Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Telly Time

[edit]
Old Telly Time (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 WP:NBOOK. While the article has references, they are so non-specific as to not be locatable. The urls go to general pages for the periodical publications and not specific articles, and the author has not given a specific day of publication, author, or title; only providing a year and name of publication. All of this wouldn't matter so much if a WP:BEFORE search had yielded sources, but I was unable to find anything. 4meter4 (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it certainly is plausible that these publications have reviews or some other type of reliable coverage. Typically I accept offline refs without issue, but not when they are so nondescript as to be non-locatable. Those utilizing offline sources or sources behind paywalls should provide basic information about those sources including the day and/or month of publication for weekly and/or monthly periodicals, page numbers, authors, and article titles. That's just standard practice that even elementary school students learn to do when writing their first research papers. Without sufficient details of this kind I don't think we can reasonably count these sources towards meeting the criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've tried Google, Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Newspapers.com and the National Library of Australia's Trove archive. The last one confirms that the book exists and that there's a copy at Deakin Uni Library[1]. I'm unable to find even passing mentions of this book. pburka (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdollah (Khosrow) Samiei

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

An internet search and Google Scholar search reveals that this man does not satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF, WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. And his so-called research involves at least one article (http://nexusacademicpublishers.com/table_contents_detail/4/500/html) in a "predatory" publisher (Nexus Academic Publishers) listed on Beall's List (https://beallslist.net/). BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, very low citation count
Hadal1337 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Citation record too low to pass WP:PROF and no other form of notability visible. The article was a little longer before being cut down to the nominated version but the extra length just listed more low-visibility publications, not helpful for establishing notability. I'm not putting much weight in the "he published in a predatory journal" argument, though: anyone might do that for any number of reasons, including not realizing it was predatory. Those publications can't be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia, and we might discount them as counting towards scholarly notability even if they were heavily cited, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taye Barber

[edit]
Taye Barber (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)

Was draftified, then returned to mainspace without improvement, and without a single in-depth source from an independent, reliable source. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 22:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep WP:SNOW‎. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harvard Crimson in the NFL Draft

[edit]
List of Harvard Crimson in the NFL Draft (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:NLIST and WP:GNG; the topic of "Harvard Crimson football players in the NFL draft" does not appear to be notable, and thus we should not have a list related to that topic. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mba Vitus Onyekachi

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

Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It Ends With Us (film)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film in the production pipeline, not yet demonstrated as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM.
As always, the rule is not that every film is automatically entitled to keep an article the moment principal photography starts on it -- even after photography has commenced, most films still aren't notable until they've been released and started to garner attention from film critics. A film has to have a hell of a lot more than just a couple of stray casting announcements before it earns a special notability pass under WP:NFF, but a couple of stray casting announcements is all the sourcing this has.
It also warrants note that this was started in draftspace by a blocked IP number, and then got arbitrarily moved into mainspace by a logged-in user outside of WP:AFC process literally within seconds (seriously, the time stamp on both the original creation and the page move is 14:35 May 24), thus suggesting the possibility of sock or meat puppetry.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when this comes out, but a couple of casting announcements is not enough coverage to make a film already notable while it's still in the pipeline. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Timeline of Quebec history (1608–1662). ✗plicit 23:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1635 in Quebec

[edit]
1635 in Quebec (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)

Only two entries in the entire page, one of which is likely not notable enough for this sort of article. BangJan1999 19:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the wrong target as it relates to 1600-09. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Proverbio

[edit]
Leonardo Proverbio (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)

Almost no RS on this person outside of mentions in non-RS blogs. Zero SIGCOV. Won ski mountaineering competition (which is in itself a niche sport). Part of a series of BLPs that a blocked sock created around the ski mountaineering championship (maybe to promote it) decades ago; very little notability and can't see this lasting long term on Wikipedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Skyscraper (Dubai)

[edit]
The Skyscraper (Dubai) (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)

Zero evidence of notability. I'm sending this to AfD rather than using PROD because the title is so generic that it's basically impossible to search for sources. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julián Casanova (ski mountaineer)

[edit]
Julián Casanova (ski mountaineer) (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)

Outside of an entry to say came third in a ski mountaineering competition (which is in itself a niche sport) there is almost no RS on this subject. Zero SIGCOV on him. Nothing in the main mountaineering or skiing magazines. Article seems to be a UPE as it was done by a blocked editor/sockpuppet completed with stylish photo. He is now almost 40, so his skiiing/mountaineering career is probably done. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Peninsula (Dubai)

[edit]
The Peninsula (Dubai) (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)

Title is so generic that this is hard to search for (there appear to be other more recent projects with the same name), but I'm seeing absolutely nothing to convince me that this unbuilt building is notable. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xhersild Haka

