTUFF argument is and the dim view the community takes on spurious accusations of discrimination. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay - Why do you see Bob Crowley or other Survivor winners as being different than an athlete or a professional chess player? What do you think the differences are from winning survivor and winning a boxing world title or a major chess tournament and so forth? I think it would help a lot to understand where you are coming from.KatoKungLee (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what I think, I didn't make whatever provision for athletes BLP1E is alluding to. In my opinion BLP1E should be far stricter. JoelleJay (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Survivor is an athletic competition as much as it is a social or mental competition. And I'd argue that sports are just as much of a mental competition as they are an athletic competition, since players shut down mentally and cannot perform because as well of it. So for Survivor fans, it's just going to come across as WP:JDL. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions are of very poor quality, asserting notability for winning a reality TV show without basis in applicable guidelines. This needs more discussion of the quality and quantity of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008 the producer admitted that the show casts actors. The contestants also have to attend Survivor School. Winning the show is significant. I think we are all wise to the fact that reality shows are not actually unscripted reality shows. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources explicitly mention Crowley, and they don't consider him an "actor". I searched for reliable sources calling him an "actor" only to come up short and empty. Not even this questionnaire considers him an "actor". (If curious, I don't think this source is "independent" of Crowley, defined by WP:GNG, and shouldn't be used to determine Crowley's notability.) If I missed one reliable source calling him an "actor", I can stand corrected. Otherwise, I thought calling him an "actor" is farfetched, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps to see it another way - he is an WP:ENTERTAINER and it is the same notability guide. He continues to get coverage as Randy Kryn has shown above. I find it odd that we have an effort to delete the bio. And now I must try to follow the advice in WP:COAL. Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Professionally, he's neither an "actor" nor an "entertainer". How does being a challenge beast and then a Survivor winner automatically make him an "entertainer"? I don't think available sources label him an "entertainer", explicitly or not. I stand corrected, nonetheless, if I overlooked one reliable source labeling him that. George Ho (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to that season's page. Wasn't notable before the win, hasn't done much of anything since. This isn't 2005 where there have only been a few winners, they're almost a dime a dozen at this point. We're past Survivor season 20 now. Winning the tv show isn't as notable as it used be, beyond Boston Rob, most people are just another blip on the radar at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never watched Survivor, but even if there are 20 winners now, I think "winner" plus "something different from the other winners" (in this case, oldest so far) makes him notable. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and what policy do you invoke to support your vote? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - The subject meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG, and I don't see that they meet the 3 criteria for WP:BLP1E. (I don't think he meets any of the three criteria, although as this AfD discussion suggests he may meet point (1) depending on your interpretation of the phrase "in the context of a single event".) As suggested in the essay WP:NOTBLP1E, the subject is a common case: "Subjects who were first notable for one event, and rode that fame into attention on their other endeavours." Suriname0 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading BIO, I see WP:NBASIC saying that he must meet also GNG, but then I don't see how he meets WP:ANYBIO. NBASIC might suffice, but then there's WP:BIO1E (different from BLP1E), which addresses how to weigh one or another within a biography like this.
    Reading GNG, however, "presumed" is one of things/criteria for the person to meet, but then it further says that the article itself would be perceived to violate WP:NOT per one discussion, regardless of notability. How and/or why do you think the article doesn't violate WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTEVERYTHING?
    Furthermore, do you think Survivor: Gabon is just one event or has more than one event? To me, the whole season is just one event, despite displaying multiple challenges and Tribal Councils and dialogue scenes. Also, I am uncertain whether his academic career or post-Survivor activities/events are noteworthy, but then by default, I'm more concerned about expressing the biography about the oldest winner at the time, which is addressed by WP:WHATISTOBEDONE (part of WP:NOT). George Ho (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Ho, WP:BLUDGEON aside, Crowley, as mentioned above, won the season (notable), wrote a book (notable) and created a Business Insider acknowledged and reported on camp (notable). Please stop misleading Keep commentators by saying that this notable individual somehow isn't notable. You can think that, but that's a personal opinion and not based in the Wikipedia guidelines you link to. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit to being a little confused by your reply. Being a Survivor contestant I presume to be one event (although I've never seen the show and don't know much about its structure). You ask "why do you think the article doesn't violate WP:NOT?", a question I don't understand; the fundamental goal is for an encyclopedic article to capture the knowledge about the topic as reflected in significant coverage from reliable sources. It doesn't seem as though the Delete voters disagree that there is sustained, significant coverage of the subject, so the goal here is to assess whether the best editing outcome is a standalone article about Crowley vs covering Crowley in the article about the show. My reading of, e.g. the Business Insider and Men's Health pieces is that they include summary of Crowley's post-Survivor activities that I presume would be inappropriate to include in the primary article about the season. Suriname0 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a summary of Crowley's post-Survivor activities need to be in Wikipedia at all? Every article topic and subtopic contains more verifiable info than is included on the page it appears on; in fact exhaustive details are prohibited by NOT. As mentioned above, the coverage in the two sources is in the context of his Survivor win, with the only additional material being on his book and company, neither of which generated SIGCOV in BLP-level SIRS on its own (I'll note again that Business Insider is of questionable reliability at RSP). The piece in Men's Health is one in a long string of low-quality BuzzFeed-style articles by its author (e.g. 70 Hilarious Memes That Perfectly Describe Your Sex Life) and mostly regurgitates trivia from the Survivor fandom wiki before dropping an affiliate marketing link (tag=menshealth-auto-20) to Crowley's book on Amazon. All we get out of this is two sentences on what he did after Survivor. That's not enough in my opinion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Suriname0, a very well written summary. JoelleJay, come on, it's pretty obvious that Crowley has survived this Tribal Council. I would think that at the very least this discussion comes across as 'no consensus', with Suriname0's case-closed above comment alone. Let's compare Suriname0's comment to Crowley having a hidden idol (WP:HIDDENIDOL, dibs) which is brought out near the end of the vote. Maybe George Ho would consider ending this AfD with Crowley still on the Island (or wherever Wikipedia exists in the aethersphere). That'd be a cool win for him. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Randy Kryn, I don't think this is completely fair. Personally, I read the arguments as favoring a Delete consensus, and my comment is certainly not (or intended to be) "case-closed". Suriname0 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Suriname0. I struck the case-closed comment because of your concern. That's how I read it though, it was a very good summary. This page has been stable since 2008, and since you don't watch the show, Crowley is an important part of its legacy as the oldest contestant. It's a popular show and, more importantly, was a pioneer of the reality show jugganaut which then took over television. This winner's notability comes from several angles and not just one (even though the one-notable thing is being used here seemingly as the sole reason to render him off-the-island, the metaphor I was playing with above). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:JoelleJay, I agree the Men's Health piece is questionable. The Business Insider piece looks better (but still not great), with evidence of some actual reporting going on. But I absolutely agree that the question "Why does a summary of Crowley's post-Survivor activities need to be in Wikipedia at all" is the crux of the issue. Basically, I don't trust my feelings on this issue because, well, I don't like the topic of the article. "Post-survivor activities" basically feel like WP:FANCRUFT to me, but if it's verifiable to a reliable secondary source... then I feel hard-pressed to say it doesn't deserve a sentence. Is it really more fancruft-y then when I look up a TV actor's personal life on Wikipedia? Genuinely interested to hear your further thoughts on this topic. Suriname0 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0, yep, I understand your predicament. WP:NOTWHOSWHO offers some guidance on this (related to BLP1E), as does NOTGOSSIP, which licenses selective exclusion of facts. We don't need to detail every relationship Brad Pitt has ever had, even though each of them is readily verifiable in multiple SIRS. Likewise, not every detail related to Survivor -- and the two post-TV facets of Crowley's life are certainly covered in this context -- needs to appear on Wikipedia. Pretty much all the contestants on the show have a "post-Survivor" section on their fandom entries with multiple sourced facts; if these don't need to appear on the main season's page, why should they be the basis for another article?
Anyway, I appreciate your measured responses here even if we disagree on the ultimately subjective assessment of DUEness and NOPAGE. It's a breath of fresh air to discuss this somewhat philosophically rather than with dogmatic pronunciations. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I normally avoid the long AfDs... it was seeing that you had participated that led me to take a closer look! Always appreciate your responses. Anyway, those links are useful but still leave me a bit confused. WP:GOSSIP says "Not every facet of a celebrity's life ... warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those ... for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." For major figures like Brad Pitt, we have to be selective in order to create a coherent, reasonable length article. But for random people like Crowley, we only have the sourcing for a single sentence on his post-Survivor activities anyway! I do think anyone looking up Crowley would be "reasonably likely to have an interest" in his post-Survivor activities. The argument about other wikis is interesting, but it hasn't prevented English Wikipedia from becoming a sports statistics repository. Suriname0 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was non-notable before the event and non-notable after the event. The event itself was trivial so this is, at best, a WP:BLP1E. I hope the closing administrator will act on policy and will not allow themselves to be WP:Bludgeoned. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I think you may wanna add "redirect" or "delete" for clarity and better readability. Please feel free to strike this comment out after this. George Ho (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my vote is at the top. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Sources tell the story on Wikipedia. This page is well-sourced and is recognized as so by many editors above. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Wikilawyering will not help here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, being mistaken as a lawyer I will comply. WP:BLP1E fails because Crowley is not a WP:LPI (low-profile individual) who hasn't sought public attention - a direct requirement for WP:BLP1E (see point number 2, and please read the text of WP:LPI). He has sought and gained public attention. He has written a book, and opened a noted camp. But let's say Xxanthippe is correct, and the weight of all of the Keep comments and of failing every sentence of WP:LPI are not enough to keep the page through at least a 'no consensus' ruling. Then the only policy left, and hopefully this won't be needed and what follows is just an academic exercise, is WP:IAR.

