Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 3

< February 02 February 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Berrin

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage about her works as a journalist. The page was previously listed for speedy deletion for not having a credible claim of significance, and it seems it was deleted before being undeleted. The author of the page said that she was "relatively notable since her article is being discussed in all the main Israeli newspapers," but I think that the claim was because it was about her accusations of assault by Ari Shavit, and that can be expanded upon in Shavit's article. reppoptalk 22:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 22:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Calautti

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

Can't find any substantial coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject. She has played in at least two different football codes but I can't find anything other than passing mentions, Wikipedia mirrors or database sites, even when searching Australian sources. I have also searched under 'Danielle Calautti' and found nothing better than the non-independent sources already cited. Best sources I can find are VAFA, a trivial mention, Ozfootball, a squad list mention, and Comment News, which mentions her twice and calls her a standout player. We would need at least a couple of articles to go into significant depth about her as an individual to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Given that this does not appear to be the case from the above, AfD seems reasonable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Three relistings and opinions are divided between Keep and Draftify. As a closer, I can't act on my own point of view so my only option is to close this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Yexin

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. ITF W40 titles are not of a high enough level to meet WP:NTENNIS#4. They only have $40,000 in total prize money [1] while NTENNIS requires at least $50,000. A GNG search brought up nothing close to significant coverage either. Iffy★Chat -- 13:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only half-decent looking source I have been able to find (after searching in Chinese her doubles partner's name and the city they won the tournament in) is [2]. Unfortunately my knowledge of Chinese sources is not great, so I have no idea if this article is any better than a routine match report. Everything else I found using her Chinese name (马烨欣 according to the source) is a passing mention at best. Iffy★Chat -- 14:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Iffy. Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG and all sources are passing mentions involving tennis results. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Player has just entered another W40 final, which shows her potential of winning more titles. If you still aren't quite sure about the article's notability (as per Iffy), please draftify it and bring it back in the future. More reliable sources can be added after it is draftified. Timothytyy (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For everyone's information she just won a W40 again. Timothytyy (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [3][4][5] and also maybe [6] are probably enough for notability. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. per sources provided by filelakeshoe.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - This could be deleted but I agree the player shows a lot of potential. In a draft space it can be worked till "if/when" they meet Wikiproject Tennis guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already meets WP:GNG given the multiple reliable sources. Stopasianhate (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RS have to each contain SIGCOV to count towards GNG. Merely being verifiable is irrelevant to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable player according to sources. Vecihi91 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. For a sportsperson bio to exist in mainspace in the first place it must meet GNG and cite at least one GNG source in the article. This has not been achieved for this subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG given number of sources. Stopasianhate (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stopasianhate, number of RS has zero bearing on GNG (outside of the requirement for "multiple"). Which sources provide SIGCOV of the subject? JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 European Wrestling Championships

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

This page is for a future event and thus doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 21:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I have been asked to keep this discussion open but it was initiated nearly a month ago and I'm closing it as Keep as that is the clear consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda College, Thakurpukur

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

Same issues still exist as first AfD. Currently zero in-depth sources from independent, reliable, secondary sources, and searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Necrothesp, who was only commenter in AFD 2. The Times of India includes it in a list of top science colleges and universities, is one of the citations, by the way. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times of India is an independent reliable secondary source. Stopasianhate (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has been refbombed by primary sources or routine, non-significant coverage from articles that merely briefly mention the school or do so only in a list of rankings. This is not in-depth coverage. I cannot find sources which have at least 1-2 solid paragraphs covering the subject. There is community consensus that (which to my knowledge has not been superseded) secondary schools (which this school is, even if identified as a college) are not notable just because they exist. Schools need to be notable through significant coverage. Merely because the school is mentioned by a reliable source does not confer notability. There is also an issue of much of the article's content having no sourcing with these issues unable to be addressed with secondary sources. Much of the content hence cannot be verified. It simply is not appropriate for inclusion. After two nominations for deletion, sourcing has not been demonstrated and it would be a shame for this to be closed as NC/Keep. While the keep submissions are slightly higher in number than delete, I think there is consensus to delete. The issues raised by nominator have not been satisfactorily addressed. Simply stating "appears to be sufficient coverage" or "it's cited by the Times of India" and "the Times of India is a reliable source" do not demonstrate notability has been met. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After the AFD nomination, I'd improved the citation (See the difference: [7] → [8]). NAAC is a government organization in India that assesses and accredits Higher Education Institutions, accredited Vivekananda College as Grade - A. I don't think it needs any other clarification to meet WP:GNG. The first time when the article was deleted, it was not written in a good fashion. But right now, it has enough coverage and citation. Requesting @ONUnicorn: and @SouthernNights: to give your opinion, because both of you came in the Page Revision history. @MaxnaCarta:, I don't know about other countries, but in India, 10+2 system of education studied at Secondary School. But Vivekananda College not like that. It is a Higher Education Institution to study bachelors and masters degree. - বাক্যবাগীশ (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I know this can be closed at any moment but I please request a day for me to review the newest comments above. Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - বাক্যবাগীশ asked me to express my opinion, so here it is. I originally refused to speedy delete this article b/c I felt this version is very different from the version that was subject to the AfD in 2021 (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criteria G4, speedy delete "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"). In addition, based on the citations and info currently in the article -- especially the India Today ranking -- I also believe the college meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wow, I don't think I can recall seeing a more well-attended AfD for such a short substub article. I'm not sure what attracted all the attention here, but I guess it's a good thing?

The discussion ultimately boils down to an argument about whether or not there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this individual per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The most substantive source that was presented during this discussion is a 6-sentence article in the evening edition of a local newspaper that mentions Green as a possible future candidate to play baseball for the Orioles, along with a very brief synopsis of his history. Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point, and this sentiment was quite convincingly argued by a number of participants in the discussion.

There were a number of editors calling for the article to be kept "per IAR". I mean, that's great and all, but in order to successfully invoke IAR, you really need to demonstrate that following the normal rules/policies/guidelines in this particular case would harm the encyclopedia, or prevent it from being improved. There is no evidence that that's the case, or that our normal policies shouldn't be applied in this case. Most keep voters that mentioned IAR basically said (and I'm obviously paraphrasing), "well, I know there isn't any significant coverage, but c'mon, he was one of the first NFL players, and I think that's cool, so we should just have an article on him anyway, so let's IAR." I don't think that's truly in the spirit of IAR. IAR doesn't mean "ignore the rules when you personally disagree with them, or when your personal preference differs from what the rules would have you do." If that were the case, Wikipedia would be a rather chaotic place.

