Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 11	October 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rosen (writer)

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

Cannot find much anything notable in google search. The current sourcing on article is shakey and not WP:RELIABLE as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I, Robert Rosen, may say a few words in defense of the significance of my work and the especially puzzling idea that nothing notable comes up in a Google search:

What follows is a sample. There's plenty more, which I can send on request. But I think there's enough here to prove my point.

In the 25 years that I've been publishing books, my work has received coverage in such places as...

The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/nyregion/a-demimonde-in-twilight.html?scp=1&sq=a+demimond+in+twilight&st=cse&pagewanted=all

NBC News:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/john-lennon-yoko-ono-s-former-palm-beach-estate-listed-n1203626

The Wall Street Journal (paywall):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-lennon-and-yoko-onos-onetime-palm-beach-mansion-sells-for-36-million-11604076391

Huffington Post:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/conversation-with-author_b_7498668

and: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rock-n-roll-watergate_b_8634020

and: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/imagine-12-great-books-ab_b_8665582

NY Daily News:

https://www.nydailynews.com/2000/02/18/memory-serves-authors-final-days-of-lennon/

CNBC:

https://www.cnbc.com/2013/07/24/no-porn-please-were-british.html

Architectural Digest:

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/john-lennon-yoko-ono-former-palm-beach-house-for-sale?fbclid=IwAR1gNv9bdvSQvYIEyTNdCSKgcoeTYRtMydY-7W3an1fZRRIa5PBsa0m3Dgc

The Times of London, not available online, but you can read it here:

https://www.robertrosennyc.com/blog/posts/16846

And such niche publications as Christianity Today:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2001/01/10-best-books-of-2000/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2000/06/popular-culture-ballad-of-john-and-jesus/

My work has gotten even more extensive coverage throughout the Spanish-speaking world. Here are a few examples:

Spain:

https://www.diariodesevilla.es/ocio/Robert-Rosen-libro-Lennon_0_1870013916.html

https://www.abc.es/cultura/musica/abci-mejores-libros-sobre-vida-y-muerte-john-lennon-202012060122_noticia.html

https://ileon.eldiario.es/cultura/musica-literatura-biografias-imprescindibles_1_9386407.html

https://www.abc.es/cultura/abci-ultimo-capitulo-diarios-john-lennon-201711211203_noticia.html

Mexico:

https://www.proceso.com.mx/cultura/2003/6/23/habla-robert-rosen-autor-de-nowhere-man-john-lennon-en-el-corazon-de-las-tinieblas-77261.html

https://www.proceso.com.mx/cultura/2016/8/25/lennon-al-desnudo-por-su-biografo-robert-rosen-169554.html

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2005/10/09/index.php?section=espectaculos&article=a08n1esp

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2003/05/10/02an1cul.php?origen=index.html&fly=2

Argentina:

https://www.pagina12.com.ar/2000/suple/radar/00-07/00-07-02/nota1.htm

Colombia:

https://www.soho.co/historias/articulo/trabajar-con-john-lennon-por-robert-rosen/2179/

Chile:

https://www.latercera.com/culto/2020/12/08/los-enigmaticos-diarios-intimos-de-john-lennon/

Also in Brazil (Portuguese )

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fol/cult/ult30052000034.htm

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fol/cult/ult30052000038.htm

And France:

https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2000/04/22/87963-la-vie-sulfureuse-de-john-lennon.html

And Italy:

http://www.corriereetrusco.it/2011/12/05/piombino-al-centro-gio-omaggio-al-leader-dei-beatles/

I rest my case--Robert Rosen 2603:7000:3802:27B4:A0CF:E8AB:C126:5BAA (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add one more piece of evidence about the cultural impact of my book Nowhere Man that I somehow neglected to include in the above: a Jeopardy question. Since YouTube is a blacklisted Wikipedia site, I've provided a link to the video on my own website. Scroll down; it's at the bottom of the post:

https://www.robertrosennyc.com/blog/posts/43472 2603:7000:3802:27B4:AD02:4EEC:599F:E78 (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not in the greatest shape, but the sources provided above seem to show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Not in Google search is a weird statement as well - even if there wasn’t on Google, ProQuest is a necessary search for most authors/literary works and there seems to be a lot about his works on there PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The NY Daily News and La Depeche are reviews of his book on John Lennon. Not sure the other ones given above are helpful, but should at least pass AUTHOR with these sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex MacKinnon

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments by the nominator. Yet another non notable wiki page.Plasticwonder (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Anstey

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't cite any sources and the external link isn't something that counts towards notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom non notable darts player fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Grant (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage cannot be described as 'significant' as per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. My search for significant coverage did not reveal anything that could be added. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom non notable darts player fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Caves

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:ATHLETE, this article can be recreated if he ever meets that threshold. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems there was a fair bit of change and improvement during the debate's time that is open. If any editor still feels like this doesn't meet GNG, I've closed as no consensus which allows for a relatively immediate re-nomination (and this close can be cited as specifically not precluding that from occurring). Daniel (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Terran

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

Long-term concerns about notability, no chart success, very little in-depth coverage. An interview from 1997 was conducted by SoCal radio station KCRW[1] but interviews do not count toward notability. This UnCut album review from 2003 doesn't cover the artist's life or career; it just calls her an "independently-minded pianist-songwriter". The Sputnik page about Terran has no signed author. It appears to have been written by a family member. AllMusic's page about Terran does not have a signed prose review, indicating less notability. And none of Terran's albums have a signed prose review on AllMusic. The 2008 interview with Full Circle magazine cannot count toward notability; in any case it is a essentially a blog post published through Google's Blogger platform. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found for this singer, nothing in Gnewspapers, Gnews or a book search. I don't think she's gotten the critical notice we require. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:subject lack references to meet WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The nominator nailed it, as the musician received some very basic media notice but nothing useful for encyclopedic purposes or our notability requirements. I also can find no confirmation for the claim about the Sunday Times in the article, which appears to be an exaggeration that spread across social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of Sunday Times listing here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my vote thanks to this research by Atlantic306. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are these press quotes on her website:JENNIFER TERRAN PRESS QUOTES

"Endowed with a voice or heartbreaking purity and melodic talent, Jennifer Terran will most likely rise rapidly to the level of the greats."- TELARAMA (Paris, France)

FOUR STARS Jennifer Terran “THE MUSICIAN” — ROLLING STONE (Germany)

"Breathtaking... timeless... pure... monumental.... Categorizing Jennifer Terran is impossible. Terran is a style of her own." — OOR MAGAZINE (Netherlands)

"She speaks of the unspeakable, with great touch and skill in production, the arrangements and the songs. Jennifer Terran did show her nakedness on the beautiful pictures of 'The Musician', on 'Full Moon In 3' she is naked in the head of the listener. In my mind I give her a kiss." 5 STARS for 'FULL MOON IN 3' — HEAVEN MAGAZINE (Netherlands)

"The Musician is Terran's third album, but strangely enough it has the innocence of a debut. The compositions are fluent and playful, both rough and soft. Terran produced and mixed everything herself, but has succeeded in preventing that the spontaneity of her music was killed by perfectionism. At some point Tori Amos had that same gift, but in the meantime she has become a phenomena. Let's hope that Jennifer Terran will never become world famous." — PLATOMANIA (Netherlands)

"The music of Jennifer Terran is so beautiful it hurts."- CULTURE (Netherlands)

“Jennifer Terran has become an instrument so fine that it may cut you. All the Santa Barbara songwriter's albums have been honed to her exacting specifications of sensitivity and truth; now she has gestated a suite about motherhood, a subject than which no deeper exists. It goes right to the heart, and that hurts (good). It's real art, her best. Maybe the world can stand it.”(Terran’s: Born from the Womb of Silence) — METAL JAZZ.COM / GREG BURKE (USA)

"Not everybody can be both scary and vulnerable; Jennifer Terran can. The scary part is her voice, which spirals into regions so high you fear she'll disappear or crash, and lately it has acquired a diamond-dust edge that can saw through a stack of hearts, first of all her own." - LA WEEKLY (USA)

Top 10 records of the year"Terran is a breathtaking singer. Her vocal innuendos are pure, free of the mannerism of a lot of contemporary female colleagues."- FOCUS (Belgium)

"Pure, that was this concert in one word. No setlist, no décor, only a small lady, with a voice like a storm behind the piano" — STORYVILLE MAGAZINE (Netherlands)

"ALL OF you wondering whether Kate Bush is going to release another album, or if Tori Amos will ever make another record as good as her debut, can stop bothering with such side issues. Here's the album you've been waiting for.... I don't think there's a duff track. Her voice is staggering. And you've got to love someone who can yell out a full-on, Springsteenesque '1-2-3-4!' to announce the arrival of a violin."Terran's "The Musician"- #2 BEST ALBUM OF THE YEAR — THE TIMES