Hold on, don't stop reading. Many editors entirely miss or haven't comprehended the language used in the WP:IAR policy. Some make it out to be an exotic curiosity, and one which should never be used in AfD discussions. An editor was recently taken to ANI because he cited WP:IAR in some football AfDs, and, although I followed it awhile, I have no idea how it turned out. But the policy - not a guideline, or an essay, this is Wikipedia policy - tells us that if keeping a page is good for the encyclopedia, and removing it hurts the encyclopedia, it is kept. Automatically, per WP:IAR policy. The exact language: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, maintaining the encyclopedia by leaving this stable 2008 article alone, which many editors say to do. It seems that the closer would be obliged by Wikipedia policy to ignore the editors who point to an arguably encyclopedia-harming guideline about one event, and who then stretch it to its limit by claiming that Crowly, being an author and a notably sourced camp creator, means nothing. That he didn't really mean to be a public author. That he accidently created and promoted his camp and his connection to the camp. WP:LPI must be met to claim WP:BLP1E. It hasn't been. If somehow (?) it has, stretching the limit of purposely ignoring BLP1E requirements, then WP:IAR comes in to give the policy a nudge back to neutrality. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to this ANI discussion, right? From what I skimmed, the consensus nearly supported warning the user, but I'm unsure whether it went somewhere or nowhere. I couldn't read the ANI case fully, but I found that some of AFDs that the user participated in resulted in "kept" (not solely per IAR) and that some others resulted in either "deleted" or "redirected".
Speaking of IAR, I would be too reluctant to invoke it in order to ignore BLP1E and its spirit, especially when poorly referenced info or extensively detailed info about the said person would be told to readers. But I can't stop you from doing that. George Ho (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please will a brave administrator put this time-wasting AfD out of its misery? Everything (and more) that can be said has been said. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

You did not address WP:LPI, which is a requirement for WP:BLP1E (see point number 2, and please read the text of WP:LPI). Only low-profile individuals can be the subject of BLP1E. It is limited to people who don't seek publicity and who somehow got caught up in an event. Crowley is a high-profile individual according to WP:LPI, so this page cannot be deleted by citing WP:BLP1E. Almost all of the delete "votes" and some of the redirect votes incorrectly use WP:BLP1E (rendering this discussion to overwhelmingly favoring keep). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're linking to an essay, which doesn't mean much and certainly doesn't invalidate BLP1E concerns. I disagree that being mildly self-promotional during the 1E (the book was released less than a month after the season concluded) turns one into an eternally high-profile individual. Given the only arguably SIGCOV piece covering his post-Survivor activities is a) in the context of Survivor, b) promoting his business, c) in the finance section of a yellow source, and d) from 7 years ago, I'd say the conditions of BLP1E are still met. Not to mention having the added material on Wiki only serves as PROMO for the subject's enterprises. JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E links to that essay to explain what a low-profile individual is, in the sentence saying that only low-profile individuals qualify for WP:BLP1E. The topic of this page is not a low-profile individual but a high-profile individual. His agreeing to appear on an entire season of Survivor rules it out, as do the book and the camp. BLP1E does not apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic anyone who is notable for one event in entertainment is automatically exempted from BLP1E. That's clearly not the case (and otherwise remains makes it clear "low-profile" must be interpreted outside the context of the event). The fact that we know almost nothing about his post-Survivor career is evidence that he has not sought further attention in 10+ years. Also, it seems like that essay was surreptitiously wikilinked in proposed text during a wider RfC on rewording BLP1E but did not get discussed itself. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to correct you, but the changes were made in 2012 (eleven years ago) per one discussion, which somehow included a link to the essay. George Ho (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the RfC on rewording BLP1E I'm referring to. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Survivor:Samoa. As mentioned in the previous relist, the "keep" !votes are of very poor quality and this didn't change much in the later discussion. I am redirecting to "Survivor:Samoa", but the target can be changed (e.g., to "List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants") after local discussion. Any content worth merging elsewhere is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie White

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

Sure, this person won $1 million in Survivor: Samoa, but I don't see how else she is significant outside Survivor. Even "appearances" and "reception" were Survivor-related. Should be redirected to either that season article or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Survivor winner. Deleting her would be like deleting a Super Bowl winner. Not real sure why all these Survivor posts keep coming up. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is being a winner sufficient to keep the article about this person? And a Super Bowl winner is a winning team, not a winning player. A player of the winning Super Bowl team may or may not be notable. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, readers would expect more from the article about the Survivor: Samoa winner. If it falls short, then why else keeping the article besides... being a "winner"? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho - Since, you want to talk about individuals, we can stick to individual sports - Why is winning a Boxing, UFC or Olympic title notable? Is it because they are popular sports/events? Survivor's popular. Is it because the media covers those events? The media covers Survivor and doesn't cover things like porn, which are extremely popular, so media coverage isn't always the best way to judge anyway. Is it because you have to beat other people to win one of those titles/events? Same thing with Survivor. Is it because those are physical games over mental games? Well, Survivor is a very physical game with many athletic competitions such as swimming, lifting, climbing and often things like wrestling, basketball and so forth. What differences do you really see? Additionally, how would you say someone like Mark Magsayo is more notable? What other things has he accomplished outside of boxing? Nothing, yet nobody would ever really say he doesn't deserve a page here even though it's WP:BLP1E. I really hope you don't go with WP:OTHERSTUFF in your explanation as well. The argument really just comes down to WP:JDL. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope you don't go with WP:OTHERSTUFF in your explanation as well. I think you already did by comparing a Survivor winner to a Super Bowl winner... and further down. And comparing Survivor to other sports. (You also didn't mention that Survivor also is a reality TV show with strategic, social, and political aspects.) Oh, and Magsayo participated in individual boxing events, while White... participated in just one Survivor season, and even individual challenges are also part of the Samoa season, which is... one "event" to me. George Ho (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to be compared since you don't believe it's that Survivor is important enough on its own. I agree that Survivor is not considered by some to be a sport, but it's an athletic, mental, social and strategic competition and trying to convince Survivor fans that it is any different than other competitions is never going to happen. I don't think the television show part is important because various sports are also on TV and have various elements geared towards TV like commercial breaks, half-time shows, instant replays, interviews and so forth. While sporting events can exist without television, so could Survivor, it would just be harder to follow. The various challenges happen once, involve multiple people and awards/rewards are given out for winning them. Since you can win a challenge and still lose the game or lose a challenge and still win a game they are separate events. Of course, they have impact on the final outcome, but you can also lose a boxing match and go on to win a title (or lose a round and win the match), you can lose a heat in the olympics and still win a medal and you can lose an NFL game and still win the title. Again, the debate really just comes down to the media and/or various people believing that one competition is more important or more legitimate than other, which is WP:JDL.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions are of very poor quality, asserting notability for winning a reality TV show without basis in applicable guidelines. This needs more discussion of the quality and quantity of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the season's page. She's not Boston Rob. Most of these winners have faded away beyond fan sites and convention appearances. I don't find anything connected to this person outside the Survivor win, beyond the typical celebrity fluff stories. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our guidelines for WP:ENT#1. Our article refers to her as a "TV personality" which redirects to "celebrity". The person also has SIGCOV in national media. Being the winner of the show/season confers some notability. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable or not, even as a "TV personality", her significance outside Survivor has been limited at best. I have yet to see her other roles being hugely significant as her Survivor win. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References seems credible Christopheronthemove (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do credible references prove that she's independent of winning the Samoa season and save the article from being potentially redirected to a destination target? Reading the whole article, (the context of) the whole biography is mostly Samoa-based... or Survivor-based, even with other less significant appearances she made. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If credible sources say so, we have to believe so. Wikipedia is mainly based on credible sources. The People article , The Victoria Advocate article etc are credible one which can't be ignored Christopheronthemove (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment - applying WP:GNG to prove her notability is one thing, but complying with WP:NOT and WP:BLP is something to consider or weigh more. Even with notability, an article violating either policy is to me more serious to factor in. (Oh, and the above user is reported in a recent SPI case --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE or redirect per BLP1E. OtherStuffExists is poor rationale which is most of the “keep” !votes. I’ll note that Russell Hantz, the season’s runner-up has an article, but that’s because he’s notable beyond BLP1E. And sure, there are lots of sources here. But they are all referencing the BLP1E. Bottom line is at the moment this is a BLP1E, regardless of “other winners have articles” and sourcing also points to a single event. I see no other “keep” argument based on policy. Frankly I would close this myself except for having just !voted on it. This is a no-brainer. Artificial Nagger (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial Nagger, since WP:BLP1E does not apply if the person sought publicity, which this individual did by showing up on the set of Survivor and agreeing to be filmed, that's enough to rate as a high-profile-individual per WP:LPI. She fits the criteria. LPI must be applied, but it's possible that closers who close pages which contain long discussions in a minute or two may have never analyzed that, which is why discussion participants should. Please have another look at the two links, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is a policy, the purpose of which is stated quite clearly (emphasis added)
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article
And then the “three conditions” follows. And they apply to this and many other ‘Survivor’ articles. One could claim these contestants aren’t trying to be low-profile simply by appearing on the show, but I find that somewhat rather disingenuous an “ask” for people to swallow; these contestants have demonstrated they are low-profile because the sources only refer to them with respect to the 1E. Are they attempting to capitalize their 1E fame? What do the sources say? This reminds me of the old NFL adage of “If you’re not cheating you’re not trying”. Or in this case I’d expect to see some effort on part of the person trying to raise their profile. I’m not seeing it. And WP:LPI is an essay. It has some good advice, but even that points to these “winners” being LPI because profile can change over time. Because taken as a whole, they don’t seem to be seeking celebrity. This formulamatic approach you’re pushing is ignoring the spirit of BLP1E that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. “The Community” feels Survivor is just not that important. I’m sorry, but there it is. Artificial Nagger (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in-depth answer. WP:LPI is linked as the description of low-profile-individual for BLP1E and must be met to qualify. A low-profile-individual is one who doesn't seen publicity, such as a private citizen caught up in a news story (that's actually what 1E means taking the linked LPI into account, which it must be per how it's worded). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“must be met”. No, just no. This is Wiki-lawyering. Essays do not have any force or mandates on policy. A link to an essay is merely there for reference. It’s not a formula that has to be “met”. If low-profile-individual needed an actual definition it would have been spelled out in the policy. Occam's Razor applies. What is a LPI? We knows it when we sees it. Or more appropriately, the sources tells us what kind of profile they have. And for this BLP, and most of the other “winner” BLPs up for deletion would be considered low profile by any reasonable editor. Artificial Nagger (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, if you are swayed into believing that BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about applying WP:BIO1E instead? As I believe, it can apply to any individual known for one notable event, regardless of how "low" or "high" one's profile status is. George Ho (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Swayed? It's written clearly, WP:BLP1E does not apply, and with your comments you seem to be agreeing. Can you at least admit that no, it doesn't apply, and that all who used it for this series of deletion nominations are incorrect? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sorry to say, Bob Crowley is now redirected to Survivor: Gabon. How much more can you rebut those favoring deletion/redirecting? If you disagree, then please contact Star Mississippi who closed the AFD. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BIO1E is cut from the same mold as BLP1E. It’s about singular events. If it’s one event we focus on the event, not the person. If the person becomes interesting enough, then its BLP time. Artificial Nagger (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Survivor:Samoa - WP:OSE arguments aside, not enough in-depth coverage outside that relating to show to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Survivor:Samoa. There's a lot of sourcing that isn't independent or reliable; blogs, or sites associated with the show. The coverage that remains could be used to write a stub, or it could be used to supply a little detail on the parent page. I'd argue the latter serves the reader better, as there's centralization of information without due weight issues. Many keep opinions are not based in policy; a person could be a superbowl winner, but if all we can say about them is name, hometown, superbowl winner, then we shouldn't have a standalone article about them either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 19:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (advertising agency)