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that just because this article has been deleted, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't contain information about Larry Green. It just means that Larry Green has not been deemed sufficiently notable to have a standalone article devoted to him. But I'm sure it would not be difficult to find an appropriate place in a different article where these 5 sentences could live in some form. Also, to be clear, the result of this AfD does not preclude anyone from immediately recreating this article as a redirect to an appropriate target, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 08:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Green

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

non-notable NFL player. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, England, and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no policy-based rationale was provided for deletion. No evidence that WP:BEFORE was conducted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence do you have that he's notable? It's not on me to prove notability, it's on you. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem awfully eager to get articles deleted and awfully unwilling to put an actual ounce of effort into demonstrating that the articles warrant deletion. Are you quite certain that you are actually here to build an encyclopedia? I have my doubts. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the part where you put an actual ounce of effort into demonstrating that the article warrants keeping or are you just here to cast aspersions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what do you claim "evidence" would constitute. Happening to agree with you, perhaps? Ravenswing 17:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, reason for deletion does not mention a specific policy. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no SIGCOV in the article and none has been presented here. I searched, including in the archives at Newspapers.com, with various versions of his name but found nothing of significance. A redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players is also acceptable in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep having played in 4 games of the NFL, he meets the standards that we typically show as a keep result. If nothing else, I lean on the policy WP:IAR and do what we always do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With the new source additions, we have now have WP:GNG to throw in to the fray, as others have said.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a pioneering player in the NFL. Four games with the Canton Bulldogs certainly is notable. And per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: 4 games in the NFL makes a person notable. Based on Beanie's work, I think enough significant coverage has been shown to believe that this person meets GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed from keep to weak keep and struck my previous rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the closing admin, see this where User:Randy Kryn was canvassed by BeanieFan11 to vote where the AFDs were "close". here is the original diff. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And please see here where he ASKED me to – when a user asks someone to show them a list of AFDs, it is not canvassing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per IAR (although a bit more weak than some of the other noms), as an original NFL member with four games. Meets GNG/NBIO with sources listed below. I see the potential for something at least somewhat decent to be developed out of this (at least something like this in length), and if kept I will. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notability requirement for sports subjects is the GNG. If significant coverage of the subject as a person are not available, then they aren't notable, period. We already determined this via community consensus regarding NSPORTS months ago. Unless someone can present the required significant coverage, this article should be deleted. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. SilverserenC 01:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. – No, they should not be discounted, as IAR is a policy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person. I cannot support keeping an article referenced only to a database containing no prose actually describing the person. No objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, a complete list where this individual is mentioned. The article subject fails WP:NSPORT and fails WP:GNG, and could reasonably be deleted in light of WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope (internal links omitted, emphasis mine). The WP:NSPORTS2022 was long, contentious, and closed with a consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. What we're dealing with here is currently a situation where everyone agrees that zero sources are present that provide significant coverage, but some people are saying that we should decide in this limited time and place that the community consensus about sportspeople needing significant coverage does not apply here—that plainly isn't how consensus works on Wikipedia, and this article subject does not warrant an article in light of the community consensus.
    That all being said, I do think the list that mentions that this individual played for the Canton Bulldogs is a reasonable use of WP:ATD-R, and I believe that a redirect to that list would be useful (though the list itself could be improved). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per IAR, as an original NFL member with four games, and nothing else at all, I just don't see why anyone should take note. I don't see the potential for something at least somewhat decent to be developed out of this. I thinks it will always be a microstub if kept Randy Peck (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • @Randy Peck: How do you know these terms when you've only been around a week and these are you're first edits to wikipedia-space? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BeanieFan11: These pages are covered in links to documentation, essays, examples, policies, etc. I read some, and ended up here. If you have more questions about where to find information, I can try to help you, but some of the more experienced editors may be of more use to you. Randy Peck (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know the policies and how to find them, having been here several years myself and participating in several hundred deletion discussions – I just found your !votes a bit odd considering you've only been here a week. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is why we have the single-purpose account tag. The closing admin will be notified and judge accordingly whether their input is given consideration. ValarianB (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • @ValarianB: note that BeanieFan11 is themselves a SPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • @ValarianB and Horse Eye's Back: What the hell? I've edited over 20,000 pages over several years, created over 700 articles on various topics, and you're calling me an SPA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • You say various topics and pages but it all looks like sports to me. Also you've edited 9,814 pages, not 20,000. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  Sports is a massively broad and diverse topic. I highly recommend that you read WP:SPATG before labeling another editor with 20,000 edits as a SPA. Alvaldi (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then pray tell how is Randy Peck a SPA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    Why? I neither tagged him nore commented on him. I just find it absolute something to tag an editor with over almost 23,000 edits a SPA for editing sports articles despite WP:SPA literaly using a single sport as an example of a diverse enough topic for not tagging editors as a SPA. Alvaldi (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: I've written articles on sports – I've written articles on politicians – I've written articles on businessmen – I've written articles on judges – I am in no way a "single-purpose account." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ValarianB: Could you please explain the connection between panera bread, pork blood, and the NFL that makes me a single purpose account? Or strike this unsigned comment otherwise Randy Peck (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tag can refer to either the totality of one's edits and/or that the account has only focused on a narrow topic. You, with a few dozen edits in 8 days, fall in to the former. ValarianB (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just read that essay. It applies to an account who focuses on one article, or on many articles making a single sort of change. How is my delete vote here related to my changes at panera bread? They are different in scope and subject. The same is true of the VHS and curdled pork blood articles. I invite you to reread WP:SPA and strike your comment. Randy Peck (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The player and proof of his playing in four games are listed in the Pro-Football reference list. Four games played in the NFL is notable as can be, and citing that extremely long and overly complicated discussion (13 things to argue and vote upon? no thanks) to negate that playing four games in the NFL is plenty notable doesn't hold water (or gatorade). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NFL in 1920 was nowhere near the sort of entity that one would classify as the sort of dominant professional league that we know it as today. In fact, it wasn't even the NFL yet, but the American Professional Football Association. Teams regularly played games against opponents outside of the APFA, including a team composed entirely of members of the local Utica chapter of the Knights of Columbus (see also this clipping for another non-league game of the Utica KoC). But this sort of stuff hardly guarantees individual WP:SIGCOV, and that database's coverage isn't SIGCOV. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NFL was the league that emerged from the pioneering work of George Halas, the Sternaman brothers, and a few other key organizers, so the NFL is where history looks to for professional football's beginnings and its unbroken and continuing 100 year set of stats and procedures. If an athlete played four games in the NFL, and this is attributed in the official stats, then that is all that is needed for accurate encyclopedic coverage, and that this page is arguably being nominated for removal on the basis of a purposely convolutedly worded and multi-sub-sub sectioned RfC should not stand. So yes, it meets IAR discussion because removing perfectly good pages hurt the encyclopedia and ignores maintaining it. Simple as that, and this is what IAR was written to do and why it survives intact as an amazing example of Wikipedia's common sense and logic. He played four games, for Halas sake, and that's pageworthy (another guy who played eight has been nommed for deletion under the same argument - that one played for more than half-a-season. Just when does common sense kick in?