If these can be confirmed it should be enough for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. The blurbs are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed they were quotes rather than the whole coverage. Anyway hopefully this doesn't get closed before I can check them out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I didn't find all of the sources listed on her website I did find significant coverage in a number of sources. Regarding the Sunday Times there was a review of her album The Musician in the Sunday Times where it was named cd of the week. This was published on 20 October 2002 but unfortunately it is paywalled so perhaps someone with access could check it out. The significant coverage I found was in the LA Weekly here, a music business magazine called Music and Media page 10 here, some album reviews here and here. There is quite a bit of coverage in German sources such as here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here,and here. Also coverage here. Together there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no real reliable sources that cover this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Positive critical reception of her music in reliable independent sources, coupled with sufficient secondary coverage identified by Atlantic306 to build a biographical article. There is sufficient here to presume WP:MUSICBIO notability, with high probability of more sourcing existing beyond what googling does immediately identify. I have added a number of the sources to the article to support this. ResonantDis_tortion 12:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a changed vote, and I struck out my previous vote above. The other folks above have done an impressive amount of research to track down European sources on the musician. I am not convinced that each invidiual review or interview is sufficiently descriptive per WP:SIGCOV, but there are indeed a lot of them, indicating that she has received coverage in certain esoteric quarters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article has been much improved by ResonantDistortion using the sources found by Atlantic306, and there is plenty of biographical info sourced to reliable sources now. In addition to the 2002 "Records of the Year" review in The Times which reads An astonishing album by an almost unknown singer- songwriter. She uses the template carved out by Kate Bush and Tori Amos, but takes her songs into darker territories, especially on Mad Magdaline, her epic tale of revenge against the record industry by ... an unknown singer-songwriter., there are numerous other reviews of her most critically acclaimed album, The Musician. Even before The Musician, she was featured in this 1998 article in the Los Angeles Times (there are four paragraphs describing Terran and her unconventional style – e.g. singing her list of "thank yous" on her second album The Rabbit instead of printing it on the CD cover – preceding the Q&A interview). Next, while it does include several quotes from Terran, the April 2001 feature article in LA Weekly also includes music critic Greg Burk's own assessment of various songs by Jennifer Terran, as well as a description of what one of her live gigs is like and how the audience responded (and it was all before her big break, so it's quite...colorful). In addition to her music, the reason she was notable in the early 2000s was because she started her own record label so she could maintain the rights to her own songs, as described in this 2002 Knight Ridder article, a fact that is also explored in the 2002 feature article on Terran in Music & Media identified earlier. There is a lot more in the way of magazine and newspaper reviews of her other albums as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Star Pravah and then semi-protect. Daniel (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmichya Paulanni

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

Attempted redirect as there is no significant coverage that shows notability outside of unreliable sources, mentions, and general announcements. Created by blocked user and IPs (likely LOUTSOCKs) have objected to the redirect so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaatchora: not sure why there's no Adaptations/Remakes section there. Not opposed to deletion given the existing coverage, which allows verification: notable music director and notable cast. So very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary notes why it was removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage. Needs more than announcements and passing mentions to pass notability. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Star Pravah: As above - source are routine marketing fluff, nothing significant post release from a good source Ravensfire (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly consensus so far is to get rid of this article. However, there is no consensus yet on what to do with it - merge, delete, or redirect. Some additional discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that if a redirect is created, we will be right back here because IPs (UPEs I will bet my life on) continue to remove the redirect. If a redirect is consensus, I would request it be protected. In fact, I would recommend the title itself is protected. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and semi-protect it to prevent recreation by IP / new accounts. If it's an autoconfirmed editor, can decide then if more steps are needed. Ravensfire (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into this issue with another page after a deletion discussion now that I am thinking of it. I think the best would be delete and then allow the redirect to be created and protected. If consensus is redirect, that would allow the removal of the redirect at anytime (since there was no official delete consensus). If it is deleted, it can be reverted if someone attempts it without consensus based on G4. Thoughts?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus at the AFD is to redirect the article, that does show consensus, just like a decision of delete does. If someone arbitrarily puts the article back, revert the edit or move the article to draft space for review there and change the mainspace article back to a redirect. Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rationale for deleting and then creating the redirect, instead of just redirecting? -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General agreement that it isn't wholly irreparable. But given the delete !voters' concerns, I'd say this is a "keep, without prejudice to a future relisting if it all goes to WP:PROMO hell". asilvering (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 19. Please also refer to last two AfD's. Daniel (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with WP:SIGCOV in Bloomberg News (2020, 2022, both available via The Wikipedia Library if you want to review), Forbes (authored by staff and thus reliable), Radio Tavisupleba (in Georgian), and Fortuna.ge (in Georgian). Most recently, there's SIGCOV of Lomtadze in BBC and Vedomosti on his purchase of the Wycombe Wanderers. I've also trimmed some of the fluff and added some of these sources to the article. It still needs more cleanup, and I would support protection on the page to address the history of COI/UPE editing -- but the sources show he meets the notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The Forbes article is by "former staff". There's no reason to believe it had meaningful editorial oversight. —Cryptic 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)~~ Never mind; the byline was changed after publication (what a rotten thing to do). Contemporary archive lists the author as staff. —Cryptic 02:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As AfD1 closer, just stating I haven't had time or interest to review changes and support whatever conclusion emerges here. As I said in the DRV, it was probably time for a new discussion since much can change in two years. Star Mississippi 18:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kazakhstan, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forbes article presented above is more about the company than this person. The Bloomberg articles are mostly about this person, but more about the companies that lose money. I can only find a BBC article that he bought a football/soccer club, which is minimally about this person and more about the transaction and is mostly quotes [2] from the person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the foreign language sources? And the Forbes source is definitely SIGCOV of Lomtadze. It's a long feature and he is discussed in at least half the paragraphs, and it includes numerous biographical details. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still leaning delete. This is a fundamentally, and I think irreparably, biased article about a person who's spent a considerable amount of money on PR (for example, the purchase of the minor-league football team mentioned above). A neutral article is perhaps possible. It wouldn't look anything like this. —Cryptic 02:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Notability is not the issue, although it appears borderline from the sources: the person is certainly rich enough to arrange for whatever ostensibly third-party coverage he wants. The issue is that, as noted in the DRV and in the last AfD, this article is an exercise in self-promotion, a product of undeclared paid editing, and in the face of such a campaign there is little chance of our article staying neutral. The current article should be deleted and recreated only after submission to AfC of a draft by an established editor with no ties to the subject; such a new article should also reflect any possibly (if not likely) unflattering aspects of this person's career. Sandstein 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a strange reading of our guidelines to insist that a WP:BLP must include unflattering information. I’m sure said info exists (I added a Bloomberg story about a big hit to the guy’s net worth, and there’s nothing stopping other editors from finding and adding it), but to make the inclusion of negative information a prerequisite for having an article on a living person seems unsupported by policy. As for your requirement for AFC, the article was substantially edited by PaulW, a long established editor, and accepted at AFC by Dr Vulpes, another long established editor, which is indeed what triggered this discussion, which would seem to meet your condition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs are required to adhere closely to NPOV, and NPOV indicates that subjective and effusive praise is out of place in what purports to be encyclopedic content. An insistence that our content comply with NOT is not inconsistent with the biographies of living persons policy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the effusive praise? I'm not seeing it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage provided by Dclemens1971, which establish notability. There may be some bias in the tone of the article but that can be removed via cleanup. I strongly disagree with Cryptic’s claim of this bias being irreperable.Frank Anchor 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SIGCOV identified and further explanations by User:Dclemens1971. AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies. gidonb (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Dclemens1971 and Gidonb. I would give somewhat more weight to the BBC article, for whom this subject is the headliner. BD2412 T 03:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Frank Anchor that any bias here is not irreperable and would add that deletion shouldn't be a substitute to improving an article anyway. The tone of the article doesn't impart any praise that I can see. I do agree that the Forbes source is moreso about the company than Lomtadze in specific, but with the two Bloomberg sources and the sources for his purchase of Wybcombe, I think there's just about enough here to meet WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mostly per Dclemens1971. After going through them sources, GNG is established clearly and can be seen to cross the SIGCOV threshold too. As mentioned by others above, the article got that promotional tone still now, but something that's can't be fixed with a little rewrite. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dua Lipa#Early life. The idea of redirecting was brought up by commenters on both sides and seems like a reasonable way to retain some coverage of this person without a stand-alone article. Any content that seems worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Lipa

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like a failure to perform a BEFORE. I'm finding substantial references that are about Rina, not her older sister (Vogue, Deadline). Also, the sources present are not primarily focusing on Rina's relationship with her sister, but instead mention it as a considerable detail. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Vogue and Deadline have articles about Rina, but even the headlines in both pieces emphasize her relationship to Dua Lipa, which suggests that her notability is primarily tied to her sister. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read past the headline, per WP:HEADLINES. There is SIGCOV of her as a fashion model and actor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason she received coverage is due to her relationship with Dua Lipa, as even Vogue pointed out by stating, She’s self-aware about the nepo-sibling thing. Also, the lead describes her as a model, actress, and dancer, this means the article should also meet WP:ARTIST and WP:NMODEL requirements, both of which she falls short of meeting. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s enough if she meets GNG, which she does. A subject meeting GNG does NOT have to meet particular requirements of SNGs. That would be absurd. The articles (some on the page and plenty more available online) mention her sister but focus on her and constitute significant coverage addressing Rina directly and in depth, in reliable media outlets, which is precisely what is required. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dua Lipa. There isn't much coverage of her as someone other than Dua's sister. Frost 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the existing coverage; a redirect to Dua Lipa#Early life is totally warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Albania. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments presented above. -AlexBachmann (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stumbled upon this article as I was deleting articles created by a sockpuppet of Asphonixm but I see the article is being improved and is the subject of this discussion. But if it wasn't being worked on, it would likely be eligible for a CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: If we compare the state of the article since it was last edited by the sock and after the involvement of multiple editors, I do not see any substantial edits made on the article. The changes made so far seem to include removal of maintenance tags, fixing minor errors like references, paraphrasing sentences, switching "British" to "English", and adding categories—none of which amount to substantial content contributions. Therefore, Asphonixm's sock remains the major contributor. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who added sources to the page (yesterday, I think) and I am sorry but it was a significant change. I did it to prove she meets GNG. Who is the "major contributor" is not what matters, what matters is whether there is/are (a) "significantly edit"(s) by other user(s). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see Liz suggest CSD 5 eligibility extended until recently in the face of demonstrative notability and involvement of other editors (myself included) well before the sock was caught. Mushy Yank has made such substantial edits in the last 48 hours that I wonder if Ckfasdf believes that a sock only needs to be a majority contributor for CSD 5, rather than the only major contributor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I don’t think Liz suggested eligibility extended; quite the opposite, I would say (Liz clearly indicates the page is being improved), and her note is just for information, to prevent any CSD nomination, or at least to make things clear. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn’t notice Mushi Yank’s edits in the last 48 hours. However, on 28th September, I did suggest CSD G5 because that sock puppet was the main contributor, and it's worth noting that this sock puppet is notorious for creating biography articles. Pbritti disagreed, which is why we now have this AfD. My stance remains unchanged: she is only known because of her sister, as evidenced by all the sources that prominently mention her sister in both the headlines and the content. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my comments were unclear. I had deleted some other articles created by this sock but decided this one was not eligible due to the contributions of other editors to the content creation which wasn't the case with their other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG. In every source, including the two suggested in this discussion, describe her as "Dua Lipa's sister". Any notability is by proxy of her sister and not on her own merits. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: Referencing someone as someone's sister does not automatically fail them at GNG, as GNG is about sourcing and focus of coverage. Even if you believe GNG is not met, why do you believe there is not a valid case for an ATD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she wasn't Dua Lipa's sister, the articles wouldn't be written in which she was almost exclusively described and referenced as being Dua Lipa's sister, and therefore this Wikipedia article wouldn't exist. She has no fame of her own accord. If you/someone wants to write a sentence or two in DUa's article which make mention of Rina, fine, my vote can double as a vote for Merge. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The aticle fails to meet WP:GNG. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ericsson. asilvering (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cradlepoint