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

Neither the references in the article nor an internet search suggest that the company is notable.

I saw this article at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Suspicious PROD with invalid rationale. User:Andrewswitch proposed the article for deletion because "As a privately-held company under new leadership, Switch does not feel this page serves a purpose in marketing its new brand since this information is inaccurate and outdated." The article was created in 2011 by an account which only edited that article in that year suggesting a conflict of interest. TSventon (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Awards 2022 stage interruption

[edit]
The Game Awards 2022 stage interruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two major problems. First, the event is already in detail at The Game Awards 2022, but this leads to the second problem is that there, we have already decided this person was a non-public figure that naming him was not appropriate. This seems to written as to get around that consensus. Masem (t) 18:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i originally meant for the article to be purely about Matan and not just the event but i guess that doesn't meet the notability guidelines so some other guy rewrote it to be about just December 8th. Flyless Kyle (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was about Matan Even, but a reviewer suggested making the article about the stage interruption itself. This article is showing Matan's career leading up to it as a political activist, his role in this event specifically, and his career following as a YouTuber and content creator in the public eye. This article was not written to circumvent anything, it was originally based around Matan as stated earlier. Please reconsider this deletion request. TheDonquavious (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i think the article should be reverted back to my original intention for it to be about even as a whole, not just the stage interruption. Flyless Kyle (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree that the person involved is almost certainly non-notable. I may have underestimated just how much after the fact coverage is considered acceptable for even an event itself to have a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sioux. Salvio giuliano 19:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Sioux Nation

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

This page is just duplicate information of the main Sioux page and the term is an outdated way of referring to all the Lakota and Dakota people (Oceti Sakowin is the proper native way to refer to the entire people). The Great Sioux Reservation article exists and presents information different from the main article Sioux. So this page should be deleted and redirected to one of the two articles, I suggest Sioux but either is fine. TLDR: Delete and merge per WP:OVERLAP.  oncamera  (talk page) 18:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an important issue to get right, and I am trying to balance my lack of expertise with the perception that the nominator seems well-qualified to comment, which makes me somewhere between neutral and lean delete. CT55555(talk) 02:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked before and the admin there said merge, straight forward. I just didn't see their reply until today when I remembered I posted on there after you mentioned it here. See archived discussion post
 oncamera  (talk page) 12:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brastop

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

Non-noteworthy company, fails WP:NCORP. Maduant (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 17:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Salvio giuliano 19:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Justin Hudson McKoy

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker and musician, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for filmmakers or musicians. This was created at the subject's full name, rather than his normal common name, in an apparent attempt to sidestep the results of the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gino McKoy -- but it still doesn't make any particularly strong notability claim (e.g. noteworthy music or film awards) over and above the fact that he and his work exist, and it's still based on a mixture of primary sources, self-promotion and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not about him, which is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to pass WP:GNG in lieu of any especially noteworthy distinctions.
Just like the first time, there's still nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universal College Lahore

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

Per searches, nothing significant about this business, fails WP:NCORP. BookishReader (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found nothing to establish notability, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maktab (Lahore)

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

Per source searches, this school does not meet WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maktab, Lahore, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to see that this list was deleted.... it contained a great deal of data that is no longer accessible.
It seems to me that the article got messy simply because so many russian diplomats people were added to the list as a result of their invasion of Ukraine.
How can I access the missing data ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people declared persona non grata

[edit]
List of people declared persona non grata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While instances of people being declared persona non grata are covered in the news, and can be included in the articles on (notable) people, I don't see indication that this group list of numerous people as presented here meets NLIST. There seems to be nothing, in this article or in the sources, connecting the different entries or discussing them. While there is some coverage of specific countries or groups of people (ie [1] or [2], I think the scope of this article, including people from any country or any group, is hopelessly broad. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Spede Pasanen. Nothing sourced to merge, however no reason not to redirect Star Mississippi 01:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boat ski

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

No references on the page for many years, I can't find anything to verify the claims, never mind indicate that there are RS that meet the requirements of the GNG. JMWt (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Anadolu Efes S.K.. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alper Yılmaz

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

NN player, nearly BLP PROD but has 2 ELs. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma G. Spencer Park

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

Non-notable local park; horrible sourcing, apparently because failing GNG Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. I found brief mentions, like [4] and [5], but it's far from enough.
P.S. The List of Rochester Hills Parks in See also section redirects currently to an article about the city, which doesn't describe any park. So, if the solution is not to delete Thelma G. Spencer Park, it's not good to leave it that way. KhinMoTi (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos (DJ)

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

Another autobiography/resume for a British regional radio DJ. Has needed additional citations since 2008, notability has been in question since 2012. Endless minute detail about the presenter's moves between stations and shows, and statements that cannot be cited. Citations/links are to passing mentions. He was, apparently, voted "Best Broadcaster" by Amateur Beekeeping Monthly in 2009, but I don't think this automatically confers notability. Flip Format (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has independent references and Carlos currently presents on a national radio station so is therefore notable. I do agree that the article is rather bloated so I've removed some of the excess padding. Rillington (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The link between a radio personality and the stations they appear on is inextricable and for this DJ the stations he has DJ'd on have been low-tier and increasingly low-cost. He is not only the breakfast DJ on his current station, he's the only DJ. The rest of the playlist is automatic. Just not enough there to establish notability. MNewnham (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage to they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 00:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Green

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

Article about a radio presenter. Out of date (the subject no longer presents regular weekday programs). Article is written in a promotional tone ("the day's biggest news stories") and there is nothing here worth keeping. Subject has interviewed notable people, but this does not make the subject in and of herself notable. Article has needed additional citations since 2011. Flip Format (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Flip Format please consider withdrawing this request, it seems very unlikely it will be deleted, noting WP:SNOW. CT55555(talk) 19:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Johnson (announcer)

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

Another radio/voiceover resume article. There is no assertion of notability here, no links to independent sources providing significant coverage of the subject. An online search reveals no obvious significant coverage. There is a link to the subject's voiceover work on IMDb, but this simply confirms that he exists. Flip Format (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asunción Christian Academy

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

No refs on the page for many years. I have limited access to sources in Paraguay but I'm not seeing anything that counts as an independent RS JMWt (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. North America1000 06:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Mertz

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

Non-notable fringe theorist; fails GNG Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous AFD, I see in Google Books, she has multiple paragraphs in The Battle Over America's Origin Story, 2022 by Brian Regal. Used as a source in How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narrative History of Buddhism in America, 2022; and some mentions in both Geographies of Myth and Places of Identity, 2022 and Mad Hazard, 2022 So, given the previous keep and the fact she's had more mainstream work written about her, still a keep. Skynxnex (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex brief mentions and use as a source don't meet GNG so far as I understand it. Field guides to mysterious places aren't reliable sources. Regal, yes. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller yeah overall I think that is correct although my sense is that the totality gets close to meeting notability and hence my keep although it may be closer to a weak keep. I will try to look at things more critically but my feeling is there may be an independent in-depth story about her hiding out there. Skynxnex (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was mentioned in the previous AFD but not linked, here's an 8 paragraph bio of her in the ABA journal from 1949: Lawyers in the News Source: American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1 (JANUARY 1949), pp. 35-36 Published by: American Bar Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25716715. She's also fairly well-cited for her work at the Library of Congress on copyright matters, and in particular, she is the primary person who created a "Copyright bibliography" for the copyright office [11]. It's almost plausible that her work on that and other copyright and patent matters would meet some notability guideline if some offline sources were pulled up, so that plus her more fringe work on historical theories is why it felt like there are sufficient sources. The articles does need improvement and have done some, but there's definitely more to include if I get the sense it's likely to be kept. Skynxnex (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of ProQuest hits:[12] (another obit, maybe possible to get on WP:RX), [13] (I know, I know, owned by the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Still, independent coverage). Some interesting hits at NewspaperARCHIVE.com, too, [14][15], though WP hasn't heard of Hubbard News. Hopefully it refers to a place and not L Ron. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 1801 series CPU , which appears to be something the nom is also OK with. Star Mississippi 02:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz-Neon