[edit]
Xhersild Haka (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)

Despite his entire career being in the internet era, I was unable to find any significant coverage which would allow the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The latter explicitly states that articles such as this must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources, which does not seem to be met here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Agama

[edit]
Mathew Agama (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)

All 4 of the current references are trivial mentions and I can find nothing in my searches that demonstrates a clear passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC for this BLP under "Matthew Agama" or "Mathew Agama". Football Ghana mentions the club he plays for, his position and has a quote from him with no independent analysis. Ghana Sports Page has a tiny bit of analysis and has one additional piece of info compared to the previous source, that he joined the club last season. The quote from the player is the same as in the previous article and is just pre-match hype rather than anything to build a biography from. Aside from that, the coverage I can find is just trivial stuff like Modern Ghana so I'm not seeing any clear reason why this person needs an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Clair Global. History remains, but there's no clear consensus to merge anything. Redirect is a viable AtD since it has been established they're related. Star Mississippi 02:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clair Companies

[edit]
Clair Companies (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)

Clair Companies does not exist, nor does Clair Solutions, which is also mentioned in this article.

The name of the company is Clair Global. Clair Global already has a Wikipedia page, so this page is not necessary.


Source: I am in the marketing department for Clair Global.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairglobalmedia (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination fixed. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD appears to be based on a misunderstanding. Clair Companies and Clair Global appear to be two unrelated companies, both of which exist. Finally, please take note of WP:COI. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As user above has noted Clair Companies and Clair Global appear to be two unrelated companies, both of which exist and appear to be notable. Jack4576 (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A user asked me to reconsider my vote. Maybe move to Clair Brothers if we agree that there are no sources about "Clair Companies" itself and there is no SIGCOV for Clair Solutions. Clair Brothers is notable, but I won't oppose moving the whole article to Clair Global. Timothytyy (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, merging anything that's necessary into Clair Global. The Clair Brothers website[2] which is covered in Clair Companies clearly carries the words at the top left corner, "A Clair Global Company", which indicates that it considers itself part of Clair Global. The website attached to Clair Solutions, according to this ref [3] now redirects to Clair Global. From this, it's pretty obvious that both the companies covered by Clair Companies are indeed parts of Clair Global, and the original nomination, although made with a COI, is factually correct and supportable. I found only minimal references to Clair Solutions when googling around, so this isn't a case of retaining an article under a commonly-used, former name. But I would not be averse to leaving a redirect if anyone feels strongly. Similarly for Clair Brothers. Elemimele (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete request was made in order to clear up confusion/ misunderstanding created by the page in question - wasn't intended to be a COI, but part of my job is to make sure outdated/ misinformation about the company doesn't exist. There is a long, complicated family history, but in short, Clair Companies is now simply part of Clair Global. As @Elemimele suggested, merging the relevant info into Clair Global makes sense. Clairglobalmedia (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, Timothytyy, Phil Bridger, I'm taking the unusual step of pinging all three of you as Jack has now been banned from AfD, and I wonder whether this is as controversial as it seemed at first sight. @Timothytyy, did you find any SIGCOV that these companies are not all part of the existing Clair Global and therefore require separate articles? Can anyone find sufficient sourcing for Clair Companies that we'd keep it had it been nominated by someone without a COI? Clairglobalmedia, if the article is kept, either because the closer feels that is the consensus opinion, or because we can't come to a consensus, then you have the option of making an edit request on the article's talk-page to have information added that explains the situation and clears up any misunderstandings. See Wikipedia:Edit_requests for help. If you do this, please find links/sources to justify any changes you'd like made; the more independent, the better. Elemimele (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what happens at this point. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My only involvement here (and the only involvement I wish to have) has been to point out that it was incorrect to say that these companies are unrelated. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that the subject seems to be inexistent, so I am considering striking my vote. Timothytyy (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isdory Tarimo

[edit]
Isdory Tarimo (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)

Author contested PROD, no sign of notability per WP:GNG, the sources are also unreliable Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 17:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon