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

Scope creep previously PRODded this article, but it was procedurally dePRODded. The rationale was "Company article that fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS." Indeed, the coverage is routine and WP:ORGTRIV, and most of the sources are WP:TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and Idaho. Janhrach (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I never saw it was deproded or I would have sent it to Afd. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn business. Refs are regular PR stuff --Altenmann >talk 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - their products are used by NORAD, the NYC Board of Elections, and other agencies. Bearian (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or delete). There are a fair number of articles in trade publications but I don't see anything beyond the routine mentions and brief announcements. Nothing that would come close to NCORP. Could potentially be redirected to Ericsson, but I don't really mind too much either way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ericsson - it is a subsidiary of that company as of now, and is the best candidate for it to be redirected to. I'm fine with deletion, too. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Plenty of refs that are at least somewhat targeted at the subject would make me believe that with cleanup and growth more can be found to fill this out. However, I think a re-discussion here in a few months would be appropriate as well. Perhaps by then a clearer consensus can be reached. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Media

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

I am not persuaded that this passes WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Business, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage about the production company in any of the sources on the page. The sources are all about what are streaming and on what network. WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG also no significant coverage. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Ab207 (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bologna Violenta

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

Sources on page consist of databases and a self-authored piece, so no notability there. The artist's Italian-language article doesn't seem to offer anything better. I was able to find this article which appears to be primarily about the artist, and these two which I think are only passing mentions (hard to tell because I can't read Italian). If those are indeed just passing mentions, then it appears we've only got one valuable source, and notability isn't met. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to be found, especially in Italy-specific archives that I don't have access to, but as is this does not meet our standards. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite renowned Italian indie band (I'm Italian), and as such there's some coverage. This is an interview to the band on one of the biggest Italian art magazines, while this is an interview on an Italian online music magazine. This is a short biography on another Italian online music magazine. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cyclopia - the interviews are not considered independent sources, although both give some good info prior to the interview text. Admittedly, indie band sources are difficult to find, but could you search for more mainstream references? Google search from the US isn't good for Italian sources. Lamona (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding on the interviews. They can be a gray area (see WP:INTERVIEW), but in this case where they're presented as straight Q&As, with the writers barely contributing to the actual text and just transcribing what the band says, it should be treated as a primary source. That any coverage exists is a good sign generally, but these don't contribute to notability directly. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I searched for one of the albums in conjunction with recensione, and found loads of reviews, such as [3] [4] [5] [6]. I am not familiar with the landscape of the Italian music press, but am willing to trust that some or many of them are reliable. (I also declined to mention several sites that looked like blogs.) Geschichte (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm at least the first three are from reputable sources. cyclopia ^speak! 14:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here are recensione of their second album: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (short) [12]. Geschichte (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presume notability is met per WP:MUSICBIO based upon the critical reception identified above. Note - however - the article referencing is currently not in a good state and does need to include at least some of the above citations. ResonantDis_tortion 15:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Clearly, there's agreement behind the reliability of at least some of the above sources, and there are plenty more on top of that so the case is strong. Thank you all. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Once I back out the non-P&G-focused contributions below, and apply reduced weight to the bludgeoning which was ineffective in providing additional guidelines-compliant info, I'm left with conflicting views around SIGCOV. The majority of tenured editors are of the view that the sourcing in the article, and additionally presented in this discussion, does not meet the threshold for SIGCOV. Crosji dissents from this view but provides little elaboration in their comment. On that basis, I believe there is a consensus to delete. Note to dissenting editors - I won't be overturning this close, so Deletion Review is thataway. Daniel (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzaib Rind

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

I draftified this BLP on a non-notable athlete because I believe it doesn't meet the WP:N. Then the creator of the BLP submitted the draft for review, which I declined, but it was still moved to the main NS. I don’t think it meets GNG or even WP:ATHLETE, thus AFD'd it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject has received WP:DIVERSE coverage and the article also passes WP:GNG. The subject is a national champion in Wushu. By his own admittance, Saqib is once again WP:GAMING the system. Mister Banker (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s interesting that you’re familiar with the policies, especially for someone with fewer than 50 edits. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re a sock of a UPE. In any case, could you show how the subject meets the GNG? --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. The subject does meet the WP:GNG criteria as shown by the extensive coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, including Dawn News https://www.dawn.com/news/1779610/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-world-champion-in-karate-combat-event, Islamabad Scene https://islamabadscene.com/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-ever-karate-combat-sports-champion/, and his profile on ONE Championship https://www.onefc.com/athletes/shahzaib-rindh/. These sources document his national championships and international recognition as a combat sports champion. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable fighter. Does not meet WP:NMMA, sources are mainly database / promotional profile pieces or interviews which don't help notability. WP:TOOSOON for this fighter. Ravensfire (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search him on Karate Combat. Gul Butt (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable athlete. Completely fails notability for martial artists and lacks significant coverage doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search him on Karate Combat. Gul Butt (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just click on news search.--Gul Butt (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Gul Butt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Shahzaib Rind is a notable athlete in the field of Wushu and Martial Arts. He is a three-time National Wushu Champion of Pakistan and the first-ever Pakistani to win a Karate Combat World Championship. His achievements include a gold medal in the 3-Nations International Wushu Championship (2016), a silver medal at the South Asian Games (2019), and participation in international events like ONE Championship. He has been covered by reliable sources such as:

1. ONE Championship Profile - Shahzaib Rind https://www.onefc.com/athletes/shahzaib-rindh/

2. Khilari.com Profile - Shahzaib Rind https://www.khilari.com.pk/news/1163/shahzaib-rindh-reigning-west-asia-kickboxing-featherweight-champion

3. Islamabad Scene - First-Ever Pakistani Karate Combat Champion https://islamabadscene.com/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-ever-karate-combat-sports-champion/

4. Dawn News - Shahzaib Rind’s Karate Combat Championship https://www.dawn.com/news/1779610/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-world-champion-in-karate-combat-event

5. Khilari - Shahzaib Rind’s Silver Medal at South Asian Games https://www.khilari.com.pk/news/1157/shahzaib-rindh-settles-for-silver-in-south-asian-games

These references establish Shahzaib’s notability as an athlete with significant national and international recognition. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58.27.212.244, you can only cast ONE bolded vote, not 3 or 4. I've struck your duplicate votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58.27.212.244, Most sources aren't even reliable, with dawn.com being the only exception; however, it only name-checks the subject and clearly fails to meet GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I understand the concern about source reliability. However, in addition to Dawn News, there are other reliable sources documenting Shahzaib Rind’s career:

1. Islamabad Scene: A reputable news website covering sports and events in Pakistan. Their article discusses Shahzaib’s achievements, including his status as the first-ever Pakistani Karate Combat World Champion. [Scene Article]

2. ONE Championship: A globally recognized MMA promotion that tracks fighter profiles and event outcomes. [Championship Profile]

3. Khilari.com: A dedicated sports news website that tracks national and international combat sports. They have covered Shahzaib’s participation in the South Asian Games, West Asia Championship, and his national-level accomplishments. [Profile]

These sources provide extensive coverage of his achievements and establish his notability in the combat sports domain. Please let me know if additional references are needed. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what reliable sources are. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP - your link to Khilari.com is not helpful and looks like you're trying to fake a source. Ravensfire (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I appreciate the concern about source reliability and notability. The following sources meet the requirements set by WP:GNG and WP:RS for establishing Shahzaib Rind’s notability as an athlete. They provide significant, independent, and reliable coverage of his career and achievements:

1. Samaa TV: A reputable national news outlet in Pakistan that extensively covers significant sports and societal events. The article highlights Shahzaib’s recognition and rewards after his MMA victory against India, establishing his prominence and impact. [13]

2. Associated Press of Pakistan (APP): APP is a government-run news agency known for factual reporting. Several APP articles cover Shahzaib’s meetings with government officials and recognitions, which indicates that his achievements are notable at the provincial and national levels.