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you reject the validity of the WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC on procedural grounds, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE will be helpful. That being said, I don't think that there is any reason to state that the RfC is invalid, both given the enormous participation and the subsequent implementation of the results by the community at WP:NSPORT over this past year. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a new RfC is needed on a much simpler question, and has been proposed at the ANI board which is discussing this topic. It is fine to say that IAR applies here, this fellow played four games in the NFL, another nommed athlete played over half a season, so something is broken here and that's why IAR exists. Beanie has it right, IAR takes precedent when something is broken to this extent. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As there are no reliable sources supporting the subject's notability, there is no valid reason to keep the article. Verifying that he existed ad played in some game sis not sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and SIGCOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG; ping me if someone finds sources. Not even redirect, because I see zero secondary WP:RSes, so we can't meet our content policies on this. Levivich (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randy Kryn. No idea why the deletionists are on the rampage. Try building the encyclopedia for a change. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have missed WP:NSPORTS2022, the details that was stated are no longer a valid notability criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also want to check out WP:ARBDEL and WP:CIVIL. Levivich (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This "per X" does not appear to be a valid opinion to delete, as the "X" in question, Randy Kryn, made a claim ("a pioneering player in the NFL") unsupported by evidence, either here or in the article. ValarianB (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would have been nice if X were pinged when mentioned. Pioneering is totally valid, Green played in 1920, which is discussed above and possibly a part of the "per" comment. IAR also applies here as the sports rfc mentioned is acknowledged by many as a total mess which will soon be revisited with a simple question and not 13 sub-sub-sections. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pioneering" because he played American football in 1920??? Wow that's WP:RANDY nonsense. Levivich (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Levivich. May I note that your holier-than-you attitude in an edit imploring an editor to adhere to WP:CIVIL lasted, what, 16 hours? In any case, the NFL began in 1920, the year Green played ("The NFL was formed in 1920 as the American Professional Football Association (APFA)"). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a nonsensical argument nonsense is not uncivil. Accusing editors of being deletionists on a rampage is uncivil, but arguing that some white guy with ZERO sources should be IAR kept because he played 4 games for the Canton Bulldogs in 1920 and calling him "pioneering" is borderline offensive in its staggering failure of basic football history knowledge. In 1920, gridiron football had already been played for generations. "Pioneer" for a white guy playing a few games in the Bulldogs in 1920 is just complete nonsense. It's insulting to actual football pioneers like Fritz Pollard. If Larry Green were a pioneer, someone would have written something about him, like other football pioneers. It's not uncivil to point out that you are obviously making stuff up based on a lack of knowledge. Frankly it's disruptive of you to do so, as disruptive as the "4 games = notability" votes above and elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think being one of the first NFL players ever would count as being a "pioneer" (I read the definition as "a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area" – he was among the first NFL players ever, so) – and what does being white have to do with anything here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not one of the first NFL players ever. It was the AFPA in 1920, it wasn't even called NFL until 1922, and Green didn't play in 1922, and even if he did he still wouldn't be a pioneer. Oh brother. You can't seriously think that every player in the AFPA in 1920 is automatically notable? And if you don't know what race has to do with pioneers in football, then read about race and football. There are actual important people in this era in this sport, I don't get why you guys always scrape the bottom of the barrel with these no-name players. Go improve Fritz Pollard instead of bothering g with Larry Green. Damnit we just went through this with NFOOTY leading to NSPORTS2022. We aren't going to do this again in another sport. Playing a few games doesn't mean you automatically get a Wikipedia article! Levivich (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pioneer: "a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area" – the APFA was what the NFL was known as from 1920-21, so it is still the NFL. Green played four games in 1920, the first season of the APFA (now NFL) – thus, he is a "pioneer." Having lighter skin doesn't automatically disqualify you from being one. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, Beanie is correct, the NFL records count back to 1920, players who played then are pioneers all. And would you keep this player if he were not white? A serious question, you imply that above. The uncivil part is linking me, because of a similar username I guess (?), to an article about somebody from Idaho. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling this guy a pioneer is sword-skeleton theory. Even worse is the notion that anyone who played in the AFPA is a pioneer. This shows a stunning lack of knowledge of football history. There are actual pioneers in football, you know. Walter Camp, Jim Thorpe, Fritz Pollard... a guy being a pioneer for paying 4 games in 1920? That's WP:RANDY. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the third time: Pioneer: "a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area" – he was among the first people to ever play in the NFL (then APFA). And going by the definition does not mean someone has a stunning lack of knowledge of football history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking that the AFPA is a "new country or area" or even analogous to it shows a lack of knowledge of football history. There was nothing new or unexplored or undiscovered about the AFPA. The football league in America in 1920 was the same as in 1919 and 1921, the only difference is the name and who owned what exactly. Even the modern NFL, despite tracing in its roots to the AFPA, really is just what we call today the National Football Conference. The modern NFL was born with the AFL–NFL merger, that's why this is called the Super Bowl era. Now anyone who played in Super Bowl I might be called a pioneer of the modern NFL or Super Bowl Era. Players who played gridiron football in the 19th century might be called pioneers of football. Black players and gay players and women players in the 20th century are properly called pioneers. The notion that someone is a pioneer because they happened to play 4 games in the 1920 is totally devoid of any support in the literature. Find me just one source that calls Larry Green, or all AFPA players, "pioneers". Levivich (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your saying that the APFA players can't be called NFL pioneers (among the first, remember?) because The football league in America in 1920 was the same as in 1919 and 1921, the only difference is the name and who owned what exactly? That right there shows a lack of football history knowledge – the NFL (APFA) did not exist prior to 1920. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 1919, the Canton Bulldogs played in the Ohio League. Is everyone who played in the Ohio League a pioneer of football? In 1921, the Bulldogs played in the AFPL; is everyone who played in the AFPL a pioneer? In 1922, they renamed it the NFL. Is everyone who played in 1922 a pioneer? Do you have an example of a reliable source referring to players who played in the 1920 AFPA as "pioneers" by virtue of being one of the first to play in the AFPA? I've never seen it. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this. I'm done arguing with you here and will be moving on to more important things. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support your decision. If you or anyone else would like to learn more about football pioneers, I recommend List of black quarterbacks or Homosexuality in American football. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pioneering" generally means being a significant or leading presence in a field of interest, so if you have something of that nature to prove then by all means present it. Merely being a player on the first team or one of the first is not in itself significant. And for god's sake, several of you really need to stop embarrassing yourselves with the "IAR" pleas. IAR is for serious, project-wide issues. Not a "Move Directly to Go and Collect $200" shortcut to your desired outcome for an insignificant footballer. ValarianB (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patently fails WP:NSPORTS2022, complete and total lack of WP:SIGCOV. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect, his tenure in the early NFL is noted at NFL.com and PFR, both used as sources on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those aren't SIGCOV, the NFL link is broken and PFR though used is an obvious non-RS. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PFR is most certainly reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't actually appear to be settled, Sports Reference LLC and its subsidiaries are not a recognized WP:RS and even if they were that sort of coverage doesn't contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesn't count towards notability, but suggesting its unreliable is nonsense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We don't appear to have an established consensus on its reliability. If we do you can link a diff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may start a discussion at WT:NFL, but we've accepted it as reliable for years and its been used on about 30,000 pages. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a reliability discussion occur at WT:NFL not WP:RSN? Are you forum shopping? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could do it there too if you want. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why would you do it at WT:NFL? That makes no sense unless you want to bias the outcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense that it would bias the outcome – considering that they know best about that area. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can they know notability better than the notability noticeboard? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what we're talking about here? Its reliability, not notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies... We are arguing about notability on one page and reliability on the other so the wires sometimes cross... How can they know reliability better than the reliability noticeboard? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect I don't see any significant coverage, just a basic stats database, so there is no basis to keep the article. If he was a "pioneer" then perhaps there'd be some coverage discussing his historical contributions... Reywas92Talk 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I gave searching for sources another try. Not sure if this is the same guy, but a Larry Green that attended Georgetown University in 1916 and 1917 was a baseball player in the 1920's per this article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's him! And that's sigcov, too. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's him? Prove it. Beyond that, what are we talking, a casual mention of a player who tried out for the minors (and according to baseball-reference, never actually played a minor league game)? If you genuinely think that is GNG-worthy significant coverage, then frankly, your calibration of what constitutes sigcov or not can't be trusted. Ravenswing 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source: 185 lb, played at Georgetown 16-17 before serving in the war - Pro football archives: 180 lb, played at georgetown (football) in 1916 before serving in the war. Both named Larry Green(e). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the second source I list (below) states he played pro football and baseball. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see more SIGCOV at NewspaperArchive: here and here, plus lesser coverage here, here, here, here, here, [9] [10] [11] [12]. I'd argue its a GNG pass as well, or at least of NBIO (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those who have voted delete/redirect, what do you think of the new coverage? @Levivich, 127(point)0(point)0(point)1, Alvaldi, ValarianB, Reywas92, Silver seren, ActivelyDisinterested, Red-tailed hawk, Cullen328, and BilledMammal: BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) nobody calls him a pioneer, eh? 2) Maybe I missed it, but I actually didn't see any mention of the 4 games he played for the Bulldogs? I don't think he is a pioneer for having played for them... 3) A high school coach? Seriously? 4) These are local news transfer reports talking about which high school he is going to coach. This is not biography material, and this guy -- a high school coach who played in college and then a few pro games -- is not the sort of person we need to be writing an article about. I'll never understand why you put time into people like Larry Green(e) when there are like 1,000 more important figures in football that we could be writing about. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the two you labelled WP:SIGCOV don't look anything of the sort to me. It's local newspaper coverage of high school faculty hirings, which are generally not considered notable. It's also interesting to me that neither of them mention playing in the NFL. It describes him as a former high school and college player, so that actually reinforces my belief that his NFL career wasn't considered notable even in his own day. I did not review the ones you described as lesser coverage considering the two pieces you thought significant came far below that bar in my eyes, but I do applaud you for looking for sources. The problem is that you're kind of working through the process backwards, like someone trying to find the evidence that fits their hypothesis instead of making your hypothesis based on the evidence. Look at the coverage you have and ask yourself if you'd create an article on the subject based on that. I don't think a reasonable editor would, because the standout assertion of notability and significant coverage in them appears to be that he was in discussion to be appointed a high school football coach for three quarters of a season or possibly longer if the board finds more money. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two labelled SIGCOV could be considered useful, but the only claim to fame they make is that he was a coach not an NFL player. If anything they prove he wasn't notable as an NFL player, even at the time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What they cover him for is irrelevant – what really matters is if they cover him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – they clearly do in this case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't, your lack of understanding when it comes to WP:N is massive. "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading the notability section for events... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pulled text clearly covers topics which aren't events as well... Is this some sort of reading comprehension issue? The pulled text says "event or topic" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players, lacking any significant coverage. I hope and trust the closing admin discounts those keep proponents claiming -- either meretriciously or ignorantly -- that playing in the NFL automatically confers notability, when no notability guideline says so. My answer to those who claim a relative lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s -- which is bullshit on the face of it, given the vastly greater number of newspapers in that day -- is that "Then a Wikipedia article on the subject cannot be sustained." Ravenswing
  • Delete, per the arguments above. Playing in the AFPL/early NFL was obviously not a guarantee of SIGCOV and was not regarded as noteworthy even after the NFL became much more popular and professional, as evidenced by the numerous 1950s–90s obits/profiles of "pioneering" players that don't mention football at all. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources which were added to the article just aren't in-depth enough to meet GNG, and playing a certain number of games at a certain level doesn't satisfy any of our notability criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing provided by BeanieFan11 sufficiently qualifies as a GNG source. From the article, we know about the subject's service in WWI, the schools the subject attended, and career as a coach. The article also connects the subject to playing professional football. This is certainly a source that meets GNG. The expectation, based on the close of WP:NSPORTS2022 is the inclusion of "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." All of the other sources in the article, articles found through this discussion, and even the football databases only add to the notability of the subject (notability does not need to be contemporary). --Enos733 (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Routine hirings and firings reported by the local news do not establish notability of the subject. ValarianB (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they cover the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is need to extract the content" then yes, they do establish notability, as is the case here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, While there is some community debate about the nature of SNGs and relationship with GNG, the basic concept for any article is that "article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice.'" As a community, we do recognize that professional American football players are worthy of notice, bringing to NSPORTS. Under the NSPORTS basic criteria, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." - Enos733 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and this person fails NSPORTS. Thank you for supporting my point. ValarianB (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733, As a community, we do recognize that professional American football players are worthy of notice, bringing to NSPORTS. is not true. The community explicitly eliminated American football from NSPORT precisely because there was consensus "being a professional American football player" did not correspond to GNG coverage. Additionally, the hyperlocal Newburyport pieces fail NOTNEWS. The first one is almost entirely repeating "the athletic council said []" and so is definitely not independent (and doesn't have SIGCOV anyway), and the second one is the subject's announcement of his candidacy for a PE teacher position at the town's high school -- and thus must be treated the same way we treat newspaper blurbs on local political candidates. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the close of WP:NSPORTS2022 rejecting the concept that professional athletes are worthy of notice. If so, we would have seen consensus around eliminating the SNG and requiring that athletes meet GNG. That did not happen. The close clarified that at least one significant source was needed and consistent, participation does not provide a presumption of notability. - Enos733 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? There is 100% consensus that athletes are required to meet GNG. It's always been in the first and third lines of NSPORT and two of the FAQs, and post-RfC the bolded sentence The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. was added. The RfC close enacted the proposal that all athlete subjects must not only meet GNG, but the article must also cite at least one GNG source at all times. NSPORT serves only as a guideline for which subjects are likely to have SIGCOV, it makes no presumptions of direct notability (nor has it ever). JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is hard to square this statement with the close of Proposal 1, where the closer said "the current wording is retained, but the meaning of those words remains unresolved." If there was only the requirement to meet GNG, then the line about sourcing is superfluous. While you may not agree, I believe the community recognizes that leeway in evaluating whether a subject is worthy of an article depends on context (not just can we find X number of articles containing significant coverage). WP:N states this clearly, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines" - Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several distinctions that need to be disentangled here:
1. The pre-RfC NSPORT status quo was that sportspeople were ultimately required to meet GNG but as long as the subject verifiably met a sport-specific subguideline (SSG) criterion (which was ostensibly calibrated to predict GNG, again as required by the overarching NSPORT SNG) there was no set timeline for the article to demonstrate GNG was met within its citations. This meant an article with merely a reliably-verified assertion of meeting an SSG criterion could get through AfC and survive NPP without needing to prove the subject actually met GNG. There was also substantial leeway for presumptive SIGCOV given to these SSG-meeting subjects at AfD, to the extent that proving they didn't meet GNG often necessitated going way beyond the expectations of BEFORE. On the other hand, in the lead up to the RfC there were several successful efforts to tighten various SSG criteria with the explicit intent of recalibrating them in line with NSPORT's presumption of GNG.
2. Proposal 1 asked for a requirement to demonstrate GNG when challenged at AfD, with no room for any SSG-based presumptions. This would have introduced a definite timeline for GNG proof and would have eliminated the presumptions of SIGCOV afforded to pre-internet/non-English subjects at AfD. The closer apparently misunderstood how pre-RfC NSPORT operated and thought the proposal was (falsely) claiming that demonstrating GNG at AfD was already required, and so the policy mismatch noted in this close and the close of Proposal 8 is in reference to that.
3. Proposal 5 introduced the requirement that at least one GNG source needed to be cited in the article for any SSG-based expectation of fully meeting GNG to apply. NSPORT's existing ultimate requirement for GNG is acknowledged by the closer here Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. and in Proposal 8 The purpose of a SNG is to give editors guidance on when significant coverage is likely to exist, and clarifying that requirement in the prose will help avoid misuse at AFD, which licensed rewording the NSPORT lead to say The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