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

Page does not meet any of the criteria for WP:BK. While this book is used in a couple of wikipedia articles as a source, there is nothing to distinguish it as more noteworthy than other sources on pit bull-related pages PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is well sourced from reliable sources or if that is not possible merge into Bronwen Dickey.Dwanyewest (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You both created and extensively worked on Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon and the Bronwen Dickey Wikipedia pages. Knowing you put together (greater than 50% of) both of these pages, and ignored pretty every other book included on the pit bull page is a bit odd. What was the original reason for creation?
    Sure, maybe we could merge into Bronwen_Dickey page?
    It is currently not sourced from reliable sources. About half of the sources I've read seem to actually support the claims they make. e.g. the claim of "7 years of research" I was able to verify 2, but the third made no mention.
    The reviews also need work. As I mention, it appears they were copied directly from Amazon.com, but the citations were taken from different URLs. One supported the claims. One (from NPR) clearly did not. Two were unverifiable due to paywalls.
    I think this page may be "notable" by WP:BK standards which are notoriously relaxed when it comes to reviews. But that depends entirely on unverified reviews at this point. Perhaps if someone fixed those to point to real reviews we could reach that standard? PartyParrot42 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per cites like CSM, NYT and WaPo. Which seems to satisfy WP:BKCRIT#1 as well, bonus. I'd add WSJ to the argument for keep, but can't read it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied elsewhere but I think this is the only argument for keeping this book. PartyParrot42 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another user DMed me some links. I'll see if I can do some more verification of these sources to see which of these review citations are legitimate. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Made one more change to sources to add an archive link, and I believe we've completed verification of all our sources, and we now have a way to view them that isn't behind a paywall!
    I finally removed the review from NPR. It previously linked to an article where the review text existed nowhere in it, and I wasn't able to find another source for that quote, so it is likely made up. The quote is included on the Amazon.com page for the book and attributed to NPR there, but NPR doesn't have any source for it.
    Also we have enough good sources I don't think it will be an issue. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly. Authored by a scholar, meets the criteria and required sourcing, and a Google search of the title brings up about 8,370,000 results (0.53 seconds). Atsme 💬 📧 19:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Scholar" is stretching it a bit much. The author has an MFA, a writing degree. As far as I she doesn't have actual scientific background or expertise in dogs aside from buying two pit bulls during writing process. Whether the process of adopting pit bulls qualifies the author as a "dog scholar" is questionable, and I haven't seen any evidence of scholarly background on this subject from this author.
    As an aside, that is not one of the reason for notability. Nor is "number of results found on google"
    The only reason this book might reach notability standards (by Wikipedia definitions) is that there are two book reviews, which is currently the biggest issue with this page. PartyParrot42 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly meets the criteria of WP:NBOOK and the WP:GNG due to the multiple reviews in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. "reliable" is stretching it (see my earlier notes), but it is possible that with some cleanup this topic could avoid deletion. I think one of the hardest thing will be finding independent sources that are correct. PartyParrot42 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs some work but clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Archrogue (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thank you to everybody for your comments so far. It's looking like this page will stay because it's had at least two book reviews per WP:BK. Keep the comments rolling in though! PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 Park Avenue

[edit]
1 Park Avenue (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)

Canceled building with no clear evidence of notability. The first source is not significant coverage. The second source is not independent. The third is dead and even the archive is broken. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Park Avenue (about a different building), which concluded neither was notable. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samanea (company)

[edit]
Samanea (company) (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 have carefully checked every source in Chinese. All of them are press releases or just blatant advertisements. According to the article and its website[5], the company is "headquartered" at "One Raffles Quay, North Tower, #19-03". The address looks like a virtual office instead of "headquarters", since there are too many companies registered at the exact address[6]. After some investigations, I find it is just a shell company of Lesso[7], for oversea rebranding[8]. I don't think it is notable as a standalone article. 虹易 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. As there's no one clear redirect target. History isn't necessary for creation of a set index. Star Mississippi 02:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Artery

[edit]
Southern Artery (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, zero relevant Google news hits. The state highways that use this road have their own articles. Rschen7754 02:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as explained above seems fine. This road doesn't seem notable, no sources found for GNG, other than mentions of things along this road. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Guide Bridge railway station. Viable ATD. However there is not a consensus to merge information thereto. Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audenshaw Junction rail accident

[edit]
Audenshaw Junction rail accident (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)