- [14]

- [15]

- [16]

3. Aaj News: A respected news network in Pakistan that has covered Shahzaib’s arrival at the General Headquarters (GHQ) alongside notable figures such as Amir Khan, demonstrating his national prominence. [17]

4. Pakistan Today: This source reports on his meeting with provincial leaders and his recognition, establishing his influence within sports and government circles. [18]

5. Radio Pakistan: Being a state-run media source, its coverage of Shahzaib's achievements (e.g., winning world karate championships) indicates national recognition. Articles from Radio Pakistan highlight his success on multiple occasions:

- [19]

- [20]

6. Dawn News: One of Pakistan’s leading news publications, known for high editorial standards. The coverage on Shahzaib’s achievements, including his victory at the Karate Combat Championship, provides significant independent coverage:

- [21]

- [22]

7. BBC Urdu: Coverage by an international, independent news agency like BBC establishes his global notability and influence in martial arts. [23]

8. Geo News: Another major national news outlet that covered his recognition and achievements. [24]

9. The News International: An established newspaper with a wide readership. They covered his world championship win and other accomplishments:

- [25]

- [26]

10. Nation News: They have documented his multiple victories and recognitions, further establishing notability:

- [27]

- [28]

11. UrduPoint: A reliable source for sports news in Pakistan. They cover Shahzaib’s achievements and recognitions, showcasing his impact on Pakistani martial arts:

- [29]

12. ARY News: A leading national broadcaster covering Shahzaib’s achievements, including his international victories. [30]

13. Dunya News: Dunya’s video reports provide a detailed account of Shahzaib’s career highlights and recognitions:

- [31]

- [32]

Each of these sources provides independent coverage and has a reputation for fact-checking and accurate reporting, satisfying Wikipedia’s WP:RS criteria. Their collective documentation of Shahzaib’s career and recognitions demonstrate his significance and notability in the combat sports domain.

Please let me know if there are additional sources or further information required to satisfy all concerns. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sources you provided, but I’m still not convinced. The coverage appears to be routine and doesn't meet the significance criteria you mentioned. While every athlete gets some level of coverage, that alone doesn’t mean they pass the WP:N test, which requires meeting either WP:ATHLETE or GNG. Also, if you have any COI, please disclose it. It's concerning when an IP consistently tries to keep an article on a relatively ROTM athlete. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thank you for your feedback. I want to clarify why the sources provided are not routine and meet the WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE guidelines:

1. Significant Coverage: The sources do not merely document event participation but discuss Shahzaib’s career trajectory, achievements, and influence in detail. For example:

- Dawn News and BBC Urdu have published feature articles discussing Shahzaib’s impact on martial arts in Pakistan and his journey to becoming the first-ever Pakistani to win a world Karate Combat title, which is a significant accomplishment.

- Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) and Samaa TV report on his multiple recognitions and rewards, including job offers and financial support from provincial governments, showing institutional recognition.

2. Meets WP:ATHLETE: Under WP:ATHLETE, notability is achieved if an athlete has competed in a fully professional league or has been the subject of significant national or international attention.

- Shahzaib has competed at the South Asian Games, ONE Championship, and Karate Combat—each of which qualifies as a professional and highly competitive event.

- His victory in the world Karate Combat Championship brought him international recognition, as documented by multiple reliable sources.

3. Addressing COI Concerns: I want to confirm that I am participating to improve the article based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's guidelines. I have no personal or professional conflict of interest. My goal is to ensure that notable athletes from underrepresented regions, like KPK, Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh receive appropriate coverage on Wikipedia.

Given the above points, I believe Shahzaib’s notability is well established based on significant, independent, and reliable sources. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONING — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder regarding WP:BLUDGEONING. My intention is not to overwhelm the discussion but to ensure that all relevant facts are presented clearly. I appreciate the feedback and will make sure to keep responses concise and focused on addressing any unresolved concerns. I’m happy to step back and let others weigh in if needed. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a clear case of WP:SIGCOV for this article. Crosji (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:SIGCOV. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaziosmanpaşaspor

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged in 2016 as possibly not notable and the Turkish article is also tagged as unsourced. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops had forgotten I nominated this last month and it was closed as keep. I have added a cite as suggested but it needs more. If you guys are convinced it is notable please could you remove the notability tag and close this discussion thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was kept at AfD last month and so I imagine the outcome will be the same again. It would be nice if someone could locate some WP:SIGCOV, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the AFD system is not for quick rematches, and the nominator has acknowledged so. Geschichte (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - nothing has changed since the last, very recent AFD which ended with a clear 'keep' consensus. Nomination is lazy and concerning, literally the edit directly before this re-nomination was the closure of the last AFD, so Chidgk1 has clearly not checked the article history as is required by WP:BEFORE. An explanation is required. Giant Snowman 19:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It's been less than a month since the last AfD. No apparent WP:BEFORE. Aintabli (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ with no prejudice towards a somewhat-speedy renomination if some editor wishes to do so. The below debate probably isn't the greatest example of a discussion guided by our P&G's, with a few exceptions. However, there's no chance of finding a consensus to do anything. A merge may be worth pursuing on the article talk page too. Daniel (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Armenia Government in Exile

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

This is a non-notable entity. The article contains not a single third party source establishing its notability. It a small group of individuals who set up a website. Wikipedia should not be promoting non-notable groups with little to none relevance. --Երևանցի ^talk 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. looks like I found 60 seemingly ok sources that seem to be OK. 59 if you strike out Artsakh Public TV (which is clearly talking about football), and 58 if you remove Newinfo. [possibly 57 or 56, i forgot if I had crossed out Facebook and ARMINFOCENTER already or not...]

Google Search Query: "արևմտյան հայաստանի հանրապետության" -site:"www.parliament-wa.info/" -site:"parliament-wa.info/" -site:"https://citizenship-western-armenia.info/" -site:"western-armenia.eu" -"Western Armenia TV"

The source providers for the Armenian search: Israelahayer, Nt.am, mamul.am, Lousavor Avedis Hraparak, hhtert.am, asekose.am, Keghart, iravunk.com, A1Plus, Factor.am, Anews.am, Aravot, Radio YAN, iravunk on YouTube and Noyan Tapan on YouTube.

Now then, none of these sources are used in the article.

Also, I even question whether or not these are actual reliable sources, or if this even says a word about notability.

Still gonna bring that one up though.

Pressenza also allowed the Consul(ate) of Western Armenia in Argentina covers the Origin of the Republic of Western Armenia, an article on how Artsakh is legally part of the Republic of Western Armenia (actually, this source can fit into the article. didnt even know about it until now. gonna add it rq.), "The Hour of Dignity", and a Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. Other than that that seems to be it.

I wonder if that makes Western Armenia available for notability? Kxeon (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per rationale listed above by Kxeon. There is a plethora of sources online about this topic. It surpasses WP:N guidelines. It is a prominent political entity within the Armenian Diaspora, specifically representing Armenians in Turkey. Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source listed. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the article? Please review the sources section. In addition, a simple google search yielded 117,000,000 results. Archives908 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness! 117 MILLION?!? Keep, but because I'm not sure how many of these are actually about Western Armenia and how many are just about Armenia, it's not Strong. Kxeon (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename Republic of Western Armenia still substantial enough within scholarly sourcing. Ecpiandy (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What scholarly sourcing? ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article has one relevant source ([33]), and it's not even about the subject here, but the tv channel. At any rate, this article is a WP:TNT job, see also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. CMD (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly merge with Western Armenia or Wilsonian Armenia articles This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. 142.189.211.50 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we should improve this article, which covers a notable and well documented entity. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Crosby

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage for this person exists. Wired [34], The Register [35], eWeek [36], Computerwoche [37], InfoWorld [38], CRN [39], TechTarget [40], Csoonline.com [41] Frost 16:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, South Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost everyone of these references are interviews of one sort or another and can't be used to prove notability. Gbooks is probably the best bet for establishing it. There is a couple of profiles there that are no good either. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, these sources don't establish GNG notability, and subject is nowhere near WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that most of the references given above are interviews; they are articles that partially quote him, but that is rather common for articles about a person. I find the Wired, the Register, Infoworld and CRN to be independent, and together they demonstrate notability. None provides a true biography, so hopefully that will come along in the future giving us more personal, rather than just professional, information. Lamona (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would a redirect to Bromium be a good alternative to deletion? It looks like most of the coverage is more of Bromium than of Crosby. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -claims on the page are not verifiable; he didn’t create any software- “along with other Cambridge alumni including Simon Crosby and founding CEO Nick Gault created XenSource Inc. to turn Xen into a competitive enterprise product.” Bearian (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are troubling. They appear to be written as fan-pieces. The closest I can get to NPROF is that he was once a "tenured professor at Cambridge" but I am not persuaded that is a verification of notability. A high profile individual, yes. Made high profile by PR, yes. Notable in a Wikipedia sense, no. WP:BIO failure 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think the Wired article is probably good coverage (but I'm paywalled), but I don't like any of the other sources brought up in this AfD - no bylines, part of a PR effort, etc. I think this is pretty borderline though. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Isidingo. This seems like an odd case where nearly everyone thinks the subject should be the subject of significant coverage from sources, but nobody can find it, and several commenters self-identified their support for keeping as weak. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Van Der Laag

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted (WP:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag) and I don't think the new article addresses the notability concerns. I also don't see articles about the subject since the previous AfD that would add to coverage such to satisfy N. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep "Best Actress" award makes her notable. --Altenmann >talk 19:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From South African Film and Television Awards. Per WP:ANYBIO is that a well-known and significant award or honor? Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Yes. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cohn, yes, The SAFTAs are definitely major in South Africa. However, before the subject can meet WP:ANYBIO, they must first meet WP:GNG, specifically WP:SIGCOV and unfortunately there isn't any cited in the article. In the article, their birthday, name and place are cited to this source, which isn't considered reliable. The subject has never headline any news whatsoever. Therefore, I'm leaning towards weak delete. Please ping me if new information is presented. dxneo (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: stating that subjects meeting any of the additional criteria for notability or specific notability guidelines "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting the specific requirements or one of the additional criteria can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why they exist and that is why AfDs exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline or an additional criterion are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, no, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet GNG. Even meeting GNG does not guarantee an article; again, consensus can confirm the page about any subject meeting GNG is considered notable or not. Thank you. (Note: the word "additional" is indeed misleading).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: Thanks for that comment, it's a good one, but what do you think about my comment further down about the same (we're starting from the same premises policy-wise)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch E. (talk • contribs)