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

I couldn't establish notability for this ephemeral computer, neither from a search with the English name nor with the Russian name, so I redirected it to 1801 series CPU where it is mentioned. As this was reverted, AfD it is. Fram (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Russia. Fram (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The computer is not so famious, looks like only 200 devices produced, so currently it's very rare. But, it is also not "ephemeral"; in fact, I have one on my desk right now, and I published two photos of the device on Wikimedia. We have some publications in Russian: article, tech specs. The computer was the last one PDP11-like designed/produced in USSR. Currently we have schematics resotred; we have replicas; we have two working emulators for the machine; we have a bunch of disk images, including ASPect shell, spreadsheet program and some games. Google search by russian name gives 1.3 million results. BTW, Fram, your redirect to 1801 series CPU was just wrong - it is not a CPU, it is a machine based on the CPU, that's why I reverted your edit. -- NZeemin (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting it to that article doesn't mean that it is an example of it, just that it is based on it and is mentioned there. Fram (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for Google Search, you need to add double quotes[21]. Without it, it acts as if it are two separate words and returns results like this. Fram (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 16:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uwuntu

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

No evidence found of notability. Hardly any attention has been given to this[22], unlike truly notable Linux distributions. Perhaps a redirect, though I don't know where (List of Linux distributions only has distributions with an article, it seems). Fram (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

huh strange cuz for me when i search for uwuntu i get some results related to it [23]https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=uwuntu Wikilover126 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is more important than quantity. I am far from being an expert in this area, but the results look both flaky and skimpy to me.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll to the bottom of these results. You'll e.g. see for the second one that it only gives pages 1-4, not the custom 1-10 + more of Google searches. The much higher initial count is because it includes many duplicates, different hits from the same site, e.g. more than 1000 from Reddit[24]. Multiple hits from the same site don't give additional notability at the best of times, and Reddit gives none anyway. Fram (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ezbob

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Largely unsourced and promotional. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Maduant (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 11:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a lot of redlinks and very few articles that link to it Nagol0929 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've checked only first 2 sources of 8, but if The Telegraph writes about you (and it's not a trivial mention), it still means something. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of these 8, 1 is paywalled, 1 no longer exists and only 1 appears to be a direct report about the company. The rest are about other companies that Ezbob have associations with. MNewnham (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references (including those in The Telegraph) are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 23:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is he doesn't meet the bar, and sourcing is an issue Star Mississippi 02:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith L. Craig

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

Wikipedea is not a resume hosting service.

"Sergeant Major Craig is the ambassador of the Exchange in Europe & Southwest Asia Region, providing essential support to the war fighters, enhancing expeditionary capabilities, and interacting with the highest strategic levels within the Department of Defense and the U.S. State Department."
"Keith managed Central Division sales and distribution strategy for the Walt Disney Studio Motion Pictures in 20 theatrical demographic market areas, ensuring the prompt and timely delivery of film to exhibitors and the accuracy of the box office reports."
"In addition to his primary duties at Disney, Sergeant Major Craig was president of the company's diversity resource group Salute, charge with supporting military veterans employed by the studio, helping them to integrate, strengthen and grow their careers and provide a sense of community within the organization."
"He was recognized for his improving project planning and performance through the coordinated deployment of automated systems and innovative management methodologies."

Promotion for non notable businessman/ex-soldier. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. History shows a long history of this being used as a means of promotion [25][26] built by SPAs and maintained by SP IPs and a sock. Prod removed by yet another SPA dedicated to the promotion of this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As backup for sockpuppet accusations, the following editors have ONLY edited this page:
[27] 2600:8805:5300:AC00:2865:6482:C17B:A7E
[28] 2600:8805:5300:AC00:1D46:61F2:EE5D:FAA5
[29] UltraOmnipotent
[30] 2600:8805:5300:AC00:F050:D89D:4201:C5FD
Suspected sockpuppeteer: PACHECO2
[31]
which edited TWO other pages...one of which refers to Keith Craig and the other links to the first.
Report is being prepared nowOblivy (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very little sources and not very notable military record
Nagol0929 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV here from the European Stars & Stripes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More sigcov from that source: [32] and [33]. Lesser coverage: [34] [35] [36]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage which may or may not count towards notability: U.S. Veterans Magazine; Formidable Men Magazine (mostly interview); ThisIs50; Voice Online; Heart and Soul Magazine; and Bleu Magazine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Even if the magazine articles do not count, we've still got the in-depth piece from The Signal as well as multiple pieces of sigcov from the European Stars & Stripes, and GNG only requires "multiple" pieces of such coverage to be a pass (and two is multiple, so in my opinion we have a pass). Alternatively, I'd be willing to have it draftified so I could improve it and remove the promotional tone. Pinging users who have previously commented for their thoughts: @Duffbeerforme, Oaktree b, Oblivy, and Nagol0929: BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he's notable for the sports playing, that's fine. Keep but draftify to remove the promo tone. Will adjust my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep my vote as stated below there is nothing notable about this person and it seems very promo. Also the newspaper article is from a very local publication Nagol0929 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After yeoman's work by User:Cbl62 the article is closer to meeting standards, but aside from the football (of which more later) it relies on a WP:SELFPUB resume and a newspaper story that is, almost without doubt, heavily reliant on the subject's own telling of his story. Note that the article claims he was CEO of Clever Talks but the website is inactive, by late 2019 its 501(c)(3) status had been revoked or was on its way to being revoked, and October 2019 archive.org snapshots don't contain an "about" page but April 2019 doesn't list him[37]. He never signed an IRS document for Clever Talks as CEO and there's no evidence he worked for them aside from the Signal article and the resume. Hard to tell notability from Stars & Stripes coverage as it's behind a paywall, but from the OCR text on the paywall page it seems to be only relevant to football plus a small amount of military service (i.e. one posting and rank at the time). I'm still at delete but open minded about draftify. Oblivy (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was one of the worst cases of BLP violation and promotion I've ever seen. I have begun hacking away at the unsourced content (the majority of the article) and revising the promotion. Much of what is left is sourced to a highly promotional biography on Craig's personal web site (here) which refers to himself as "U. S. Ambassador" (huh?), "Humanitarian", "International Best-Selling Author" (again, huh?) "industry change-agent", "champion for filmmakers" and "multibillion dollar media leader." Given the exaggerated tone and questionable accuracy of this self-penned biography, I really don't think it can be used as a reliable source for anything. Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've now significantly trimmed it back. Having done so, I find nothing remarkable or notable. He served in the military for 32 years, principally in logistics roles, and attained the rank of sergeant major. He played three games of professional football as a backup wide receiver in a minor league. His brief career at Disney also appears unremarkable. The piece from The Santa Clarita Signal, while it has some depth, is a puff piece in an ultra-local suburban newspaper, the objectivity of which has been questioned since it was acquired in 2018 by a publisher known for boosting right-wing conspiracy theories. See here. Just not seeing anything to warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, and am a "weak" keep, but still stand by keep. Locality of coverage does not matter, and so I still believe the piece from The Signal can count towards notability (as for its reliability, we do not have it listed in the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources page or on the list of unreliable sources, so I believe it can still be considered a reliable source) – we've also got multiple pieces of SIGCOV from the European Stars & Stripes, and I don't see why that wouldn't count. So we've got at least two pieces of SIGCOV from reliable and independent publications, which in my opinion satisfies GNG, which only needs "multiple" of such pieces (and two is multiple), although I admit it is a weak pass. Also, coverage is pretty much the only thing that matters for notability nowadays, so saying "he hasn't done anything super remarkable" is not a great argument IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "ultra-local suburban newspaper" argument, I don't think that's correct. According to our articles, it is the only newspaper serving Santa Clarita, California, which has a population of over 200,000 and is among the top 100 largest cities in the US. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Craig's military career is unremarkable -- 32 years as an enlisted man, never promoted to officer rank. His "entertainment" career is likewise unremarkable -- a couple years as a sales rep for Disney. Likewise, his pro football career was limited to 3 games as a backup in a minor league. As for The Santa Clarita Signal, Santa Clarita is a suburb of Los Angeles. The principal paper serving the Santa Clarita Valley is the Los Angeles Times. The Signal is, in fact, a small suburban paper run by a conspiracy-pushing, right-wing publisher. The Signal article on Craig reads like a puff piece on a local resident with little or no editorial oversight. Cbl62 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify not enough SIGCOV as currently laid out and the article in written in a promotional tone. I have no problem if Beaniefan wishes to improve the article to acceptable quality, as this user has done with several other pages. Frank Anchor 19:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate these sort of articles at NPP when the article author cannot tell us in simple words why a subject is worthy of an article. Not notable as a military figure. I am willing to strike my vote if the sports folks think that playing for the WLAF is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WLAF was a minor league, and he appeared in only three games as a backup. Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. As per the discussion herein, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article following this closure. North America1000 05:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile (Mortal Kombat)