We don't report every fatal rail accident in WP. This one gets no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nor seems to have any WP:EFFECT. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The effect was that signals people stopped hacking the track circuits to get around safety protections. "False-feeding was apparently common knowledge between signalmen in the 10 similar signal boxes in the area, and the frames were subsequently boxed in." (from the article.)
would need some reliable sources to confirm this. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this shows a GNG pass how, exactly? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings:, was your comment directed at me or the keep voters? LibStar (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The keep vote, hence why it's at the same level of indentation as your comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cyclist was hit by a rail vehicle recently, I suppose in the same area, that's all the hits I get when looking for this term. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to merging info into the station article as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is a bit of an embarrassment. The accident may well be a significant event in the history of rail accidents and signalling safety, but I'm really struggling to find any secondary source. There's no question that the RAIB reports, while totally reliable, are totally primary. I would very much like to keep the article for its historical and transport interest, but it's completely contrary to Wikipedia's policies on notability to do so. We therefore either need a change to how we handle notability of rail accidents, analogous to NPROF, a get-out clause that an accident is notable if, for example, it caused fatalities, changes in safety rules, etc. (and I think the non-rail-obsessed Wikipedia community is unlikely to swallow that one), or someone needs to find some sourcing. In any case, I think it would be a very good idea to sort out, generally, what we consider notable. I attempted to discuss this at Talk:List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom#Inclusion_of_minor_mishaps_of_no_consequence_and_no_secondary_sourcing but failed rather. Is it worth another discussion? Elemimele (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia guidelines are just that - guidelines. If you feel keeping this article makes Wikipedia better, vote keep and explain why. Garuda3 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele: RAIB reports are not primary sources. The RAIB is totally independent of Network Rail, or any train operating company. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true - as far as it goes - but I'm not sure the official accident reports can be used for notability purposes anyway. They are independent (by necessity) of the companies and individuals, but they're involved, at least in the sense that they investigate and write reports on every incident on the British Railways (including, iirc, near misses). So I'm not sure that we can say that an official report was made of the incident and therefore it is notable. That's a bit like saying a person's death is notable because there was a post mortem and coroner's investigation.
    (To be clearer, I'm not saying that's the position you are making, just that one which may be inferred from your reply..) JMWt (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JMWt put it better than me. They may be independent of the rail company that actually created the accident, but they are part of the UK rail system in that they are the official body that investigates rail accidents. And yes, since they are obligated to investigate everything, the fact they investigated doesn't mean the accident is unusual or notable. I would be dubious about relying on an HSE investigation as the only source for an industrial accident, and I feel the same about the rail investigations (though of course their purpose is to improve safety rather than instigate legal action, which perhaps makes them more independent than for example, a police report into a crime). Bottom line: a genuinely notable accident will have a lot more coverage than just the RAIB report. Elemimele (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

  • Delete - sad as it sounds, a small number of deaths in an accident on the British railways was not a rare event for more than a hundred years. For me a mention on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom is as much as it, and hundreds of other accidents like it, are going to get. Incidentally, I think this is one of the rare occasions where a list of that type - without bluelinks in the majority of cases - is important to retain. JMWt (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going off-topic, I really worry about the concept of that list being full of red-links. It mustn't become an indiscriminate heap of minor buffer-bumps, or a complete duplicate of the accident archive[9] so we have to have some sort of inclusion criteria and overall strategy. The presence of secondary sourcing is pretty much key to what Wikipedia uses. If we don't rely on that, what are we going to rely on? We can't do it on the basis of a few guys here thought it was sort of interesting. Elemimele (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to answer that. I was looking at List of railway accidents and incidents in India and was reflecting to myself that the majority of listings on the British list probably wouldn't meet the criteria of inclusion if they'd happened in India. JMWt (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark

[edit]
Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark (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)

Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark

This article has no references, and has been sent to draft space once, and moved back to article space. Without references, the article cannot satisfy book notability (or any other notability guideline).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Eastmain's decision. CastJared (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote: 'Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark' is a children's picture book written by Ken Geist and Will Grace, illustrated by Julian Gorton, [...] But the PW review says it's by Geist and Gorton; no mention of Grace. Neither Geist nor Gorton seems to be mentioned in en:WP outside this article; I have no opinion on whether either of them should have an article; if some editor believes that he should and quickly creates it, then the article discussed may be redirected into that new article. Otherwise, delete; because aside from the PW review (which is pretty humdrum), Eastmain's "some references" provide no evidence for notability: the three are a page from some retailer (not a disinterested source) that contains a mere blurb, and a couple of catalogue entries. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources

    1. Damron, Jayne (June 2007). "Geist, Ken. The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark". School Library Journal. Vol. 53, no. 6. p. 97. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "Gorton's whimsical, computer-drawn scenery and electric color palette set just the right tone for Geist's tongue-in-cheek retelling. The bold font is humorously integrated with the art, appearing inside the shark's mouth for emphasis, or swirling along the current with an escaping fish. This spunky tale is a welcome addition to storytime and picture-book collections."

    2. "The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

      The review notes: "But the timid will find relief in the satisfying ending in which the once-scary shark gets his just desserts (in the form of a necessarily vegetarian diet). This brief, enjoyable read proves a fun adaptation that a new generation will likely savor."

    3. "The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 75, no. 7. 2007-04-01. p. 332. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

      The review notes: "Gorton’s digital illustrations are bright blocks of color and shape, and the facial expressions lend much to the tale. Great for educators teaching comparisons, and for ocean lovers."