Your concern is the lack of material? Sure, if kept, it will probably be a short article.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think she meets both WP:NACTOR (at least 2 significant roles in notable productions) and WP:ANYBIO with her award. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced a SAFTA award is sufficient for ANYBIO, and anyway per N the topic still needs to have received SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources. That she has had no identifiable coverage for her SAFTA win is another indicator it is not a significant enough award for ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe that the subject (and the creating editor, who are the same person) deserve better than what may appear from the previous opinions to be a lack of consensus. My feeling is that more policy based opinions are required one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is difficult. It's coming down to, for me, whether to withdraw on account of the SAFTA award, which as I'm looking up and trying to verify, does not exactly scream to me as a "well-known and significant award or honor". I did find an article from news24.com but the limited coverage of the event doesn't induce confidence. And I don't even see any press releases or the regular congratulatory statements made about the subject following the award. I'm open to withdrawing, but at this time I still don't think see it, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure the article is very clear on this. It says "in 2011" but that must refer to the television season. The article for the 18th South African Film & Television Awards says that it will be hosted in October 2025, yet the 17th was hosted in 2023, so I don't think this is held annually, (see South African Film and Television Awards § Ceremonies). I'm not sure if the subject would have then received one for 5th South African Film & Television Awards or 6th South African Film & Television Awards. Aside from the news24.com coverage, which isn't the most RS as there appears to be some spelling inconsistencies and mistakes in the article, it is mostly WP:UGC in any of my search results of SAFTA keywords and the article's subject that is used to verify any award wins. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I will not express a formal keep/delete opinion because I have been involved with seeking, often failing, to set the creating editor on the correct path. While I view the creation of autobiographies as unwise they are not prohibited. This one certainly feels correctly neutral.
Notability is a different matter. An actor who plays a part for 12 years ought to be notable, but, if she is notable, why is there so little about her in reliable media? In the absence of that coverage her notability seems to hang on the SAFTA award. That award is problematic. News 24 suggests she was not the recipient, other media suggest that she was.
Is the award itself of sufficient notability for winners to be notable? Did she win one?
Unless further policy based opinions for retention or deletion are given here to clarify matters I don't envy the eventual closer of this discussion. I believe that a 'no consensus' close would be the worst of all possible worlds even if it is the only close possible. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, to that end, there was a previous AfD that found her not notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn In a similar manner to the fact that we view notability, once established, not to diminish over time, we should also view notability as an attribute which can only increase (or remain unaltered). Thus participants in this discussion should be asked to consider whether there is additional referenced or reference-able activity leading to a different decision from the prior discussion.

The articles then and now are different, The subject is the same. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: User talk:S0091, User talk:Theroadislong, User talk:Mushy Yank, User talk:Cocobb8. Reason: These editors participated in the previous discussion. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I moved this from draft because I thought it had slightly more than a 50% chance of surviving an WP:AFD. I also have doubts about the award and it's notability and whether she actually received it, generally significant coverage of her is lacking. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Isidingo. The award was in the context of that show and could, perhaps, be mentioned there. Other than that, there is no claim to independent notability. If the subject became notable in the future, the page history (such as it is) could be used from the redirectt to build a new article, but there is nothing to say here at this point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems like a very suitable solution. Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict): Not at all opposed, this seems like an excellent ATD per Sirfurboy above and Alalch E. below. My analysis does not see this subject meeting the GNG, NBIO, NACTOR, etc. I also think that the aforementioned awards are not a "well-known and significant award or honor." However, everything seems to be within the context of that show, and I agree with Timtrent above, notability does not degrade over time,^[a] we absolutely can keep the page preserved with it's history and new credible claims of notability can be assessed in their totality with this and the prior conversation. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ I apologize if my curtness above was taken as rudeness.

~~Redirect to Isidingo~~ Neutral (switched to neutral, as there's no point resisting the general tendency of treating any SNG pass as guaranteed inclusion). WP:SNG says: ... , topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria which includes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR, which are the only relevant SNG criteria that may apply to this topic, says: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Without good enough sources, we can't have a suitable biography of a living person. A WP:BLP must Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources ... If there are no reliable sources to summarize, and we can only have an entirely non-transformative, non-summarizing, fragmentary listing of raw facts, this is not legitimate encyclopedic material.
Notability as such is already only a presumption that a topic merits an article as "worthy of notice".
GNG is a notability criterion based on a belief that this presumption is justified when the topic has been significantly covered. GNG being equal to "merits an article" is a rebuttable presumption in any given case, because it may actually be that the topic does not merit an article even though it has been significantly covered: [Meeting a notability criterion] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.
Passing ANYBIO or NACTOR while not passing GNG introduces a second level of presumption: It is a presumption that a topic merits an article as "worthy of notice", because, even though a suitable volume of significant coverage has not been identified, it is presumed that it exists, because of the inherent properties of the subject (and just needs to found over time). Here, the subject may pass ANYBIO and NACTOR, but at the same time, editors don't seem to think that a suitable volume of significant coverage exists, despite good efforts to find it. It really does not seem to exist.
This should probably lead to the conclusion that the presumption is rebutted on both levels: The topic would have merited an article as being "worthy of notice", but a suitable volume of significant coverage has not been identified; and while it was provisionally presumed that it exists (on SNG grounds), when this presumption was examined using available evidence, it was concluded that it really does not exist. This should practically mean that writing an encyclopedically worthy biography is impossible. And it does appear to be impossible. Readers will need more and we should decide that they deserve better than being served this article for a long time to come (the sourcing situation may change in the future of course). —Alalch E. 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Isidingo: Per above, this meets WP:ANYBIO for the SAFTA award, but is best merged into the soap opera article due to the lack of coverage. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You recommended redirecting, which would not result in anything being merged. —Alalch E. 09:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah whoops my mistake thanks @Alalch E. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - After research, it appears that she does not satisfy general notability, and does not meet criterion 1 for notability for any biography, but does satisfy the criteria for acting notability.. I don't like recommending that an autobiography be kept, but she has two significant acting roles. A review of the references shows that reference 1 is a biographical profile and is not significant.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.tvsa.co.za	South African television directory, biographical profile	Yes	No	Yes?	No
2	www.iol.co.za	Mention of a SAFTA Award to subject	Yes	Not significant coverage for GNG. Is this a major award for ANYBIO?	Yes?	Yes
3	mg.co.za	Mail and Guardian: Review of a film that she was a second lead in.	Yes	Not about the subject. Significant about the film. Confirms that she was in the film.	Yes	Yes
4	www.latimes.com	Los Angeles Times: Review of a film that she was a second lead in	Yes	Not about the subject. Significant about the film. Confirms that she was in the film.	Yes	Yes

References 3 and 4 are reviews of The Story of an African Farm (film). They state that she had a role in the film. We already have an article on the film that lists her role.

Reference 2 states that she won a SAFTA Award. The award was not for acting, but to the directing team for Isidingo, and the recipients of the award are not listed [42]. The statement that she won a Best Actress SAFTA Award is a good-faith error. Her directorial team won a directing award for a TV series. This is not, in my opinion, sufficient to satisfy the major award criterion. However, she had roles in The Story of an African Farm (film) and Isidingo as an actress and a member of the directing them, and that is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide WP:SIGCOV? I think the subject has to pass standard WP:GNG before we can consider WP:ANYBIO. By the way, www.tvsa.co.za is not reliable. dxneo (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works. Please read the other comments in this discussion. —Alalch E. 06:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There may be some confusion or unclarity caused by the way that the notability guidelines are worded. Both the general notability guideline and some of the special notability guidelines state that a subject is "presumed notable" if certain conditions are met. That doesn't say explicitly that a subject is notable if any particular condition is met. The guideline appears to have been written by mustelids.
- I will disagree with one statement. An editor said, reasonably but incorrectly:
  However, before the subject can meet WP:ANYBIO, they must first meet WP:GNG, specifically WP:SIGCOV
  No.
- The notability guideline says:
  A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
  That's what it says, and the any biography guideline is from WP:Notability (people), which is a subject-specific notability guideline. WP:ANYBIO does not require WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
- She does not appear to have significant coverage, but she does meet acting notability, which is a provision of notability for people. She did not receive a Best Actress award. She shared in a directing award, which is arguable. It isn't arguable, in my opinion, that she meets acting notability. I don't like to argue in favor of notability when the article is an autobiography, but the case is clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Closer - You have a difficult close that will probably end up at DRV. The issue for DRV will be not so much whether the closer judged consensus correctly as whether the closer interpreted the ambiguous notability guideline correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is the guideline ambiguous? You refer to WP:NACTOR and judge this a keep based on have to two significant roles. NACTOR lists:
1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;