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

Article contains mostly only "Top X", "one of the greatest" and other irrelevant stuffs. GlatorNator (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Arguments to avoid yourself, KatoKungLee. It comes down to notability of this character, not whether or not other articles might get deleted. I think GlatorNator is saying it lacks WP:SIGCOV, which is an actual argument and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly claim lacks WP:SIGCOV when there's 50 sources including games, tv shows, movies and comics? That is not what WP:SIGCOV is for. Assuming WP:JDL is a compliment here over other possibilities.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, you should assume good faith and you definitely shouldn't assume what another person is thinking. GlatorNator hasn't said anything along the lines of IDONTLIKEIT.
I'm sorry, a "compliment"? It's bordering WP:UNCIVIL behavior, "it's a compliment that I'm thinking you must've made a mistake in your nomination". It's not a "compliment" at all that you've decided what another's thinking, you're basically saying WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR. Again, maybe check out WP:Arguments to avoid.
I haven't gone over the sources properly, but from a glance it's easy to see it's WP:REFBOMBed with a ton of primary sources. We need significant coverage, independent of the subject. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest going through the sources. There's a lot of coverage from various places. An example of lacking WP:SIGCOV is Michael Bramble. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove the validity of your own stance. You need to be outlining which specific sources show that there's significant coverage if you want your stance to be considered valid by the closing admin. Right now, as is, it'll just be discounted per WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Segrecross73 - There's multiple players guides listed. All are going to have bios or focused information on the character. He's listed as being featured in MK, MK DA, MK 4, MK Armageddon, UMK3, amongst other games and some of those games are going to have biographies. He's listed as being featured in Goro House of Pain. This article is directly about him - https://www.denofgeek.com/games/mortal-kombat-x-the-strange-history-of-reptile/. This is a profile on Reptile - https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/reptile.html. This article goes into a lot of coverage on Reptile - https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/an-oral-history-of-mortal-kombat. This one is all about Reptile - https://www.dualshockers.com/reptile-has-been-treated-terribly-in-mortal-kombat-games-and-lore/. This has a quick recap about Reptile amidst selling his toy - https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/mortal-kombats-reptile-receives-exclusive-storm-collectibles-figure/. This is a profile on how to use Reptile and that goes into what he does.- https://primagames.com/tips/mortal-kombat-x-how-play-reptile-combos-and-strategies. This is all about Reptile - https://www.thegamer.com/mortal-kombat-reptile-no-sense/. This all about Reptile - https://www.looper.com/390725/biggest-unanswered-questions-in-mortal-kombat/. There's an article on his origin here - http://www.factfiend.com/suprisingly-elaborate-origin-mortal-kombats-reptile/. There's other books and videos listed, amongst various lists, where he's going to have information. OP has not claimed to have access to every source or seen every source. I don't have access to every source. To get in touch with the dozens of people involved in the sourcing of this article would be very hard considering it's been over 15 years. To order these books and games to even track down a VHS player to get 100% proof would take a significant amount of resources that nobody can be expected to have. But none of it would matter anyway, because if the same discussion pops back up in a month and I don't happen to see it, it would be gone. I also don't see why the same argument wouldn't be applied to the other 15 characters listed in the template or other characters in other video games or practically anything since the system can significantly be WP:GAME by challenging articles long after the original writers and their sources are no longer available. I think there's also copyright concerns since you can't post someone's video game, comic, movie or television show without permission. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asking you to find/prove every piece of SIGCOV that's ever existed on a subject. Just maybe WP:THREE good examples is often a good number to persuade people. Your Den of Geek source is probably a persuasive example. Never heard of "Mel Magazine" so not sure of that one. Also, as others have stated, please try to understand WP:OSE. You need to evaluate each character article on its own merits. As an active participant at AFD, I can personally verify that a number of MK characters have been nominated and eventually deleted in recent months. So other articles existing currently isn't a valid defense for this one existing... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to check out WP:VG/S - a bunch of your examples are listed as unreliable or unusable for proving notability due to their tendency to create churnalism. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be familiar with how we establish notability for video games. See below. That a character appears in a game doesn't mean it's notable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is another one of WP:Arguments to avoid. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge what can be salvaged. It's WP:REFBOMBed. What doesn't help establish notability are:
  • video games the character appears in
  • credits of the games
  • a tweet thanking voice actors
  • artwork from pre-production of the games
  • films based upon the video games
  • official strategy guides about the games
  • developer diaries
  • interview with the game's director
  • comics the character appears in
  • an animated film the character appears in
  • top x characters/Easter eggs/5 DLC characters/etc
  • hands-on impressions with a game
What's left is not WP:SIGCOV. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see source table below. This discussion is a mess, but the one thing that's clear: KatoKungLee is right that Reptile passes WP:GNG.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Den of Geek - April 10, 2015 Yes As far as I can tell, I have never heard of a single source where a fictional character of all things is non-independent of a media outlet. Pretty sure none of MK's creators are affiliated with Den of Geek either. Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes Lengthy 2300 word article discussing the history of the character, while also claiming that he was the first hidden video game character in fighting game history. ✔ Yes
GamesRadar - April 14, 2011 Yes Again, character isn't affiliated with the outlet. Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes An extremely lengthy history about him along with Shang Tsung. Article contains six pages of material with him discussed in well over hundreds of words. ✔ Yes
CBR - April 17, 2021 Yes Yes Per WP:CMC/REF Yes Decently significant coverage, goes into his background and history as a character along with some analysis on him. ✔ Yes
DualShockers - July 22, 2022 Yes Yes Barely, per WP:VG/RS - last discussion leaned towards situationally reliable. Yes Another decently lengthy article about his character, adding some secondary commentary and analysis on his character development. ✔ Yes
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}}.
Overall, there should be enough to prove he meets the notability guidelines. Also, I'd argue that some of the listicles, such as those from Complex and GameRevolution should also contribute partially to notability along with these sources. But that's a topic for another day. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been consensus in the video game project that CBR is generally content farm-y and shouldn't be used towards evidence of notability. That list disingenously cites a different list from WikiProject Comics. Video games are not under that project's purview. The DualShockers article is written in a very fannish way with limited commentary besides "y'all did him dirty". The Den of Geek article is quite good, but GamesRadar has little commentary on the character. I disagree that these sources are evidence of notability, as the article continues to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE even with the sources added - there isn't enough information to discuss "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works". If anything putting a bunch of green boxes there falsely inflates the source material's significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I was initially reluctant to add CBR to the source table, but I think it's reliable in this particular instance. I checked the project page for CBR and it wasn't mentioned on the list - only mentioned in discussions a couple times in relation to sister sites Game Rant and Screen Rant. Another discussion on WP:RSP concluded that it was situationally reliable, noting that it did have a stronger history in the past. I'd say CBR should be more on a case-by-case basis. I'd regard their listicles and "content-farm" articles as understandably unusable, but their more opinion/review based articles as usable, the same way Kotaku is regarded as fully reliable outside of "blog/geeky posts" with little "reporting significance."
As for WP:NOTPLOT, I'd say that the Den of Geek piece ticks all the boxes in discussing Reptile's development, design, reception and significance, while the GamesRadar piece tells of his development and design throughout most of the series' history. The DualShockers piece - while admittedly a bit fannish, could work as a reception piece for statements of the author's opinion. And finally, some of the listicles I saw in the article, while not exactly in-depth coverage in terms of word count, should also demonstrate evidence of the character's reception and significance. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Game Doctor". Electronic Games. Vol. 2, no. 3. December 1993.
  • "Cheat Sheets". Electronic Gaming Monthly 53. Vol. 6, no. 12. December 1993.
The oral history gives quite a bit of weight to Reptile, and the above sources support the "hype" surrounding the mystery of the character. I'm not suggesting they confer notability, though, just support the other sources. I'm sure there's more like in GamePro, but searching ancient magazines is not easy... I don't understand the comments about other media. A character is a character, and if someone discusses a movie or comic depiction, that is discussion of the character. All in all, notable enough to keep. -2pou (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...but Tag for Cleanup While I wrote the original article, at some point it really got mangled after I stopped watching it. I do think it still works well enough on its own for both notability and content, but direly needs a proper cleanup.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article as it stands is a bloated monster and I completely sympathize with those that argued for its deletion. I strongly recommend that the article be worked on from an older version such as the one that Kung Fu Man made back in 2010 (e.g. [38]), which clearly is much better put together. Nomader (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @2pou, Kung Fu Man, Nomader, Haleth, Darianos, and BD2412: Thanks everyone for their feedback. I just made a few minor changes to the article such as adding some archive links and sources, although it definitely still needs some cleanup. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PantheonRadiance: I think another direction to go here is to really merge down the listicle-like sections of the "other media" and "video game" sections to more focus on themes of appearances instead of striving to list out every single tiny cameo. The reason I so prefer the 2010 version that I linked, is that no media appearance is on its own -- it gives critical commentary and notes things about the appearance that made it unique, instead of just "In Mortal Kombat 11, Reptile isn't a playable character but.... (insert WP:GAMEGUIDE content here). This is getting a bit off of the AfD, but you're moving in the right direction! Nomader (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea - it would make the article have a more encyclopedic style and appear less like an indiscriminate collection of trivia or a game guide. That 2010 version also looks like a solid foundation we can base the future of the article on, but of course with more info from said reliable sources and a bit of trimming from the primary sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nomader. This article has its problems, but notability seems to have been established. I agree that older versions of the article are cleaner, with fewer issues. I'm hoping editors will continue to work on this article with that guidance in mind. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Capricornia Correctional Centre. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhampton Correctional Centre

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

I'm interested to hear views on this one (and potentially others like it). The question is: are Australian ex-prisons notable? On the one hand, one might assume that there are many extensive historical sources which are inevitably written about a prison, and some may well still exist in the relevant archives. Building reports, inspection reports etc. On the other hand, we have a WP page that has been without refs for many years, with little obvious available to find about it. My view is that it would likely require significant effort to draw together sources from historical official archives to have enough to write a page and that would be WP:OR. Unless someone has already written a book about it that I've missed. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Batman & Spider-Man: New Age Dawning

[edit]
Batman & Spider-Man: New Age Dawning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources given demonstrate ITEXISTS but do not prove notability. ALLPLOT, no SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft delete as previously deprodded
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for the record, the article for the original story for which this is a sequel has already been deleted for similar reasons. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep/Nomination withdrawn, but it had run the course anyway. Star Mississippi 02:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Božičković