    4. Hanson, Anne (October 2007). "The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark". Library Media Connection. Vol. 26, no. 2. p. 80. EBSCOhost 26926730.

      The review notes: "This story is a variant of the “Three Little Pigs,” and it works wonderfully. A big, bad shark threatens to eat each house constructed by each of the three little fish, and each fish defies him with, “Not by the skin of my finny, fin, fin.” What makes this an effective version of the familiar tale is the bright colors, large depictions of the characters, and dynamic text that changes and moves with the story and its emphasis. The reader is put into the story as it happens. It’s very much an action- packed story in which the sister fish chooses wisely and the bad guy can’t get the best of her. The story ends with the toothless shark eating greens from a bowl."

    5. Braun, Jackie (2007-07-15). "Latest Kids' Books Cover Many Topics - Flint Journal Review". The Flint Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

      The review notes: "Ken Geist puts a new twist on a classic children's story with "The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark" (Scholastic, $6.99). Instead of threatening to huff and puff and blow the house down like the wolf did to the three little pigs, the villain in this book threatens to munch and crunch and smash their house in. To which the fish reply, "Not by the skin of my finny fin fin!" Julia Gorton's illustrations are as fresh and fun as this amusing, updated tale."

    6. von Seggern, Merry (2010-07-10). "From the library: Water, water everywhere at the Edith Abbott Memorial Library". The Grand Island Independent. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

      The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Be sure to include the fractured fairy tale, "Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark," by Ken Geist, for a few giggles and smiles."

    7. "Lima Public Library Book Reviews". The Lima News. 2008-05-14. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

      The article notes: "Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark by Will Grace and Ken Geist  The classic story of the Three Little Pigs gets an underwater twist in this colorfully illustrated book. With houses of seaweed, sand and a sunken ship and phrases like "Little fish, little fish, let me come in" and "not by the skin of my finny, fin, fin" this book is sure to be a favorite read-aloud for fans of sea creatures."

    8. Lynn, Michelle (2016-07-23). "The Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark". YA Books Central. Archived from the original on 2023-05-27. Retrieved 2023-05-27.

      The review notes: "This book is no different than that. It's a lot of fun with colorful images and lines that make kids giggle as they say them. Kids will love this. It couldn't quite hold the attention of the two-year-old I read it with, but she was almost there. The small, compact style of the book makes it super easy for little hands to hold and flip through because at that age they want to start doing everything themselves. "

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Three Little Fish and the Big Bad Shark to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquamarine (video game)

[edit]
Aquamarine (video game) (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 are no reviews for the title, and it's completely unnotable FlyingKangeroo (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article around a year or two ago assuming it would get coverage outside of previews, but it never did. Before submitting this for Afd, I checked for any reviews, and I couldn't find a single one. There's not enough sources to justify the article, which is a shame because it's actually really good.FlyingKangeroo (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even preview coverage is fine if it's significant, but most of the previews don't seem like it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and IGN sources make this notable. QuicoleJR (talk)
Those are way too in-depth to be trivial. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Higher Secondary School, Velliyanai

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No useful sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Player positions (paintball)

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

Appears to be original research. Couldn't find any official termonology for it in any google search Ajf773 (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Momen

[edit]
Maryam Momen (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)

Living person missing "reliable sources" & doesn't seem to pass "notability (people)" NameGame (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Ford Foundation. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for Adult Education

[edit]
Fund for Adult Education (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)

Sent to draft space multiple times and returned to article space without substantive changes. Seems to be borderline on notability. Let's have the community decide. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the original author of this article. I have now added more references to demonstrate notability. I would propose that this is notable apart from the Ford Foundation article because it operated semi-independently of the foundation (e.g., was not exclusively a grantmaking project) and there is specific news coverage of the activities of the FAE. Ef726 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I approved through AfC and then sent it back to mainspace after another editor sent back to draft. I included some of the many references about the organization which can be found on Newspapers.com through a WP:BEFORE search. There is not too much recent coverage as it is now defunct. I don't see an issue with it being merged to the Ford Foundation but based on the significant coverage it would need to covered somehow. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Ford Foundation as per above. Out of all the cited sourced, only the article by Edelson and the article from Petersburg Times can be considered SIGCOV. other coverage that I found are either trivial mentions or covered as part of Ford Foundation's contribution to adult education. There does not seem to be enough coverage and content to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Although some of the "keep" !votes are light on policy, there is consensus thatthis should not be deleted. Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramswarup Ramsagar Multiple Campus