As far as implementation of the RfC goes, subsequent RfCs and AfDs have only served to solidify the overall GNG requirement as well as the new requirement outlined in SPORTSBASIC #5 for athlete bios to cite a GNG source in order to survive AfC/NPP, avoid draftification/redirection/PRODs, and apply reasonable presumptions of further SIGCOV at AfD.
I hope this deep micro-history of NSPORT bureaucracy clears some things up? :) JoelleJay (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the close. :) - Enos733 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you also disagree with what NSPORT actually says? JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BeanieFan11's new sources are enough to meet NSPORTS2022. Just because they don't cover the subject as a player doesn't make them ineligible to count towards GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft For now. See my comment here for my reasoning here. BeanieFan11 is more than capable of finding sources for these players, as demonstrated in the past, but time will be needed to find sources since some digging will need to be done. If this article is deleted, so is all of the information. It makes sense to me to move this to draft for now. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 17:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coverage is far from great, but it's hard to say that multi-paragraph front-page coverage in reliable independent sources doesn't cut it for SIGCOV. I don't think it's particularly relevant that he wasn't prominent as a player since SIGCOV is SIGCOV - I think that's more meaningful for how the article actually describes him. I get that this is potentially WP:MILL stuff though and wonder how people would feel if this were just a simple businessman, however in this case I think an simple application of benefit of the doubt is in order. FOARP (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP, which source are you talking about? Neither Newburyport Daily News item is independent or significant coverage. The first has at best two sentences on Green, with the rest almost entirely "the athletic council said []" and thus is equivalent to a press release. The second is essentially Green announcing his candidacy for a high school coach/PE teacher position (in a town that has <20,000 people today). Both pieces are of excruciatingly local interest and decidedly fail NOTNEWS (otherwise we could have an article on any of the other subjects of coverage in that paper, like the kid whose essay was a finalist at an American Legion state convention). JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay - This seems to be making an WP:AUD-style argument for what the notability of this person should be, but WP:AUD only applies to WP:CORP situations and as far as I know we have never generally extended it to cover bios. I get the WP:MILL arguments, but I'm extending the benefit of the doubt here. Bottom line is, looks like you could write a meaningful biography of this person based on multiple independent reliable sources.
Now, if you asked me if this article should ever have been created in the form it was, well, no, because I entirely agree that simply going through databases and creating a bio for every single person in the database was just plain bad methodology, a breach of WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:MASSCREATE. You can see that the guy who created this article did so only minutes before making Johnny Hendren, Harold Zerby, and Ike Martin. I also don't think this article will ever be particularly good or meaningful, but that those aren't DELREASONs. FOARP (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the wall of text, but since I respect you and your opinion I want to make my reasoning as clear as possible.
I don't think we need AUD for sources of this type to be excluded. For example, (all emphases mine) NOTNEWS says routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. NRV says the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. Newspapers that report all the mundane happenings of small-town life are not sufficiently discriminating for this purpose, as is clear from our guidance Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Our guidelines on young athletes also require sources be (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. The first clause excludes all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications; as the subcriteria of YOUNGATH merely give contextual examples of the type of media attention kids receive rather than introducing new limitations (independence is required for all subjects, and school papers/websites aren't independent for adults either), the definition given for NSPORT's deployment of ROUTINE is applicable across the board. This interpretation has also been upheld in many AfDs.
Regardless, the first piece isn't secondary/independent/SIGCOV as it merely repeats statements from the athletic council and gives very little info on Green, but even if it counted toward GNG that would still only amount to one SIGCOV source since the two Newburyport articles are not independent of each other. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP -- even if you still feel the second source is SIGCOV, do you have any input on the lack of multiple SIRS? Or the argument for NOPAGE? JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am giving reduced weight to the IAR/inherent-notability !votes since they're at odds with broader global consensus, but additional sources have been presented late in the discussion and I want to give editors a chance to evaluate whether they're sufficient to meet the GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I stand by my prior Delete vote. Looking over the additional sources, these are all brief mentions in game summaries, routine announcements relating to his coaching career and the like. Reminder to editors that sources presented here should be a few examples of in-depth coverage, not a laundry list of search results that happen to mention the name. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit ridiculous to dismiss multi-paragraph front page coverage as just "all routine." BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What multi-paragraph front page coverage that is beyond the routine? Be extremely specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-paragraph front page coverage on a person is never routine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can be, especially in a local paper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Locality of coverage is 100% irrelevant here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't because most local coverage is routine and routine coverage doesn't count towards notability. Now what about this coverage isn't routine? And please cite specific paragraphs or sentences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most local coverage is not "routine" – it only applies to events and the guideline lists things such as coverage of scheduled events ... [w]edding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, [and] press conferences – the sigcov articles do not fall under those. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But for some reason you're not saying what they do fall under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some newspapers, particularly older ones, do in fact cover routine things on the front page. In this case I don't agree that a few paragraphs mentioning his new coaching position counts as significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how the articles do not cover Green "directly and in detail" – because that's what determines whether its SIGCOV, and these certainly appear to cover him directly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is not the significant coverage we need of the subject in order to have an article and the subject has done nothing which indicates notability is likely to be found. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how multi-paragraph front page coverage on multi-game NFL players does not count towards notability ("covers the topic directly and in detail") – be extremely specific. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the source, if its a national paper you're right but local papers generally don't count towards notability. What does them being a multi-game NFL player have to do with notability? Plenty of NFL players aren't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
local papers generally don't count towards notability – with the exception of businesses (which this clearly is not) – NOWHERE says that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage in local papers isn't significant, its coverage of people getting hired and fired at the local high school or local sports games for example. Now what do these newspaper articles talk about (I can't follow those links so you're going to have to either summarize or copy and paste), and what papers are they? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage in local papers isn't significant – I find many articles in local papers to cover topics "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (definition of sigcov) – just like we have here. I might be able to email you the content if you would like (listing it here would be copyvio, I believe). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy and paste brief passages, that should be all you need to demonstrate that the coverage was of a non-routine nature. Not asking for the whole thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back, here are the sources claimed to be SIGCOV:
Larry Greene to help coach N.H.S. gridsters
Former Georgetown University star will be assistant to Delmer F. Borah next fall at local school
Larry Greene, former Haverhill High school and Georgetown University star and at one time assistant football coach at Amesbury High school, will be the assistant to Head Coach Delmer F. Borah at Newburyport High school next fall, it was learned last evening. The Athletic Council, which controls sports in the High school, is now working to determine what salary the now assistant will be paid.
Greene may not be with the Crimson eleven the entire season, according to Elliot P Knight, chairman of the council, for it is possible that the salary which the council can afford will not warrant full time work. He is expected to be hired for at least three-quarters of the season, anyway Greene will succeed Robert Pike, former University of Pennsylvania star, as assistant to Borah.
The athletic council must pay the assistant coach out of the receipts of the football games, and while they cannot be accurately estimated at this time, the council is basing its figures on the receipts of the 1932 season when they were a little over $5000. The council is conservatively estimating the proceeds, of games for the coming season, figuring guarantees to be received from games away from home and otherwise. It is believed that the council will be able to afford about $500 for an assistant to the head coach.
The council chairman says that its budget has been shaved of all expenses possible and the board realizes the importance of an assistant, inasmuch as the 1933 schedule is a stiff one, with all dates having been filled but the Thanksgiving morning date. Chariman Knight says that the former Georgetown player has not yet been signed but that he will be the assistant to Borah this year.