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

Fails WP:GNG and probably WP:TOOSOON, none of the sources are significant coverage of any kind, its just a routine reports like "player A transferred from X to Y club, the player extended his contract to YYY years" etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - What would be significant coverage vs. routine reports for a football player I certainly can't say with an absolute certainty, though I consider myself a football fanatic. However, I would dare to say that if couple of articles in the media are devoted to a certain player because he is specifically interesting, say, as a talent who is discovered, successfully purchased, just scored his debut goal, debuted in one of the UEFA competition, and so on, then it seems to me that it is not a routine report, it is a report that something interesting has happened which include player so and so.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per GNG, "Addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So no, a short trivial mention that a player signed a contract and that he scored a goal is not a significant coverage. Maybe you should provide those "couple of articles in the media are devoted to a certain player" then, because all I found were just routine reports of player contract extension and the fact that he signed – which fails under WP:ROUTINE, literally every player in Slovenian top division gets a short article in media like "XXX player, 20 years old, signed for YYY club, he previously played for ZZZ club", but that is not significant coverage. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I understand you and I understand our notability guideline, but I don't expect that we are requiring research papers on players, unless they are sporting phenomenon. Majority of our articles are conceived on sources like reports in sport websites, and that's all the vast majority of players we write about will ever get, not to mention football stubs. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, the first source is a routine report that the player extended a contract (and half of the article consists of a copy/pasted direct quotation from Maribor's sports director at official website, see this), while the third source is literally a report of all Hambrug youth player transfers and Bozickovic is only barely mentioned in one sentence, so you obviously don't know what "significant coverage" mean or didn't actually check the website at all if you call this "significant coverage". You said that the sources in this article, like "player extended a contract with the club" and "post-match report: player scored a goal in this match", are not routine – can you then explain what is a routine report for you if not exactly that? Snowflake91 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that either nogomania.com pieces are "routine" reports, they are quite specific - here's another, yet to be included into the article, even more concrete and very specific piece. ౪ Santa ౪99° 00:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Snowflake91 I added a few more links. 3-4 were solely about him and were not related to his club. That should be enough. Since he's from Bosnia, you have to search in Bosnian, Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian as they have 3 languages.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You added two links completely irrelevant to him (match reports of Bosnian youth national team and squad announcement of the Bosnian national team), two links to primary source (NK Maribor website), and another link to short routine report "player A moved to team B", and yet another source about his contract renewal where 50% of the article consists only of direct quotation from Maribor's director of football, taken from ther website. Notability is established based on how in-depth the sources are, and not how many links with his name barely mentioned you manage to find, including primary sources and routine transfer reports. The only source that is somehow in-depth is this one, everything else are just routine reports. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to find multi-page biographies on players outside of maybe the top 50 players in history. I really think you should look around at some of the other soccer pages on here to get a better understanding of typical amounts of coverageKatoKungLee (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per Ortizesp and KatoKungLee. Also, the article has been significantly improved and expanded with many sources (WP:HEY). WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". Young player with ongoing fully pro career for one of best Slovenian teams (NK Maribor). On top of that, the noimnator has withdrawn their nomination for deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Y. Lee

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

I do not see any credible claim to notability here. TheLongTone (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this search term - "John Y. Lee Battle of Chosin Reservoir."
There is a his interview video in Korean War Legacy Foundation.
And his Korean name is 이종연.
You can see credible claim to notability in South Korean Newspapers and so on. Footwiks (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing this slightly early per WP:SNOW. This article also qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 because the article was created in violation of a block, and the article has no substantial edits from other editors (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuhailShaji786). Mz7 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabee

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

Can someone please be done to blacklist all these sources. This is a typical example of a company which seems to have gotten glowing reviews from "reliable" sources in the weeks after it was launched, but which strangely hasn't received any attention otherwise. It isn't normal that you would get 9 or so lengthy reviews in newspapers, but only 39 Google hits in total[39], most of them either autocreated or from the same sources. A typical puff promo piece, and in this case quite easily recognisable, but it still is annoying that we allow these sources instead of just blacklisting them all. Fram (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, possible concerns with COI/UPE. Silikonz💬 18:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Cortese

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

Former footballer with a mere handful professional appearances and no WP:RS covering the subject in appropriate detail, apart from a number of passing mentions and transfer reports, mostly regarding his amateur level career in Sicily. [40] He fails WP:GNG due to that. Angelo (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted CSD G5 Creation by banned or blocked users. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Memohwiki Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jin

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

Contains substantial amounts of hoax content and fails WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC. The sources in the article as of the time of posting do not demonstrate that this person passes WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC and can be described as follows:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The New York Times (1) Yes The New York Times is independent of Jin. Yes The New York Times is a reputble Newsorg. No A "Justin Jin" is mentioned as having been a photographer, but he's a professional photojournalist, not someone who was seven years old at the time of the article's publication. This man is not the Wikipeida article's subject. ✘ No
The New York Times (2) Yes The New York Times is independent of Jin. Yes The New York Times is a reputble Newsorg. No Again, this article contains a trivial mention of a different Justin Jin, and the article was published when our Wikipedia article's subject was 1 year old. ✘ No
National Geographic ~ Author page on a neworg's website. Not independent of the person the author page is about (but that's a different person than this article's subject entirely) ~ WP:ABOUTSELF No That is the page for this Justin Jin, not the Justin Jin who this Wikipedia article is about. ✘ No
The Guardian ~ First-person photo essay, but not written by this article's subject. Yes The Guardian is green on WP:RSN. No Again, this Justin Jin is not this Justin Jin. ✘ No
South China Morning Post ~ Author page on a neworg's website. Not independent of the person the author page is about (but that's a different person than this article's subject entirely) ~ The New York Times is a reputble Newsorg. No This is about the photojournalist born in 1974, not the YouTuber born in 2006. ✘ No
The Vach on YouTube No This article's subject founded and operates The Vach. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Social Blade Yes Why not? Yes Seems fine No This is a database entry. ✘ No
Voyage LA Magazine No Direct interview with Jin published in an online PR publication. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF; this is effectively a press release. Yes Indeed, this is about Jin. ✘ No
The Vach profile of Justin Jin No This is his self-published profile on a website he runs. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Box of Colour on YouTube No This is part of the 50mMidas Media collective, which Jin owns and operates. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF. ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Preneur on YouTube ? Unclear to me ~ WP:ABOUTSELF; YouTube profile No Jin is not mentioned once. ✘ No
"We faked YouTube's oldest video" on The Vach No Jin owns and operates The Vach ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
Vice/Motherboard on TikTok Yes Why not? ~ Vice is WP:MREL at WP:RSP, and this is its TikTok channel No Jin's name is not so much as mentioned in this. ✘ No
The Independent Yes Standard U.K. WP:NEWSORG Yes Standard U.K. WP:NEWSORG No Jin's name is not so much as mentioned once. ✘ No
The Verge Yes Why not? Yes Seems fine. No Jin is not so much as mentioned by name once. ✘ No
The Times of India Yes Why not? ~ See WP:TOI No Jin's name is not so much as mentioned in passing. ✘ 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}}.

After conducting an online search, I was unable to find additional coverage of this individual that would contribute towards passing WP:GNG. Additionally, several links were used to support hoaxes (the NYT, NatGeo, The Guardian, and SCMP refs refer to a different Justin Jin; this article's subject is not the same born in 2006 per their IMDB Pro page), which I have since removed as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Women's Football Alliance. Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monterrey Royal Eagles

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not able to find a single mention of the team in a reliable third-party source or much of anything significant other than this. JTtheOG (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Florida Atlantic University. History remains under the redirect if someone opts to merge sourced information. Star Mississippi 11:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Atlantic University College of Social Work and Criminal Justice

[edit]
Florida Atlantic University College of Social Work and Criminal Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a constituent college of a university that is heavily refbombed but does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. No in depth coverage in reliable independent sources that I can find. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Education, and Florida. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Mccapra, I noticed you nominated SCWJ article for AFD and thank you for your comments. While I do agree that this page can continue to be improved by me and other editors, I wanted to simply note within this deletion discussion that I strongly oppose its deletion. As one of the long-established academic colleges that compose Florida Atlantic University, I believe the university's notability also contributes to that of SCWJ. Independent of the university, I believe SCWJ does satisfy WP:NCORP. I offer this article here that discusses SCWJ in detail by CSWE which is an independent and credible source in US higher education satisfying WP:V. SCWJ and its dean was also covered by Latin Business Today, an independent news source, here. As the head of the college, I contend that the Dean is a part of SCWJ's notability. WP:NCORP and WP:V can also be measured by notable contributions. As FAU is a carnagie-classified school, SCWJ contributes to its requirement. I offer these independent articles that discuss visible research at SCWJ:, here, here, here, and here (latter three are all peer-reviewed). Lastly, SWCJ includes regionally notable alums active in government, here (credible government site) for example, and is fully acredited by the independent SACSCOC - which is the accepted standard for accreditation for US colleges and universities in the south. Again, I very much appreciate your comments and am with open ears on any feedback you may have to improve this article. Thank you again. /respectfully Roaringwikifan (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion most of the references you have offered here are inherited (about the Dean or the wider university) WP:INHERITORG or things that would apply to every university department everywhere (academic papers written by staff of the college, registration with the relevant government authorities). The only one I would consider relevant of those you have offered is from the CSWE. I'm leaning keep on that basis but am hestitating because of queries in my mind about independence of the CSWE ref (is it a blogpost?), refbombing and potentially COI issues with the page. JMWt (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would keep and give the article the chance to be improved by potentially including references to notable faculty, alumni, student groups, degrees or courses of study, which I think would make the college itself notable without the need for secondary sources like news articles.
  • And actually, I think there's a gap in guidelines for colleges that are constituents of a larger university. Note that WP:NCORP in paragraph 2 ("Simply stated...") makes reference to "for-profit educational institutions..." which arguably is different from a state university, so there's a question if WP:NCORP applies or something else does; looking at looking at WP:NSCHOOL is not helpful as it's circular. IMO a state university and department thereof is different than a for-profit school; also it is difficult to expect sources like news articles to write about a university department because it isn't newsworthy absent a scandal - but not newsworthy is different than not-notable. I'd suggest looking to WP:PROF for a hybrid set of notability standards in this or similar instances. A college can be notably influential in the world of ideas / colleges / academia / research without the college itself being the subject of secondary sources like news articles.
Leglamp123 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana–Turkey relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. The relations are not subject to significant coverage. Trade is very small, only one high level visit, no agreements. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Lutheran Church (Victoria, British Columbia)