Is two even "multiple"? That might be seen as an ambiguity I suppose. I would take "multiple" to be at least three. But that is moot because that list is under the "additional criteria" which says up front:
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
It is thus a challengeable presumption of notability, and nothing more. Having had multiple significant roles, the subject is still expected to have secondary sources that discuss them. It is just that if there have been multiple roles we would expect such sources to exist and may presume notability is met. But in this case we don't have the sources. We don't have anything to write the article from. This may be because the roles are not, in fact, sufficiently notable to meet GNG, or ot may be they are not sufficiently multiple. But in either case, this criterion does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it should work, but it doesn't work like that and time and time again this is proven in AfD. To every We don't have anything to write the article from there's a Your concern is the lack of material? Sure, if kept, it will probably be a short article (quoting Mushy Yank).—Alalch E. 21:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple is ”more than one” according to the Britannica or the Merriam-Webster. Ergo two is OK. Already replied to the rest. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. The entry, which is here [43], has multiple definitions, including "manifold, many" and "numerous aspects". That dictionary lists 6 definitions (the multiple of 2 and 3), whereas the OED lists 10 including "Consisting of or characterized by many parts, elements, etc.; having several or many causes." Given the multiple definitions, you cannot settle the debate as though there is only one, and ignoring the rest. Which is why I said that might be seen as an ambiguity I suppose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please. I am not ignoring anything. The only applicable definition in the present case is the first ("consisting of [...] more than one"). Can "Consisting of or characterized by many parts, elements, etc.; having several or many causes" apply to roles in a film???? This is completely ridiculous. It is obviously the NUMBER that is referred to in this case! One vs Multiple. And that is that.There is no ambiguity here. I really have no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many. Manifold. Various. Several. These are all definitions of multiple. And while we are at it, let's look up "moot". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO. That is not the same. Several and multiple do not have the exact same meaning. And that precise guideline says multiple, not several nor many. Sorry but, again, I have no time to pursue this. Look up every word you wish and explore their polysemy as much as you desire, that won't change the fact that the guideline is pretty clear. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second meaning (consisting of many parts etc.) is the meaning in "multiple sclerosis", as in "the sclerosis is multiple", with multiple referring to how glial scars (the scleroses) are many. It's a lot different thing from the first meaning. For example a "multiple tool" (notice the singular), as in a tool with many bits, or purposes, a multifunctional tool, vs. "multiple tools" (more than one tool, the number of bits/purposes/etc. of each unspecified). —Alalch E. 00:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad argument that we should ignore policy and guidelines because someone has ignored policy and guidelines before. The standard for inclusion is notability, and notability is not demonstrated here and the SNG is not ambiguous. It says clearly that the additional criteria do not guarantee that a subject should be included. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You and I can agree that "do not guarantee" means that when we can't create legitimate encyclopedic content due to paucity of coverage and can only have a fragmentary, non-summarizing listing of raw facts as a surrogate for an article, it is indicated that the topic concerned does not merit an article, but there will always be a counterargument that the non-article is actually a short article. And the latter is the prevailing sentiment. —Alalch E. 23:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. I also REVDELed all but the latest, highly-redacted revisions of the page, effectively erasing the work of the banned UPE. Owen× ☎ 19:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Knight

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

Virtually all sources are local, with some sections being plain unsourced. A google search didn't find anything about him specifically, with some showing more notable people with his name. Additionally, the article was created by Greghenderson2006, who was banned partially for using hyperlocal sources to make articles which weren't notable. As a result, I think this should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Djflem (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing about this article persuades me that Knight passes WP:BIO. Another hyperlocal history by the creating editor with poor sourcing. Carmel City Council does not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. That his wife donated his boat models to a museum does not confer notability on the subject per NARTIST. As Timtrent points out, fails NPOLITICIAN as well. The sourcing consists of hyper-local coverage, or to books from questionable/unreliable publishers; many discussions have taken place on article talk pages and discussion boards about Arcadia Pub "Images of America" series which consists of pictures and photo captions; they are not serious historical studies, they are published for the tourist trade. The Valley Press (Santa Cruz) seems to be self-published by a local Carmel booster, another unreliable reference per discussions. This article is one of a garden variety of articles on a non-notable local Carmel subject from the "Carmelopedia". Netherzone (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just one of those non-notable "biographies" with limited hyper-local coverage. Haruka Amaranth 13:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect can be created as a matter of editorial discretion if someone feels it's helpful to the reader. The content is almost certainly UPE and should not be retained. Star Mississippi 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California as a valid ATD. --Enos733 (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I too was considering a redirect prior to my delete !vote to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, (which by the way was also created by the same "Carmelopedia" editor) however I'm wondering if the target is in fact a notable list (per WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT. The list article is almost entirely sourced to the weekly tabloid "The Carmel Pine Cone" (also created by the same "Carmelopedia" editor) and it should be taken into mind that tabloid journalism is not considered significant coverage per WP:SBST. The the rest of the sourcing is mainly to the same questionable sources from Arcadia Pub or Valley Press (Santa Cruz) used again and again in these Carmel articles, which I believe are mostly PROMO. I am unable to find enough sourcing for the List of mayors article from sources that are not hyper-local to justify it as a notable list. Additionally, only six of the mayors on the list are independently notable. Do we really need to add another non-notable mayor to a non-notable list? Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG and WP:NBIO fail. While redirect as WP:ATD is considered, 'Allen Knight' is a relatively common name. When re-directs are created for marginally notable common title/names, it introduces information pollution and degrades the signal to noise ratio of this encyclopedia and contributing to reduced usability. The article's creator has exhibited WP:LOUTSOCK behaviors, documented at User Talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_21#Block_evasion and simple re-direct exposes the article to covert reversion hazard. Deleting it on the other makes it more resistant with minimal adverse effect since a new redirect can be created quickly. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I doubt the notability of the suggested redirect target. I have asked the community to decide at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone, Enos733, Star Mississippi, Djflem, and Graywalls: Pinging those editors who have so far suggested, or documented that they have considered, a redirect in order to request their participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California since this may affect their !vote here. I apologise if I have missed any one. I am not seeking to influence their opinions in any way, there or here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Are you) suggesting to the closer to wait/relist this AFD until such time that AFD has been resolved, which would be appropriate to resolve the redirect issue? Djflem (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable subject who is only of local importance. -Samoht27 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Belan

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

WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The attempted notability claim here is that her art has been exhibited, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- notability on that basis doesn't derive from the list of gallery shows, it derives from the use of reliable source coverage and analysis about the gallery shows, such as reviews of her shows by professional art critics in newspapers or magazines or books to establish that the shows were seen as significant by somebody other than her own public relations agent. But this is referenced entirely to sources self-published by Belan herself and/or the affiliated galleries, with absolutely not one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US media coverage can find more than I've been able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nomination is detailed and accurate. In an online BEFORE search, I was unable to verify any of the museum permanent collections except for what her resume says on her own website. Mostly what I found while searching was user-submitted content or things she had written herself or blog/social media mentions. No reviews in notable art publications that would be expected of a notable artist, and most of the exhibition venues are pay-to-play. The subject of the article does not meet GNG, NARTIST, nor ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. I am finding no reviews for the books listed. Looks like a genuine misunderstanding. Please note every Women in Red list created from wikidata states "This list of red links is intended to serve as a basis for creating new articles on the English Wikipedia. Please note however that the red links on this list may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources." --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is bordering a speedy delete for being an online CV/Resume. However, now that AfD is already in progress, it's a classic GNG fail. Graywalls (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Shaji

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable internet personality.Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Spworld2 (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject has not made a significant achievement worthy of notice as a social influencer, a musician and model and fails to be interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. RangersRus (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frontier Developments. Owen× ☎ 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (game engine)

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

I waited a few days to see if more reliable secondary sources surfaced, but they have not. This article is currently sourced to about 60% primary sources, including numerous interviews and out-right guest blog posts done by the company itself. All of the secondary sources I could find fall into two categories: 1) A passing mention that "Game X uses Frontier's in-house engine", and 2) Elite Dangerous happened to generate a star system almost identical to one that NASA later actually discovered. (The latter 5 sources all fall into this).

I cannot otherwise find any in-depth independent coverage of the engine. See the talk page for an earlier analysis plus an additional one just now.

Fails WP:GNG. I'd cite failing WP:NPRODUCT, but Cobra isn't actually sold per se so I'm not sure it'd apply. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Notability is not inherited or "granted up" and I could not find any independent coverage of the engine itself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record - I am more than amenable to merging as an alternative to deletion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 05:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article about the Cobra engine has over 13 credible references such as PC Gamer, Polygon, Yahoo, Mashable, Kotaku, Game Developer, MCV, Ars Technica, BusinessWeekly, and gamedev.net. These are reliable sources. Furthermore the engine itself is historically very significant at having powered over 16+ world famous games. It is also the only game engine that simulates the Milky Way galaxy with a 1:1 scale in Elite Dangerous. It's not a very famous engine, because only Frontier Developments uses it. However, it's popular enough that it's been covered for years and praised such as that Cobra's Stellar Forge system had a star system similar to Trappist-1 before NASA discovered it. Trappist-1 was added thereafter. -Artanisen (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't simply ignore the source analysis that I've already provided on the talk page. For example, Mashable and one of the MCV articles are both written by Frontier, making them primary sources. The other MCV article is an interview, making it non-independent. I've addressed the rest of the sources on the talk page as well and why they don't contribute to the topic's notability. -- ferret (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're neglecting the reasons and credible sources that have been provided for why an article about the Cobra engine should be kept. There are less noteworthy game engines that are also on Wikipedia. It has sufficient independent sources as well. The games that are powered by Cobra use systems of this engine which are mentioned in more articles without explicitly saying Cobra. Wikipedia has articles with only 1 or 2 references. - Artanisen (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going one-by-one through the sources you list in this comment doesn't support notability. The articles from PC Gamer, Polygon, Yahoo, and Kotaku are not about the Cobra engine, they're about the game Elite Dangerous and (importantly) do not mention Cobra even a single time. The Business Weekly article is not about Cobra, it's about an acquisition made by Frontier. The article from Ars Technica is not about the engine, it's about the game Planet Coaster. The Mashable article is sponsored and so should not be used per WP:RSP. The Game Developer and MCV sources are both interviews, so they are primary sources, and they both only mention Cobra in passing. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frontier Developments. The mentions of Cobra in the non-primary references are trivial enough that I would consider them to increase the notability of Frontier or Elite Dangerous, but not the Cobra engine. That being said, I think there's enough secondary sources mentioning Cobra to have a short section in the parent article. With regards to the above keep argument, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frontier Developments. Per A412 above. Pavlor (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frontier Developments seems reasonable. There is useful and apposite stuff here, but the balance is way too far on the in-house publication/interview/incidental mention side to make comfortable sourcing for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If frequent recreation is a problem, we can salt the page. We do not keep Talk pages for deleted articles or move them to userspace just to discourage recreation. Owen× ☎ 18:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El castillo de los monstruos (1964 film)