"Larry" Greene Out for Coach's Berth at the Local High School
Amesbury, June 25–Lawrence E. "Larry" Greene, of Haverhill, a three-letter athlete at High school and college and a successful athletic coach was reported today to be one of the candidates for the position of coach and physical education supervisor at the High school here.
Mr Greene has been serving as assistant football coach at Newburyport High school for the past two seasons and has also been assistant director of physical education at the public playgrounds in Haverhill. Int the latter capacity he has had charge of shaping a recreational program for nearly 3000 children.
At Haverhill High, Mr Greene was a football, baseball and basketball star. He went from that school to Phillips Exeter academy, where he also played football, baseball and basketball. He was regarded as one of the outstanding football ends ever developed in this section.
Mr Greene went from Phillips Exeter to Georgetown university, where he played varsity sports for two full seasons. He gave up his studies and athletic career to enter the army during the World War. He served in France with B company, 302nd Machine Gun Battalion and during the war also helped in the organization and coaching of service athletic teams. At the close of the war, Mr Greene resumed his studies, attending Princeton. While at that college, he served as assistant football coach under Nat Poe, having charge of the ends. In 1920, Mr Greene returned to Haverhill, where he served as assistant coach to Bill Broderick at Haverhill High and Bodger Carroll at St James.
The candidate's first local connection was in 1926 when he was secured as an assistant to Charles B Broderick, who is now at Leominster. Broderick and Greene developed one of the best Amesbury High football teams in history that year. Mr Greene has also played professional football and baseball and is regarded as an outstanding coach of all sports.
It seems candidates for school board, selectmen, board of water and sewer commissioners, library board, etc. all receive blurbs. Even the children trying out for high school varsity sports will get coverage. People will announce that they decline to run in elections and their declensions will be published. These articles are sandwiched between "multi-paragraph front-page pieces" like "H. G. Fenders on police force for 26 years" and "Ryerson taken on auto charge" (detailing the apprehension in New Hampshire of a former Newburyport (MA) resident for speeding). This is a newspaper that publishes multiple paragraph-long recaps of local children's birthday parties in seemingly every issue, including details like who won particular games. Such mundane hyperlocal human interest stories should not count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why BeanieFan11 flat out refused to post anything from it... Thats clearly not significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone check this link (I do not have access). https://newspaperarchive.com/boston-daily-globe-oct-27-1917-p-5/? Thank you - --Enos733 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "Larry Greene, the ex-Haverhill High and Georgetown football player of last Fall, is now located at Camp Devens, and is playing on a football team there." It's a routine transfer announcement. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also another reliable source. Thanks Enos733. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a passing mention, it has no impact on notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources provided by BeanieFan above are more than passing, routine mentions and are sufficient to satisfy GNG. Frank Anchor 21:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the newspaper pieces referenced in the article, which suggest to me that there was probably more coverage of the subject at the time which we haven't yet found. At the very least, this should be draftified or redirected somewhere to preserve the article history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. If the consensus is not in favor of keeping, please move to draftspace so I can improve this and show that a decent biographical article can be written. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have reviewed the sources provided, and I do not believe they are sufficient. The most detailed ones are in an extremely local paper; the whole lot of them are also entirely routine. You would expect a local paper to cover a change in a high-school coach, but that does not make the coach notable in any way. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Vanamonde93 sums up exactly what I was going to say - the only sniff of notability comes from local news about a high school football team. Does not reach the threshold - in fact, is far short. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a really bad AfD. Both those advocating keep and delete need to take a serious chill pill. There is no deletionist crusade to blow up hard work. There is no inclusionist crusade to keep every single bit of content around, regardless of notability. To untangle this, I have gone back to why we have notability requirements. Notability is supposed to be a test of whether we can write an encyclopedic article on the subject, not whether something is "worthy" of an article. [13] has information that could produce a healthy paragraph on his early life, and is not WP:ROUTINE coverage of a specific event. That's bullet point one. The newspapers (plural) are secondary, reliable, and independent of the subject (numbers 2 3 4 and 5). There is no rule that someone must have received big time coverage to be notable. Some people are more notable than others, and that is okay.
    I am going to do something unorthodox and argue that some fellow !keep voters' votes should be given less weight. I agree with the relister that WP:IAR arguments should be given less weight. But in particular, I am strongly opposed to the notion that this article should be kept because he played in the NFL. WP:NSPORTS2022 is the current consensus, and just because an RfC is forthcoming does not mean we can WP:LOCALCONSENSUS it out of existence. WP:IDONTLIKETHECURRENTBROADERCONSENSUS is no reason to keep an article, any more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a reason to delete one. HouseBlastertalk 01:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HouseBlaster, I agree with a lot of your reasoned approach to this, but I think there are a few things to consider here:
    1. WP:NOPAGE. We don't have to have articles on everyone who receives "enough coverage to write an encyclopedic article". Otherwise we would have articles on all those other locals highlighted in the same newspapers (like the high school coach Greene was an assistant to) and every single town council candidate. Why is Greene more deserving of a standalone than any of those other people?
    2. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Notability is also measured against the policy of information being encyclopedic and afforded DUE weight.
    3. It's not actually clear that the piece on his candidacy for the local high school PE teacher position is independent. Candidate bios are very frequently submitted by the candidate, not researched independently by the newspaper, which is part of why NPOL is so strict.
    4. WP:NOTNEWS. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. Newspaper coverage of local candidates, changes in coaching staff, etc. are considered ROUTINE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that we should not have an article on this player even though he has sufficient coverage because NFL players are not "encyclopedic" and we "don't have to have it" is ludicrous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to say that I seriously and genuinely considered calling out your conduct during this AfD as being exemplary. Thank you, sincerely. I will address your points in sequence.
  1. I completely agree that an article implies notability, but notability does not imply an article. From NOPAGE, "at times it is better to cover a notable topics as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context" (emphasis mine). However, I do not see what additional context is necessary to understand Green. And the fact that we do not have articles on other things is not relevant, as only this article is currently at AfD (see also WP:OSE).
  2. Our article on encyclopedias defines them as "a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge". As we are summarizing knowledge about Green, I believe that this is encyclopedic. WP:DUE applies to the content of articles, not to the article itself.
  3. I do not see any evidence that it is not independent, and given that it is a newspaper article that would on the surface appear to be independent, I would apply Occam's razor. In other words, I believe that the source appears reliable, so the burden of proof is on people to show it is not independent.
  4. ROUTINE is a part of NEVENT, not NSPORT or NBIO. Per WP:NOTROUTINE, "WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)." (links in original).
That being said, I do not fault you for coming to a different conclusion. This is not an obvious case. Best, HouseBlastertalk 20:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words and for engaging so thoughtfully, @HouseBlaster.
Regarding the quote about "routine", that was directly from NOTNEWS, not WP:ROUTINE. The guidance at WP:ROUTINE is of course centered on when to make standalones on events, but the standards for what constitutes a ROUTINE event are calibrated to/derived from NOTNEWS, where "routine" is employed to describe the sort of mundane coverage of any topic that doesn't contribute to notability.