[edit]
Redeemer Lutheran Church (Victoria, British Columbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable. The only independent source relates to the closing and demolition of the former building. That's included, and that's the only one I could find. Fails the GNG. schetm (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the article being non-notable but have tried to remedy any perceived non-notability. I've added about 5KB to the article, including several additional footnoted references and a section about the church's pastor being a named litigant in an insolvency proceedings for a Lutheran Church-sponsored project in which the investments of many individual investor members of Redeemer Lutheran were apparently grossly mismanaged. I think all of this might help redeem the article. If it is still insufficient, I hope the deletion nominator will give me some more suggestions for improving it. Thanks. Objectivesea (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The info on the CEF scandal is utterly irrelevant to the subject, which is the church. It, and all other info about the scandal, should probably be removed per WP:NPF, and because it has little to do with the church itself. The sources from the LCC are related to the subject - we need independent sources, and the Victoria Times Colonist piece only references the congregation in passing. As for the Goldstream News Gazette articles, well, it's a hyper-local paper, and the articles deal with only one aspect of the church - the demolition of its old building and the construction of its new building. Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
So, if you can find something from an independent national source source that deals with the church in depth, the church may be notable per WP:NORG. Even something local apart from the Goldstream News Gazette that deals with the church in depth would help, but right now, the Goldstream News Gazette's the only source that gets the church toward passing the WP:GNG, and that's not enough. schetm (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The building is not an historical building, so non-notable. all I get are confirmation of the church's existence, various websites and phone book listings. An interesting piece of local history, not meeting Wikipedia notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I don't think national news coverage is ever required for establishing WP:GNG. If that was the case, just about every local business, organization, school, personality's articles would be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Per WP:AUD (which is a fast link to WP:NORG, which WP:NCHURCH is a part of, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Right now, the citations stand as follows:
Cite 1 - an in-depth article about the church from a local newspaper - independent and SIGCOV
Cite 2 - an article from a local paper that references the church once as a drop off point for sweaters - not SIGCOV
Cite 3 - a paper source from the churches own 50th anniversary pamphlet - not independent
Cite 4 - a page in a national archive. The files aren't accessible online, but they were "deposited with the Lutheran Historical Institute by the congregation" - not independent
Cite 5 - an in-depth article about the church from the same local newspaper as cite 1 - independent and SIGCOV
Cite 6 - an in-depth article written by the church's pastor published in the national denomination's magazine - not independent
Cite 7 - an in-depth article about the senior living facility that shares space with the church from the same local newspaper as cites 1 and 5 - independent and perhaps SIGCOV about the church
Cites 8 and 9 - court briefs about a lawsuit served against the church's pastor that do not mention the church as well, and fly close to being a BLP violation - not SIGCOV
Cite 10 - an anonymous blog about the lawsuit in sources 9 and 10 which neither mentions the church nor its pastor - not SIGCOV
So, if we use the GNG standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," of the ten citations, only three meet the GNG standard of being SIGCOV in RS that is independent. And those three only come from one source - the Goldstream News Gazette. All of the remaining sources are either not significant coverage about the church or not independent of the subject. At the very least, we need one more GNG passing source, and another source does not appear to be forthcoming. schetm (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I agree with almost every aspect of the comment above, and I recognise it as a correct strict reading of WP:GNG. The Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability sentence is really what forces the earlier editor to that conclusion. I question if who ever wrote that line meant it to apply to newspapers when they said "organization". If the same journalist wrote them all, I'd agree, but journalists work independently, so I doubt that is what was meant. Of course, that's just my speculation. If we had to strictly approach this as if the guidance was a set of rules, I'd be unable to make this point. But in the context of it being guidance and me being able to make a judgement, I judge this to be good enough. CT55555(talk) 02:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely fails GNG, ORG, Sources are not Ind RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Many refs are promotional, the building is not notable, and notability is not inherited from others associated with the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  05:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yunhee Choe

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

Non-notable BLP. Previously moved to draft and subsequently declined but returned to mainspace, seemingly without improvement. Basic search did not reveal additional SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that given the issues raised with what they say, sourcing is insufficient for biographic notability Star Mississippi 02:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Charan Mukherjee

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage consists of articles either lacking depth or from non-reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He seems like a usual engineer. Most of the articles that are used as references and the ones i found are all UGC.--Editingforgk (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean user-generated content? Please don't use abbreviations for things that might not be obvious to other people in the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can agree that the person is not as notable as some of us (Wikipedia editors) would like to him to be. However, at the same time, he is not just another engineer, as he is regarded as an industry expert. Furthermore, my search has led me to some credible platforms, which are:

1.https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-pioneers-say-chatgpt-bing-and-bard-will-push-creativity-take-over-mundane-jobs-so-that-humans-can-do-better-8453549/ 2. https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx?sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=1625&sparam=Search&scontid=0#Mukherjee 3. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/krishna-c-mukherjee-continues-advance-182930901.html 4. https://www.iitkgpalumnifoundation.in/newsroom/news/Krishna-C-Mukherjee-has-changed-the-computing-landscape.dz 5. https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx?sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=1625&sparam=Search&scontid=0#Mukherjee (I believe, it can be used as a WP:PRIMARY, in this case.)

Moreover, it can be argued that his notability would increase with respect to time. I would propose that a thorough cleanup is done and apply WP:CHANCE here. Also, WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. 24GT (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The best of those sources is the first, but it says that Mukherjee started at Microsoft in 1988 and is "known for laying the groundwork for the architecture and design of the Windows operating system...". This is obviously wrong, as Windows came out before 1988, so we can't trust the source. I ask once again, if he was so crucial to Microsoft then is he covered in the many independent books that have been published about that company? And would we really expect the notability of a so-called pioneer who joined Microsoft 35 years ago to increase over time? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, Windows was first released in 1985, (v1.0) however, the article doesn't say anything about which version of windows has he helped/assisted/developed the ground work of. In the fordes article(https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodberger/2022/12/21/legacies-in-technology-forged-from-family-and-culture/?sh=636cb3933567) he has expressed working on API of Windows v3.0. He further states that the idea of API was there, however, he was the one who built the API to integrate various applications. Therefore, the first source is reliable, and not wrong.
    As for if he is crucial to Microsoft or has he been published in any independent books... that is something to look into, this is why, I have suggested WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. 24GT (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello 24GT. It seems that you are misunderstanding WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH (which are just essays, by the way). The former is directed towards stub articles. The latter is where people are arguing for deletion because an article is in a poor state.
    Therefore, I don't think that either of these applies here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings @MrsSnoozyTurtle, it was my understanding that we don't delete page/s, just because they are in poor state. I see the potential of increasing notability of the subject. Hence, I think, its better to place this article in stub rather than to delete.
    I respect your opinion, however, above is my own opinion... admin can decide on his/her own. Regards. 24GT (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, 24GT, but if the claim is made that someone laid "the groundwork for the architecture and design of the Windows operating system" that means the Windows operating system itself, not a particular version. The source is simply wrong, so cannot be trusted. The Forbes article that you link is from a contributor, with the proviso (click on the information symbol by his name) that "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". Those have been dismissed by WP:RSN as generally unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its alright. Thank you for your share. 24GT (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:CHANCE the article can be kept as a stub and be allowed to enhance the notability rather than being deleted.

He is a Notable Software Engineer, with notable contributions to the said field, moreover, he is a published author at IEEE. (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37086444458) Considering WP:BARE the article has slight notability to stay up as he has contributed to the field and a few citations can be enough for bare notability.

Information can be cut short with regards to lack of credible citations and the article can be kept as stub considering WP:USEFUL as the information placed here can be useful for the community.MarkJustice54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflower, Arizona

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

I'm not getting a good picture on this one. There were and are buildings there, but not the same buildings: you can see the foundations of the older set on GMaps. The Sunflower Mine is 6.5 miles (10.5 km) NNW, which is quite a hike in the days when men walked to work. I couldn't find anything substantive in searching, which leaves us with these newspaper clips. Here's where things start to creep into OR, as more modern references to a town there run up against the reality that there isn't a town there now, and hasn't been for some time. Maybe someone can find some better material but I don't think what we have cuts the mustard. Mangoe (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is or has been a populated place, and Wikipedia is a gazetteer about populated places. Searching in Wikipedia Library (no prior registration required) i find this article titled "Screwtail Cave" whose abstract is (emphasis added by me): "During January and February, 1967, a highway archaeological salvage project along the Phoenix-Payson Highway was undertaken by the Arizona State Museum. This project was to investigate sites endangered by construction and widening operations on the highway. One such endangered site consisted of a series of rock shelters located on Screwtail Ridge south of Sunflower, Arizona. This site reflected occupation by prehistoric Indian groups during the 10th through 12th centuries." And, article or account of the program Good Morning America in 2023 (emphasis added by me): "GINGER ZEE (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) Hey, there. You know, Phoenix, Arizona, Michael, had their coldest high temperature in nearly four years. They had snow going on in Sunflower, Arizona. You could see the cacti there. And then Tucson at this point, with a trace of snow yesterday, has the same amount of snow as New York City this year because we've only had a trace at the time." It seems to be a recognized place, I presume populated, and Wikipedia is a gazeeteer about populated places, so "Keep". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I just added info about the creation of a Sunflower post office in 1945 and the history of the Sunflower mining district (North America), plus a map from the USGS report about the same. I think this is another one that may or may not be a settled place but is a tag in the GNIS because it's an archaic placename and/or they need a geotag for "notable rocks." I did find some other mentions in Arizona Memory, mostly geological, but I'll add what seems notable. jengod (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that there's been something here for quite some time, but whether or not it was ever notable is a different question. Some of the references seem to use it as a landmark, as if they looked for the nearest named spot on the map to descrbe where something take place, or just give a passing mention. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage of Sunflower itself before supporting a Keep. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ok I just did a bunch more research and added it and I have to get back to real work now but I'm satisfied it's a legit and notable place name if not a major town. it's the middle of nowhere and a pain to get there but it's a place. There's Sunflower Ranger Station (NHRP), the Sunflower Fire in 2012, a derelict bridge there was probably blown up by the Viper Militia (!), it was a stop on a 1940s sheep herding route, it was a stop on a proposed Trans-Arizona Trail, a highway patrolman died in a flood there in 1970, the route to the mine ruins is a popular trail for hikers and crazy off-roaders, etc. jengod (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per WP:HEY by Jengod.Onel5969 TT me 00:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Carr