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

Contested redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes notability. Onel5969 TT me 10:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contest deletion nomination: @Shellwood:, Why does this campus fail notability? It is one of the oldest constituent campuses under Tribhuvan University. Being unbiased, I request the nominator to see other articles on campuses in Nepal. Even Model Multiple College, which lies in same city which feels promotion and has not even refrenced. It is the college attained by first President of Nepal, Former Peputy Prime minister of Nepal, numerous Ministers of Nepal and renouned peoples in Nepal. Category:Tribhuvan University has 50+ articles which are less notable than this one. I feel a detail discussion is required to make a conclusion on all articles of this type in Nepal. Else I feel I have given much reference to this article.Franked2004 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument at AfD. If you think those articles should be deleted, feel free to go through proper deletion processes with them, but that doesn't mean we should keep this one. See also User:Jéské Couriano/A brief history of AfC * Pppery * it has begun... 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered your implied challenge and started to clean up Category:Tribhuvan University - you're right, a lot of those cite no secondary sources at all, and I've either redirected or PRODDed them. But that's not an excuse to keep this article. Wikipedia (unfortunately) works by having a lot of unwated stuff lying around and editors semi-randomly bringing them to the spotlight to be cleaned out.
To be clear, this article at the time I redirected it cited no secondary sources at all, and I haven't evaluated the suitability of the sources you added (and thus am not formally advocating deletion or re-redirecting). But you need to focus on the merits of those sources and whether they provide in-depth, independent coverage, not on calls for consistency. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sources mentioned on the articles are totally independent and based on national level reputed medias including Kantipur which is most popular news agency in Nepal.
I can accept this article would have been un-notable before my edit. But the campus has more than seven thousand student which is greater number than what many universities have. I see the college is where first president of Nepal, Ram Baran Yadav and former deputy prime minister Bimalendra Nidhi have studied as well. Being even older than than the oldest university of Nepal, Tribhuvan University I see the article to be totally notable specially after the addition and uplifting of artcle that I have made. Franked2004 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag for notability/viewpoints: the currently-cited articles from Annapurna [10], Ekagaj [11], Bahrakhari [12] and Kantipur TV [13] appear to have significant coverage of the subject, which is apparently also known by the acronym RARAB. It's not a clean case for GNG, but the nature of the reportage is suggestive of there being much more coverage out there as well. These references all report an apparently abysmal state of conditions at the campus itself which is reflected nowhere in the article. signed, Rosguill talk 02:36, 2 June 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny and Oh So Bright Tour

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

Fails WP:NTOURS. Refs are a mix of routine coverage and band specific content. scope_creepTalk 19:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not “routine”, it is information from various journalists that attended the shows and reported on what took place, and how those shows resonated so deeply with the audience. Furthermore, other of my references go into detail on band history and such, pointing as to why the tour itself was as important as it was. Squishedargarine (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the one who added a notability tag and raised concerns on the talk page. Yes, there are some reliable sources that have reported on the tour, but I'm not sure it meets NTOUR's "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability" clause. Most sources are pretty basic "this tour is happening with this lineup" and most content is already better written at the respective band and album articles. I'm leaning towards it failing WP:MERGEREASON's redundancy clauses. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out one more time that the sources for this article largely go in depth on the subject and provide detailed information on various aspects of this tour and its importance. Not to mention the overall importance of this tour, how it has affected the band since, and how much mainstream coverage/attention this tour was given. Squishedargarine (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your point., folk can read it. Your starting to WP:BLUDGEON folk. scope_creepTalk 07:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Valladolid

[edit]
Juan de Valladolid (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)

Procedural nom: article has been draftified twice in the past two days (both reverted by me due to the article being 18.5 years old, well past the time stated in WP:DRAFTIFY 2d), which to me is a sign this should get looked at at AFD. I would propose draftification as such; an article of any age can get draftified at AFD if consensus calls for it. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have notified both the draftifiers (Dan arndt and EdmHopLover1995) on their talk pages. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdip Ram Bungar

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

This article was declined around two weeks ago with exactly the same content. The first time was in the AFC, while the second time was moved from Mainspace to the draft. Fails WP:NPOL. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibites

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

The Bibites

This article is about a game that is a simulation of evolving life. There is nothing in the article that implies that the game satisfies game notability or software notability, because there is no mention of any significant coverage by third parties. An examination of the references shows that none of them are independent or secondary.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 the-bibites.en.softonic.com Appears to be the official web site for the game. No Yes Yes No
2 itch.io Web page to download the game No Yes Yes No
3 youtube.com A discussion of the game No Yes Maybe No
4 youtube.com An experience playing the game No No Maybe No
5 google.com Google search results No No Maybe No

There is also a draft, which has been declined three times, after which the author copied the draft into article space. The article should be deleted. The draft can either be improved by adding evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources, or left alone in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmrishi Bawra Shiksha Niketan Senior Secondary School