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

No claims of notability. Only sources are IMDB and a site in Czech. It's been suggested this is a hoax. Deletion was contested. Secretlondon (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Secretlondon (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for nominating, I proposed deletion a few months ago due to there being an obvious verification issue. I don't think it is an intended hoax, but it's obvious that 1958 is the real year and film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy please; again, see Talk page, please. Again, I am the one who raised concern about the veracity of the page. I tried to fix the interwikis in Spanish but it was reverted....the wrong way. Asking here the favour to have this userfied for one reason essentially: keep the findings currently presented on the TP available, to make what he page was and why it was deleted clear in case the title, that has spread on the web, is found and one wants to recreate the page; and maybe add a link to the userfied page on the TP of the 1958 film or on Rinaldi’s TP; ~~if not please copy and paste all the content from that TP on the Tp of this discussion (but that would not keep history of the page).~~ It’s about avoiding more errors or repeating the same errors in the future. Thank you-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC) (Deletion was not contested, PROdding was, and that was also by me).[reply]
It's not notable, even if it does exist. Secretlondon (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does your reply have to do with my !vote???? I am saying that I am the one who raised the veracity issue and I do think the film DOES NOT exist (read the talk page please); the bizarre idea of the possible notability of a non-existing film is absolutely not my point. My point is that we should have a page ready to avoid recreation and explain why. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Film shows no signs of true notability, and is yet another wiki article with scant sources.Plasticwonder (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Erik:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. I'm fine with putting the talk page of this article in a sub-talk page on the 1958 film article's talk page. There is still an IMDb page for the 1964 film, so it's possible it could be recreated, and the discussion here is worth preserving to bring up if that happens. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, move the talk page discussion to the 1958 page would be the best solution. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicoo

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

No google hits for the item or its references. No claim of importance. Previously rejected as a speedy but this looks like a hoax. Secretlondon (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Secretlondon (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put db-hoax on it, the references are characters from The Office... Reywas92^Talk 16:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bbb23, I don't see anything at WP:DP, WP:AFD, or WP:CSD that says a speedy deletion tag should not be added during an AFD. I've done it before, and I don't care if this vandalism page has been around since 2008, it's obviously a hoax created on April Fools Day and should be speedy deleted rather than waste anyone else's time for this to "play out". Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia Ratnahastin (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milorad Savić

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

He spent most of his career in the second tier in Serbia and my own Serbian Cyrillic searches have found nothing that would indicate that he meets WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Ristić (footballer, born 1997)

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

Despite playing 15 minutes at the top level in Serbia, I am unable to locate any instances of significant coverage when searching in Serbian Cyrillic. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little to no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Plazinić

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

His career consists of 1 minute in the league and 2 minutes in the cup. My own Serbian searches yielded absolutely no evidence of being able to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, makes no claim to notability or significance. Geschichte (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Mol

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

non-notable darts player. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. I see a consensus to Redirect this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight A-53

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Turkmenistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Invalid nomination. 23 people killed is a notable event in my books. There are at least 3 sources cited which have no dependence on Aeroflot whatsoever. Of course a catastrophe in a Somewherestan aint no global reverberation, but it did make impact and consequences. Keeping in mind it was in 1975 in the Soviet Union, where such kind of information was thoroughly suppressed, it is importnt to keep it in Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the death count, can you find evidence to support the event's notability? Going through the sources listed, Airdisaster.ru is considered unreliable per this discussion; ASN relies on Airdisaster.ru which makes its information most likely unreliable; per this discussion, Russianplanes.net is also considered unreliable which just leaves B3A, however, per WP:GNG, "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases [...] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined [...]," which makes all sources listed mostly non-contributory to the event's notability.

but it did make impact and consequences

Can you prove that it did have lasting impacts and consequences? I understand that coverage in the USSR was suppressed but a standalone article relies on the existence of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources, which for the most part has been lacking. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are kidding me: four independent sources with detailed coverage not enough? Two dozen dead people is no consequence? --Altenmann >talk 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They may all be independent but are they reliable? The simple answer is no, per the discussions above. A single database entry, B3A, is not enough to establish notability (additionally, the entry does not contain in-depth analysis of the accident). Obviously what happened is tragic, nobody is denying that, but per WP:LASTING, "events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. [...] Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." This accident does not demonstrate historical significance, despite the number of casualties. Additionally, as already stated above, the event does not pass the general notability guideline since the event lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, colleague, there is not "A single database entry", but four references with very detailed descriptions, like, here. You are probably looking at a wrong article. --Altenmann >talk 16:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the correct article.

To reiterate, per this discussion, the consensus seems to be that Airdisasters.ru is a self-published user-generated website with shady editorial oversight, which, combined with a lack of sources for its information, makes the website unreliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this discusison" of two uneducated persons does not impress me as authoritative. --Altenmann >talk 17:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no personal attacks against others, and second of all, this is the current consensus, if you disagree, you can always reopen a discussion at the noticeboard to challenge it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. ~~Accident is sufficiently covered there~~; not notable enough for its own article. Meltdown627 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Terribly ugly list, with narrow text column unreadable on mobile devices. It is good for summaries, bot not for storing full info. "Sufficiently covered" is a joke essentially meaning "who cares". --Altenmann >talk 16:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why would a summary of a non-notable event need to contain all information about it? In my opinion, the summary at the linked article contains a sufficient amount of information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Loaded question: who says it is non-notable? --Altenmann >talk 18:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What I meant to say was, assuming that the article isn't kept, either being deleted or redirected, why would would it need to contain all information about it? As said above, in my opinion, the summary at Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s seems to contain the strict necessary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s per Meltdown627. This is a WP:News article without any meaningful coverage to meet notability requirements. There's nothing about fatal accidents that makes them inherently notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An airline accident killing 23 people is clearly notable. Also passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not solely inherited because of the casualty count and there's no clear rationale as to why the event passes WP:GNG. For the most part, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s as per Meltdown627 and Thebiguglyalien, as the topic fails the notability requirements to warrant its own article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s: Fails WP:GNG. All four sources in the article are database entries and do not represent enduring coverage. While it is possible that Russian-language sources exist, English-language coverage appears to be non-existent - I could find nothing in Newspapers.com or TWL sources. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the list of crashes in the 1970s. It was due to bad weather, which is somewhat normal for airplane crashes. This wasn't a terrorist incident and I don't see that any laws were changed after, so I'm not sure there is lasting notability. Rather routine airplane accident. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Godzilla (franchise). Daniel (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odo Island

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

Non-notable fictional place. Maybe could be merged into the Monsterverse article. –DMartin 07:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –DMartin 07:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, if something would be merged, I'd say that you could merge it into Godzilla (1954 film) since thats where it was first introduced as. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merging to Monsterverse would not make sense, as this is not a location that is part of that franchise. I don't think there is really anything to merge here, but a Redirect would probably be a good idea. Possibly to Godzilla (1954 film) as suggested above, as that is the first of the two movies where it actually played any kind of role in the plot. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with Rorshacma. Should be redirected either with Godzilla (1954 film) or Godzilla (franchise) (since it shows up in other films besides '54). This article has no significant importance to warrant its existence. Armegon (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Godzilla (franchise) per above, no significant information findable in reliable sources. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. This isn't notable, but might be a valid search term, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bender235's keep !vote has been successfully refuted and no dissenting views. Daniel (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Oliver Porsche

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

Lacking in sources and no indication of claimed entrepreneurship. Sits on Porsche and Volkswagen boards, most likely due to his family connections as the great-grandson of Ferdinand Porsche. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Austria, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clarityfiend is not wrong in their assessment, but then again: Lukas Walton, Ben duPont, Victoria B. Mars, Susan Alice Buffett, ... --bender235 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep reason. I'll probably get around to nominating those other people too. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Starting with Mars and Buffett. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of the author to meet [WP:GNG]Tesleemah (talk)06:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage: a passing mention in one news article about the board changes does not count. The other source is classic PR fluff. Bearian (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, can we get a source review?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kodai Enomoto

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

Obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with his 1 cup and 1 league game. No significant and independent coverage, including in ja:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator has sufficient rationale for the deletion of the article, as it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomohisa Yoshida

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 3 times in Japan's second league, the rest in amateur tiers. No significant and independent coverage, including in ja:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find anything detailed and independent. Japanese Wikipedia didn't have any useful independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasa Suzuki

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

Not close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No significant and independent coverage, including in ja:wiki. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - right now, not enough coverage in reliable sources to be included in the encyclopedia. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments were successfully refuted and on the topic of reliable sources providing significant coverage, consensus is that the current and proposed sources don't. I am happy to restore this to draft upon any request at my user talk page, if anyone wishes to continue working on it in draftspace. Daniel (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Barlage

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

I don't think that this victim of refbombing is notable. All refs seem to be run-of -the mill stuff which are fundamenbtally about his jobs rather than about him. TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cronin (basketball). Joe Cronin, another high-ranking NBA official, his article was AfD'd and the result was keep. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeFriendlyGoodSir: that's an WP:OTHER argument which is roundly and rightfully ignored by experienced editors and admins in AfDs. The best way to defend this article would be to provide quotes demonstrating significant coverage of this article subject from high-quality sources. Usually WP:THREE would be ideal. Left guide (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I only mention it because someone in that AfD made the argument that "WP:COMMONSENSE must prevail". Mr. Barlage is one of the highest ranking front office officials for a team in the NBA, a top basketball league in the world. He argued that it's "a case where WP:IAR should apply". I don't know the validity of that argument but thought i should point it out. I see a Forbes article with Barlage in it. As for quotes, I will leave that to others. Keep or Delete. You guys decide. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that Forbes piece is authored by a staff writer, so should pass the reliability test. However, most of what's in that source is discussion about the Cavaliers or interview quotes from Barlage's mouth, neither of which contribute to notability. It seems to fall short as far as secondary SIGCOV that directly discusses Barlage as an individual person; the best I could extract from that source is the following:

Barlage, entering his second season as CEO, wants to change that. He has a five-year plan that includes an international component in South America.