The issue I and others have raised here is that Green(e)'s article was created because he played in "the NFL", however all of the coverage of him that has any substance is from hyperlocal "run-of-the-mill" pieces that have little to no mention of his "professional" career. Because such coverage would not be considered sufficient for any subject who didn't already have a claim to notability (an article based on a PE teacher candidate's profile and an announcement that they had been appointed assistant HS football coach would be rejected per NOT), we must consider the possibility that playing in the early NFL is not actually regarded as a noteworthy achievement by itself. This is bolstered by the arguments above on how totally different the "pioneer years" of football were compared to the "modern years" in terms of coverage, prestige, scope, etc. It was exactly these discoveries (that X's participation in Y did not predict SIGCOV of X) that led to our tightening of Olympian notability criteria, reductions in which leagues/tournaments were included in NFOOTY/NCRICKET, and eventually the elimination of all participation-based criteria. If you start from the presumption that all NFL players are notable, then any coverage at all can appear sufficient to flesh out a bio; but since GRIDIRON was removed, playing in the NFL in the 1920s does not meet any NSPORT/NBIO criterion and thus cannot be used to support notability. Accordingly, when you evaluate the non-trivial coverage by itself, agnostic to the claim to fame, what you get is a guy who was moderately successful at sports in high school and college, was a soldier in WWI, went on to become an assistant high school coach, and put himself forward as a candidate for HS head coach/PE teacher. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see any automatic reason to assume the Larry Green who is the subject of this article is the same person as the Larry Greene mentioned in local newspapers - it's not unusual to have to people doing similar things with similar names, and I've not seen definitive evidence that the local newspaper articles above refer to the (semi-) professional gridiron player. So I think they can't be used as RS and therefore can't really count for notability anyway. Also there would appear to be a level of OR to get to the point where one could be sure that all the articles refer to the same person and create a biography. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think there's two Lawrence Edward Green(e)s who played pro football and baseball from Massachusetts and at Georgetown in the 1910s-1920s? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prove to me that they are the same person without doing any original research. As someone who has actually done off-wiki historical research of this kind, I can tell you it isn't an easy task to definitely prove anything. And it certainly is outwith of Wikipedia due to WP:OR. If you've gone away and written an academic article or book about this person then fine we can likely use your research in an WP page. If you are doing the research whilst writing the page we can't. That's how it works. JMWt (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Football Archives / Pro-Football-Reference.com: Lawrence Edward Green(e) – from Haverhill HS, two years at Georgetown, played football (as an end) in 1910s/20s, served in WWI, from Massachusetts; Newburyport news articles: Lawrence E. Greene – from Haverhill HS, two years at Georgetown, played football (as an end), baseball, and basketball, served in WWI, two years at Georgetown, from Massachusetts. How are they not the same? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The local newspaper excerpts above do not specify the professional football team that the coach played for. Firstly that suggests that the newspaper article writers didn't know or didn't think it was worth noting even at the time. Secondly puts some doubt as to whether it is even about the same person. I can't prove a negative, but without OR I don't see how you can be sure it is the same person. There are breadcrumbs to follow but unless the newspaper specifies something about his play for the canton bulldogs, how can you be sure? The whole purpose of the notability criteria is to protect the quality of WP articles, and we do that by not jumping to conclusions, not doing OR and instead reflecting what other RS have written. JMWt (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck could there be two Lawrence E. Greene's who played two years of football at Georgetown in the 1910s, served in WWI, later played pro football, from Haverhill High School, from Massachusetts, and whose position was end? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How come Moussa Dembélé (French footballer) and Mousa Dembélé (Belgian footballer) are different players in the same era? Coincidences happen. JMWt (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They started with different teams and had different positions, and were from different places. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? Asserting that something is self evidently true doesn't mean it is. That's it. JMWt (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: we've got here the same high school, same state from, same sport, same position, same amount of years in college, same college, same era, same name, both took a year off from college to serve in WWI ... these are the same person. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At some point WP:COMMONSENSE needs to be applied. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're linking to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, that's clearly not the use of common sense you mean in this comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not, JMWt is right that much of what you're doing with these old sources is skating over OR ice. For example you don't ever seem to establish that these old papers are WP:RS, you basically just say they exist and thats good enough when the vast majority of old papers in the US don't meet out reliability standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example you don't ever seem to establish that these old papers are WP:RS, you basically just say they exist and thats good enough when the vast majority of old papers in the US don't meet out reliability standards. – huh? That's not even close to true. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which part isn't true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire comment. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then this is the part where you provide diffs of you establishing the reliability of the sources you use in Football related deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be the one proving that the "vast majority of all newspaper sources" are unreliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how it works, the burden to demonstrate reliability always lies with the person who wants to use the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the coverage falls under something clearly disqualifying it from being reliable (for example, its a blog (published by a non-expert), random comments on social media, etc.), it is considered reliable unless a community discussion determines otherwise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how wikipedia works, there is no pre-judgement of sources as good. Editors are expected to evaluate each and every source they use before doing so and only to use the ones which meet out WP:RS standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And these souces meet the RS standards. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is that you demonstrate that, not just say it. Be specific, which sources are reliable and why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you still haven't shown me the consensus saying that "the vast majority of all newspapers are unreliable." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of pre-WWII sources are unreliable, thats just the way it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't shown me anywhere saying that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to. I'm not the one trying to use a source here so I don't have to do anything, you are however required to demonstrate the source's reliability if you want to use it. Not sure how you can disagree with that statement though, do you not believe that old sources are in general less reliable than new ones? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a review of WP:SOURCES which is a subsection of the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is a section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable" and there is no metion of pre-WWII sources as being unreliable. That's a bold claim and requesting that it needs to be backed up is reasonable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly going nowhere. I'm done arguing over this point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really have a choice... You either need to withdraw the sources you claim contribute to notability or demonstrate that they are WP:RS. Its that simple. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain to me how they would not be reliable. I've never seen anywhere or anyone say before that "the vast majority of old newspapers are unreliable." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know why the sources provided do not meet WP:RS in the eyse of the other editor. We want to make sure we make Wikipedia better, so if it were true that we shouldn't use sources before WWII then we have a whole lot of sitewide cleanup to do, not just this article here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think that the vast majority of sources before WWII are WP:RS? I think only a tiny handful are, maybe 1% or 2% and site wide we use very very few sources from before WWII. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS need to be independent and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, most pre-modern newspapers don't meet either of those requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay that you believe that, I guess... but do you have a shred of support for it or is this exclusively some kind of personal belief?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A lot to wade through here but what matters is the sources, which I have reviewed. They do not meet WP:SPORTCRIT, which states A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources provided lack depth of coverage and are essentially just summaries of games, so do not reach the standard of "non-trivial", and neither are the sources of suitable calibre to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the sources provided ... are essentially just summaries of games – what? No they're not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
42 comments on this AfD? To your objection: yes, sorry, I was too succinct. A couple of routine announcements about coaching too. Definitely does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. It is not even close. The subject lacks any significant coverage that is non trivial in reliable and independent secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SIGCOV: covers the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content – there's also NBIO: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – first, I believe that the coverage covers him directly and in detail (the articles are specifically about him, and contain a good deal of details); and secondly, even if those aren't enough, we've got lots of smaller and less in-depth sources which could be combined to show notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Which is not what we have here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How not? Numerous lesser in-depth sources were shown above (in addition to several in-depth ones). We definitely have enough to write a decent biography. I will if the article is kept or draftified. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At 54 replies in this thread (an average in excess of 3 replies for every delete !vote) , I am calling WP:BLUD. As per my comment, I evaluated the sources against the criteria, and they do not meet the guidelines. Rather than repeating your assertion, made numerous times above, that you are of a different opinion, I suggest you explain how, for instance, a source that says "Larry Green a coming catcher for Orioles if he makes good in the Blue Ridge League," demonstrates notability for an article, when the very text of that title is basically saying "we think this guy may be someone to take notice of one day if he does well." The article says "Dunn thinks maybe he has a coming catcher..." and this is in The Baltimore Evening Sun, so, sorry, this does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. And this, I think, is the best source. There is no breadth of coverage here, and there is no depth of coverage. If you think differently, don't repeat that 54 times. Find better sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University College Dublin. Closing with Bearian's proposal. Selective merge. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University College Dublin Symphony Orchestra