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

I could find no in-depth sources for this school. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit, I don't feel strongly about the keep vote on this one, so striking) -- Sohom Datta (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom remodeling

[edit]
Bathroom remodeling (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)

More of a how-to article than any sort of encyclopedic article. One source is a how-to article, another is an "idea" article, and another is about trends in bathroom remodeling. WP:NOTHOWTO ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. LFaraone 00:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Petersen

[edit]
Patty Petersen (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 WP:NACTOR. A blurb about her in her brother's article would be appropriate, but not even close to sufficient notability for a standalone article. Safiel (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Wayne Hollingsworth

[edit]
Kenny Wayne Hollingsworth (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)

None of the cited sources constituted significant coverage, and I did not locate any other useful source that can prove the subject's notability. The page was previously deleted for lack of any source, and undeleted on 2018 with trivial mentions and Discog profile as sources. His profile on AllMusic has neither biography nor review for his work. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While there were a fair amount of eloquent (LLMoquent?) comments in favor of keeping the article, none of them were the slightest bit based in actual policy. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FLO Vitamins

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

Not seeing any truly independent coverage for this product. Sourced to interviews, advertorials and PR Newswire pieces. KH-1 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very PROMO. Sources I find are all PR, except for this interview/advertorial with the founder [14], which is not much. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've researched and consider it can be kept per the general notability as it is the world’s first-ever PMS gummy vitamin per Fortune. Additionally, both the innovative approach in developing this vitamin and its subsequent influence on the dietary supplement market contribute to its significance, thereby justifying its presence as an article on Wikipedia. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We need sources that discuss this, otherwise this is unsourced product talk. Oaktree b (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is a high public interest—the product was used by public figures like Haley Lu Richardson, Molly Sims, Charlotte Mckinney and was recognized by obstetrics and gynaecology medical experts . As the women's health stuff it looks significant enough.Rodgers V (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those don't contribute to notability. We need discussion is scientific journals if it has been so studied. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hmmm... A good few are interviews, but those focus more on Bitton and the company rather than this product. There were also two press releases, and those are primary sources. I guess Beauty Independent appears to be reliable, as the strongest, but a high bar is required for medical claims. SWinxy (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article written from a neutral point of view, representing proportionately, and without bias. All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The vitamins have significant interest to the public. In particular, this is presented in this and this articles. Of course, the article still needs to be improved and finalized. But at this stage, it looks good enough to be left for improvement. --Loewstisch (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have my doubts about the Beauty Independent. The article is categorised as a "Brand Report" which is essentially an advertorial-style piece. While the content is unique, the title/angle suggests that it's based on the company's press release. The Bloomberg piece only mentions the product in passing: "O Positiv offers a strawberry gummy with chasteberry, the herb dong quai, vitamin B6, and lemon balm ($27) for PMS-related cramps, acne, and mood swings." -KH-1 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem PR-ish, almost like and advertorial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Gemmen Wilson

[edit]
Heather Gemmen Wilson (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't find sources. Startling Beauty doesn't seem to be notable either. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Federico Rampini. Viable ATD, but consensus is clearly against this article remaining. Star Mississippi 02:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Rampini

[edit]