Left guide (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeFriendlyGoodSir is the creator of the contested article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Arizona, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure on my vote yet. But I would say Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cronin (basketball) is not particularly applicable given the differences in their roles. Both are high-level positions, but an NBA general manager and a head of business operations differ greatly in terms of coverage and notoriety. Because GMs are ultimately in charge and making decisions regarding the team's on-court performance, they and their actions (drafting, signing/cutting players and making trades) and are much more widely covered (and scrutinized) than handling the day to day operations of the organization (such as marketing, ticket sales, adding premium seating, etc.). Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Articles for deletion/Joe Cronin (basketball) is certainly not applicable because that's based on WP:OTHER. The only thing that matters here is whether there's enough significant coverage directly about this article subject from independent secondary reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say any full-time NBA GM (although maybe not interim) is likely notable, so could see some people correlating that to any person at the same organizational level if they don't fully understand the difference between the front-facing nature of the GM position against the others. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as there is little WP:RS significant coverage and there is no other inclusionary criteria met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that this fails WP:GNG. I think that there is enough significant coverage. 1,2,3 help to demonstrate this coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of your three sources due nothing for the WP:GNG. The first one is a podcast interview, the second is a press release. He's going to need more than that to meet GNG. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is the parent organization of his employer, and the third one is the university he attended; neither of those are fully independent of the article subject. Left guide (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think there's enough here. The Cleveland news stations, Cleveland.com and Cleveland Magazine should be independent enough. The news organizations decided that Barlage was worth reporting about. We can argue whether the content represents a significant amount of coverage, but personally, I'm satisfied. There's enough to build a reasonably informative article. The business leader of an NBA franchise is indeed an important role, and arguably more significant for the ongoing cultural impact of the team than any cup of coffee G-League call-up. Zagalejo (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "cup of coffee G Leaguer" likely has had SIGCOV going back to at least college, in addition to during his professional career and almost certainly has additional features done when signed to the NBA team. As for "cultural impact", I'm really not so sure as he essentially runs the arena prices and advertising because not actually the CEO of the Cavs themselves, but of the parent company. It looks like his current duties don't have really any impact on the on-court product. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the sources deployed to support notabolity are cumulatively weak enough to not constitute an acceptable foundation for an independent article. We are often impressed with corporate titles and titles are, oftentimes, awarded indeed to amplify a position's importance. He's a top manager; that is all. Not some creative force as the text makes him out to be, provided we pay close attention to the sources per se.

Forensics, amidst the avalanche of proffered links: A tsunami of typical, simple, obligatory announcements (here, here, here, and again here, more here, some more here, oh you want more, here's more and we're done, though there's plenty more; this NBA listing of every NBA executive, including our subject; come fawning text advertorial-wannabe such as this pap, ("Barlage is proud of how the renovated Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse served downtown", etc) in the Cleveland Magazine; as if the first tsunami was not catastrophic enough for the article's case, we are hit by another, this one of articles about the Cleveland Cavaliers but not about our subject, articles such as this, this, this, this, this, but you get the general idea; a PR press release about the Jeff Ubben Posse Fellows Program ("mentorship opportunities for high-achieving college students"), in which our subject is mentioned as one of the program's many hosts; a report on a youth center's renovation financially supported by the NBA, the Cleveland Cavaliers, and Kaiser Permanente, in which our subject is name dropped; then, more announcements, e.g. here; and so on and so forth, fluff masquerading as substance. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to chime in: your "fluff" link implies that the article is meant to be promotional, but I have no doubt that it was created in good faith. The creator frequently works on NBA articles, and the over citation was probably an attempt to overcome the article's draft status. (Also, please tone down the snark just a hair. Your arguments are fair, but your tone is unnecessary.) Zagalejo (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Barlage is not important?. I know WP:RSPYT but this was a Bally Sports interview. And there's this. He seems to garner their respect, no? He is a recent hire...Of course we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL but do not need it. His importance is implied from day 1. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both links shared are interviews, so have no bearing on notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming WP:TOOSOON? I would not be surprised if Barlage met your notability requirements in the next year or so and Volunteer time would be wasted and at that point nobody will bother recreating the article. So be it. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying notability requirements are not met and I'm not sure they will be in the future. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refbombs, not enough good in-depth links to illustrate the subject's notability. Promo 157.157.69.81 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
who is this IP? someone WP:CHECKUSER? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2013 Little League Softball World Series. Daniel (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Little League Softball World Series results

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

This is a listing of sports results without context. Parts of this discussed in reliable sources would fit well in the main article, which already contains sports results. Proposing deletion per WP:NOT -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, despite the fact that the results are formatted nicely. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not satisfying WP:GNG. I would also be fine with merging this with the main article, provided it's trimmed to only the finals. Conyo14 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the finals are already in the main article, although I'm not sure because I'm not well-versed in sports results. There's definitely some of the scores there. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are, but this article goes into the score breakdown which could be useful for the main. Conyo14 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all‎ except Human Griefman, which was redirected to Aion (band) as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute (Aion album)

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

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

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

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

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

Five articles about albums not shown to pass WP:NALBUM. Back in the day, Wikipedia's approach to album notability was to extend an automatic inclusion freebie to any album recorded by a notable artist, regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the service of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums are now independently notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about the album. But four of these five articles are completely unreferenced, and one is referenced solely to a single unreliable source directory listing that isn't support for notability.
It also warrants note that these were all briefly redirected to the band a year and a half ago for lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted within 24 hours with no actual explanation provided of what the problem with redirecting them was, and they've continued to stand as unreferenced articles ever since, without ever having a whit of GNG-worthy sourcing added to any of them. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was the one who reverted some redirections, and I don't really recall why, but when I look into it now, I see that the editor who made the redirects was a problem editor who became indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Human Griefman to the band, the others fail WP:NALBUM, so delete them all for having generic titles. If a user is able to put Aion in brackets to disambiguate, they are also able to search directly for Aion. Nothing in the page history worth preserving, as the track lists are found on external websites too. Geschichte (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle fixed gear

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

I don't think this article in its current state meets WP:NSPORT. Yes we have fixed-gear bicycle, as well as fixed gear racing, but it doesn't seem clear what this one is all about. As they say, two heads are better than one, and here I am to find the community's assessment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cycling. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sport of freestyle fixed gear meets notability. Aside from being featured in Hollywood motion pictures (cited), the very first cycling trick done on film was done on a fixed gear bicycle (this is cited in the article). A fixed gear bike was used in the X Games (in 2001 Trevor Meyer) the premier showcase of Extreme sport. Fixed-gear bicycle article doesn't contain the details or background on the community of people doing tricks on fixed gear bikes. Racing on a fixed gear isn't really related to freestyle (tricks) on a fixed gear; similar to how speed skating isn't related to figure skating. FixedGearFreeStyle (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG from a quick look at the cited sources. It doesn't seem like the organization we have now for the various bike sports is great; we could consider merging this in to Freestyle BMX, but I'm not sure how well it would fit there. Suriname0 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. asilvering (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Britain

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Created as promo. AfD a decade ago closed as no consensus and there's been no improvement since. A campaign which appears to have had little lasting impact after initial routine news coverage. Website is now dead. Huge sections of unverifiable text. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to a section on one of the people related to it, for example, Luke Johnson (businessman) § Other activities. There's really nothing suitable to merge here. If someone suggests an alternate target, I don't really have a strong opinion, just pick one or delete it and make the article go away. Make targeting RfD's problem. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luke Johnson isn't even currently mentioned at the article, not sure a redirect is really necessary here. AusLondonder (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Clearly promotional and a bare mention in one article doesn't amount to SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Hashii

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

Having played 2 minutes in Singapore, for a community college and in the English non-league, this player has not picked up significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have expanded the article as much as currently possible, and with Hashii being a relatively prolific goal-scorer in non-league football in England, I imagine he will continue to garner coverage. Worst case, draftify. Zênite (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is limited to non-RS blog posts (e.g. nonleaguehq), routine transactional and award announcements in local news, and routine match recaps. Not seeing anything approaching GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote considered the sources used for expansion. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would be helpful to get a review of expansion of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoelleJay's assessment. Geschichte (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PANONY

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

Coverage is WP:ROUTINE, no WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG Andre🚐 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Asia. Andre🚐 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet a notable WP:CORP. If someone can find SIGCOV in reliable Chinese sources, please ping me here. Wikishovel (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find enough information for it to pass WP:GNG; for now, it fails. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Ajker Jamalpur

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

WP:GNG, WP:NPERIODICAL. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Ialam (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sayful Ialam (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have no any prove for Notability. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 16:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable local newspaper. The article shows zero evidence of notability. There are 8 refs on the article but these are just passing mentions, zero info about the paper. Searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERIODICAL. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alterian

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

Does not meet NCORP. The sources I found were either routine, not independent or fail SIGCOV. Badbluebus (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United Kingdom, Australia, United States of America, and Colorado. Badbluebus (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Mahila Vidyalaya Degree College

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

Declined G11. I would normally draftify, but a draft already exists. Tried looking on Google, with few usable results. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, and Uttar Pradesh. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Mahila Vidyalaya Degree College has been tagged for CSD so I'm not sure if it will be around for very long. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Certainly worth mentioning. Just FYI, I think the article and draft have the same text. It was tagged by someone else, though. In any case, one isn't technically supposed to move an article into draftspace without getting consensus (like through AfD) if someone objects to the drafticiation. This can done either directly or, or has happened here, by moving the draft into mainspace. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. asilvering (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye Action, as You Like It

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

This article has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. I looked for reviews via Google, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Newspaper Archive, and JSTOR to no avail. There is an ISFDB listing, but it doesn't include any secondary verifications or reviews. I would redirect to the author, but this book has two authors, so I think the best option is to delete if NBOOK cannot be met. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No hits on Proquest or Newspapers.com. Fails WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Private Eye Action, as You Like It does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, there is no coverage for this book and neither author (although obviously notable) are at the level of notability where their works would be notable by association (ie, Shakespeare or Heinlein levels of notability). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] I apologize if my curtness above was taken as rudeness.

[a]