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

A page created by a now blocked user, I can not find any sort of significant coverage. Has a lot of puffery and name-drops bigger stars to seem more noteworthy than is. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (Note that there are other people of this name, which makes searching tough.) Mr. Carr has received no reliable coverage in his own right and is typically mentioned in other people's lists of credits. This article makes desperate leaps for notability, such as how he was once a guest singer in someone else's song and a snippet of that song was used in the background of a TV show. The article only mentions one song that he ever released under his own name, "Just One Breath". Otherwise he has somehow convinced dozens of DJs and producers to let him sing a verse here and there in other people's songs. If he has been able to make a living this way since 2007, that's fairly impressive but he still doesn't get an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piedra, Arizona

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

Here we run up against the edges of our notability standards, with yet another siding/station which I cannot find anything about. Topos show nothing here, but they don't go back far; a 1947 aerial shows some buildings that could be a town, or maybe not. Lacking documentation, I'm having to go for non-notability. Mangoe (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Montezuma, Arizona

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

A passing siding/station on the UP, with three buildings beside the road just south of it. They show up in both aerials and topos, but the larger is vanished by the 1960s, and the two smaller ones are reduced to the foundations still visible today by the mid 1980s. Other than that I can find nothing out about this place, though searching is heavily impeded by the many places and people with this name. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per below. (non-admin closure) – Popo Dameron talk 05:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Leagues Cup knockout stage

[edit]
2023 Leagues Cup knockout stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this article to exist as more than a section in 2023 Leagues Cup (which already exists, so the result should not be merge), and it doesn't seem like similar pages have existed or been needed for previous Leagues Cups. There's no sign that this is notable enough to warrant its own article. – Popo Dameron talk 04:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. – Popo Dameron talk 04:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPINOFF as a legitimate content fork. It might be a little premature, but there is a reason other tournaments such as the UEFA Champions League have similar articles: to flesh out the details that would be unnecessary on the page of the main tournament, but can still provide content of encyclopedic value. And there is an obvious reason this hasn't been done for past editions: because this is the first tournament to include every team from MLS and Liga MX. It is a VERY different case when you have a simple knockout round of 8 teams and group stage + knockout round of 47 teams. Also, worth noting that this was nominated for deletion literally 15 minutes after its creation. Gotta give folks a little time to flesh out the article. Jay eyem (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't realised somehow just that the article was that new, so you're right that I should have given it more time. It didn't seem like there was anything in this spinoff that wasn't in the main article, but now considering how new it is, I will happily withdraw my nomination. – Popo Dameron talk 05:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InQube

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

Non-notable mini-satellite. No coverage found for this object, only press-releases. There is a fashion company with the same name that has many hits. No coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bach (writer)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and charity executive, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or businesspeople. For the record, this is the same person as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bach (businessman) from 2017, though the article is written differently enough to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content -- but it isn't doing any better at establishing that he would pass WP:GNG.
As always, neither businessmen nor writers are automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is not in the things the article says he did, but in the amount of reliable source coverage about his work in media that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. But eight of the nine footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and the only footnote that actually comes from a real media outlet is just covering him in the context of winning a minor local-interest award that isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie all by itself.
There still just isn't anything here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because it's been here once before, I'd rather get consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. Primary sources, no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sourcing not present in the article, little reward for a WP:BEFORE, either. Alphabet Soup is published by vanity press Page Two and the Nautilus Book Award is a 'pay to play' affair of questionable notability (so much so that I'm nominating that article for deletion!). I was reading a cached version - Liz deleted the Nautilus Book Award page in 2021 following an AfD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regretfully. I turned up one source with significant coverage: Johns, Gary (2014). Organizational behaviour: understanding and managing life at work. Toronto: Pearson. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-13-216112-1 – via OpenLibrary. It uses Bach and his work at KPMG as a case study, given two pages of coverage. Much of this about Bach's work specifically, and the awards he won for it are given a paragraph. Useful but not quite significant: a couple paragraphs on his coming out in Management of human resources. Other than that, he gets quoted a lot as a DEI expert, but I couldn't find any such pieces that have more than a snippet of content that's really about him. That said, I think the Johns book is solid, so if anyone can dig up another, I'd gladly change my !vote. For those who might look, I mainly searched using his name and "KPMG", "CCDI", "Birds of a Feather", and "diversity and inclusion". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Caballero

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

Article about former amateur/semi-pro footballer who received some notice while playing in his mid-to-late thirties after 20+ years at the same club which was seeking a first-ever promotion to Paraguay's top division. D10 covers him in an article about the club's rise, and more recently Crónica published an interview that covers him (I can't find anything else in reliable sources - not even a confirmation of when or where he was born). Although these sources exist, I'm not convinced that they are enough to satisfy the WP:GNG - while he is noted as the club's all-time scorer, most of the coverage relates to the club's ambitions and rise, and Caballero's desire to play in the top division (which never happens). If this article is kept, we should move it to Marco Caballero since he goes by that in the sources available. Additionally, the article was created by a sock, so there is additional trimming to do if it were to be kept. Jogurney (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - He is player for a top division club. Players who don't play for top level clubs can be notable and people who never played professionally can be marked as notable (see Clifton McNeely). Being an all-time leading scorer of a club is noteworthy. Discussions for deletion should be about the article, not used as a way to publicly harass a user see: Wikipedia:Talk dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:Harassment.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clifton McNeely was the first overall pick in the first draft of what became the NBA and there's a boatload of WP:SIGCOV that causes him to meet WP:GNG. That's a bad comparison. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to WP:AGF, but I'm really struggling with your claim of harassment. I can't think of anything I've done except nominate for deletion an article with dubious claims to notability. I've done WP:BEFORE, and I've explained what I found and why I think it's not enough (see above). Also, please note that Caballero is not and never has been a "player for a top division club" - yet per WP:NSPORTS2022 it wouldn't establish notability if he had. Jogurney (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what accusations about the original poster's account status have to do with the notability of this article. I've read over WP:NSPORTS2022 several times and there's very little that useful from it since it only establishes that 1 game does not make you notable automatically. However, with him being a pro player and soon a top division player (as his club is now promoted), I think that's notable.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you thought I was bad-mouthing former User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro? Not at all, that was just a note to myself and others that if the article is kept, we need to trim some of their inappropriate contributions. It isn't my nomination rationale, and I apologize if it came across that way. Jogurney (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the Crónica and D10 articles in my nomination rationale (not enough to be significant coverage). The ABC Color article tells us his age and height (in 2003), plus one sentence: "Por su parte, Caballero es el artillero del equipo y el torneo, con 12 anotaciones, marca que podrá ser batida en la liguilla hexagonal que se jugará desde el fin de semana próximo, para definir al segundo equipo que ascendará." (Basically he is his club's striker and scored twelve goals so far during the season - in the Paraguayan fourth division.) I can't open the Facebook link, but please tell us how it is a better source of significant coverage than the ABC Color article? Jogurney (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is needed before determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There is consensus to keep the material. Under which name is a matter for editorial discussion Star Mississippi 02:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troon, Arizona

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

Large but non-notable development. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively agree with Move to Troon Country Club. I can't currently follow the links that @Onel5969 posted, but assuming they are sufficient for the GNG, that should be sufficient; or alternatively the place could be notable if local media consistently use it as a point of reference in articles about other topics. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dweh

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jacob

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bramble

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, Academy Award awarded. (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kartiki Gonsalves

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

Non notable film maker. Has helmed one documentary and most of the references are about the documentary itself and not of the person. Fails WP:N. Creator seems to be pushing to get this made, even after multiple deletions. Jupitus Smart 00:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - since it has won the oscar, it does not augur well for the encyclopedia to have her page plastered with the deletion discussion.Jupitus Smart 03:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/entertainment/documentary-the-elephant-whisperers-set-to-release-on-december-8-451811
  2. https://deadline.com/2022/12/the-elephant-whisperers-netflix-documentary-short-director-kartiki-gonsalves-interview-news-1235199935/ (includes interviews)
  3. https://readysteadycut.com/2022/12/08/the-elephant-whisperers-review/
  4. https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/the-elephant-whisperers-review-a-moving-love-story-about-the-power-of-community-11860861.html
  5. https://www.leisurebyte.com/the-elephant-whisperers-review/
I don't know all the sources, and one is an interview, so that combined with the brevity of the article make me vote "weak" CT55555(talk) 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references are about the documentary itself. It has been nominated for best documentary short film - which does not impart any notability for the filmmaker herself. As per established precedents the bar for WP:DIRECTOR C3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work is set high and a I do not believe that the documentary she has produced meets the high standards envisaged in the criteria. Also I do not believe anything has changed since the last discussion, and I believe the repeated creation is being done with some ulterior PR motive. Best. Jupitus Smart 04:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of the subject matter notability guideline, but I won't expand on that, because I think the guideline speaks for itself. Regarding the creator's motivation, I note they have a 10 year history of creating very many Indian film related articles. Please assume good faith. WP:AFG CT55555(talk) 04:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_10&oldid=1145497684"