Jacopo Rampini (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 an actor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because roles are listed in it -- the notability test doesn't hinge on the list of roles, it hinges on the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to support that the performances have been externally validated as significant.
But the performances listed here are entirely supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles, and the article is referenced exclusively to a mixture of directory entries (Amazon Prime, TV Guide) that are not support for notability at all, Q&A interviews in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person rather than being written about in the third, and sources that tangentially verify the existence of film or television projects that he was in without mentioning his name as a cast member at all.
It also warrants mention that the creator's username ("Rampo17") suggests some form of conflict of interest, particularly since their edit history has otherwise revolved almost exclusively around the subject's father, but people are not entitled to write about themselves or their own family members on Wikipedia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of more WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Rampini has an Italian Wikipedia page. He has been featured in major newspaper articles and magazines both in the US and in Europe, and had appeared in over 40 films and tv shows in Italy and the US.
Jacopo Rampini is one of the only Italian actors who is active in both the US and in Europe.
Jacopo Rampini has also coauthored plays that have been produced both in the US and in Italy.
Given all this information we believe there should be an English language Wikipedia page for Jacopo Rampini in addition to the existing Italian Wikipedia. 5.171.103.138 (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — 5.171.103.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please verify all the reference that were added to Jacopo Rampini’s page which include articles from major publications including Vogue, Vanity Fair and Corriere della Sera (Italy’s largest newspaper).
Do not only consider his IMDb page (which has more than 40 entries in film and tv) but also the plays that he coauthored and performed all over the world.
Do take a moment to look at Jacopo Rampini’s existing Wikipedia page in Italian which will undoubtedly erase any doubts about the relevance of having a Wikipedia page written in the English language as well. 5.171.103.138 (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every source in the article has been "verified", and they are all either directories or Q&A interviews in which he's answering questions about himself. As I explained above, a source only supports notability if it represents a journalist or film critic speaking or writing about Jacopo Rampini in the third person, and does not support notability if it represents Jacopo Rampini talking about himself in the first person. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jacopo Rampini is a established actor, producer and writer worthy of a Wikipedia page in the English language. He has an Italian Wikipedia page and a number of articles from major publications such as Vogue, Vanity Fair and Corriere della Sera. His plays have been performed both in the US and in Europe and he has over 40 credits as an actor. This is why I support him having a English language Wikipedia 151.21.153.232 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Rampini is a notable Italian actor who had a Wikipedia page in Italian and should have one in English as well as he is an Italian and American actor. He has been in many films in Italy and in the US and he is a noteworthy figure. He has been featured in most italian newspapers and magazines as well as publications in New York and in the US. Please consider validating this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrizio Brizzi (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) — Fabrizio Brizzi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is not a "third-party resource" to ourselves. That's WP:CIRCULAR referencing, which we're not allowed to do at all. Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person do not support notability; pieces which briefly mention his name without being about him do not support notability; short blurbs that are not substantive do not support notability. And on and so forth: you are not showing the correct kind of sourcing that establishes notability properly. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Federico Rampini as {{r from child}} - there was one additional ok source on the Italian Wikipedia page that wasn't discussed here ([15], which includes a small amount of plausibly-independent prose description in addition to a video interview, but all told we're nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, the available coverage is either trivial mentions, mentions him solely in the context of his father, or Q&As. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 2 June 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tavon Rooks

[edit]
Tavon Rooks (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 athlete, never played professionally. Was unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P-17 (Dubai)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
P-17 (Dubai) (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)

Forgotten article on unbuilt building with no clear evidence of notability. The sources the article currently cites, while they may have been acceptable by 2009 standards, are not significant coverage by 2023 standards as they read like routine announcements. Title is admittedly hard to search for, but the only source I can find is this, which may not even be about the same project. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Butzkamm

[edit]
Wolfgang Butzkamm (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)

Advertisement Newbamboo (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo creek

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Flamingo creek (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)
Forgotten article on unbuilt project in a community whose article was deleted at AfD. I can find a bunch of sources announcing construction of the project, but nothing that counts as WP:SIGCOV, and was unable to even verify whether the development was completed as expected in 2011, which is really saying something.
The previous AfD was closed as keep without pointing to any sources at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 01:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Innovation for the Next Generation

[edit]
Positive Innovation for the Next Generation (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)

Created by a single purpose editor and looks like a WP:PROMO. No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 01:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. Created by a single purpose editor. 14 of the 15 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A potential rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Botswana Non-Academic Staff Union

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Gan Punks

[edit]
Bastard Gan Punks (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 NFT project. Sources are largely non-RS and nothing turns up in Gnews, or anywhere else for that matter. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nastymagazine did a long piece on the project. Cointelegraph did a dedicated story on the project which comes up on Gnews. Snarflakes (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify non-RS? thanks. Snarflakes (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list [19] shows the good, the ok and the not ok sources. Aim for more of the good ones. What you've used for sourcing isn't acceptable, as it's mostly press-releases or information from sites without clear editorial standards. Oaktree b (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, these maybe lightweight sources, but the content is artwork and isn't controversial, which can be acceptable sources per (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources).
"Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones." Snarflakes (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NFT project has done almost $16,000,000 in historical trading volume, and has been verified by Opensea since its inception because it has been recognized by them as a notable NFT project. https://opensea.io/collection/bastard-gan-punks-v2. I'm not sure if any of those facts would be necessary for the wikipedia article though. Snarflakes (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you are a new editor, reading WP:GNG may be helpful, as it is the basic notability guideline that all articles have to pass. Specifically, at least two sources in the article have to be secondary, reliable, significant (as in the amount that the subject is mentioned and the length of the source) and independent of the subject to pass it. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the specific guidance, I added two more independent secondary sources. Snarflakes (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just added another source. ArtNews, established in 1902, with its own wikipedia page. If you can please review, appreciated. Snarflakes (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to the great feedback from the editors here, I have updated the sources to include 4 citations. This includes 3 new reliable secondary sources that outline the significance and notability of the AI art project. The above editors have yet to review and respond to the latest sources and provide feedback, it would be much appreciated if they would prior to the end of the review period. Snarflakes (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_25&oldid=1158449299"