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

No evidence that this student orchestra meets WP:NBAND, WP:NORG or WP:GNG. In terms of NBAND, no indication that ensemble has released or charted a single or album, has been nominated for any award, won any major music competitions or anything similar (According to its own webpage, it only "give[s] around 4/5 public performances annually"). In terms of NORG and GNG, the only coverage I can find in national news sources are these [14][15][16] in the Irish Times and these [17][18][19][20][21] in the Irish Independent stable of regional/national papers. All are trivial passing mentions where the subject is only fleetingly mentioned. The only review I can find is a single/solitary example in Hot Press: [22]. I can otherwise find no independent sources that deal with the subject as a primary topic. Guliolopez (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of the merge option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as while not notable itself, it still contains useful information. Stopasianhate (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi. And thanks for your note. While I'm all for alternatives to deletion and 100% agree that the subject here has no independent notability, could I ask what text we might merge and to where? Given that all of the content is fairly banal (orchestra exists, has done so since 2002, first played publicly in 2005, and continues to a handful of times annually) and is not supported by any independent sources? Separately, and with every welcome to the project, you may want to take a quick look at why "may not be notable, but could be useful" is included among the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" examples. Guliolopez (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnázium Třebíč

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

Does not pass notability criteria per WP:NSCHOOL. FromCzech (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FromCzech (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Czech Republic. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the article on cswiki cs:Gymnázium Třebíč is in much better shape than this one. A lot of the actual text (outside the long list of alumni) seems to come mainly from one source, but there is probably just about enough there to satisfy GNG. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The importance of the school does not go beyond the boundaries of the district. The sources on cswiki (outside the list of alumni) consist of local media, local history books and a bachelor work. It is not even among the largest high schools in the region. I can't imagine that content on cswiki such as parts of the history, student activities, list of directors, or construction modifications of the school building would have a place here. FromCzech (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plenty of content and sourcing on the Czech Wikipedia page. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean that every Czech gymnasium should have a page on enwiki? Because all of these schools can have this generic content and support by local media. Every school has a history (some longer, some shorter); each teaches some subjects, each had list of past directors, each has some activities for students, each has some important alumni (according to the length of history and the centrality of the town where it is located). It does not meet the first criterium of WP:GNG. FromCzech (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple answer. Yes. If it has sufficient sourcing. Just like almost all British and American secondary schools do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not show any more notability then any run-of-the-mill school. Not enough to warrant an article. The Banner talk 20:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the sourcing at cs:wiki page suggests it is a notable school. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casey and Andy

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

This article was deleted at AfD in 2010 as it was spammy and sourced to blogs and other non independent or non reliable sources. It was recently restored but seems to me to suffer from the same shortcomings as the previous version. NPP reviewers have attempted a redirect but this was reverted. I didn’t think there is enough in-depth coverage in RIS for this to remain as a stand-alone article. I’ve no objection to a redirect but we should also prevent it being recreated so it has to come back to AfD for a fourth time. Mccapra (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 「Keep」 記事を保存する必要があります。 ここでの違いは、2010 年の Andy Weir は特別なものではなかったということです。 しかし、13 年後、彼は世界的に有名な作家になり、彼の以前の作品 (Casey and Andy、Cheshire Crossing など) はますます詳細なメディア報道を受け、記事を受け取り、数多くの記事を受け取りました。 議論。 シリーズの回顧展で、Tapas はシリーズ (および著者) の概要を説明しました。 首折り男のための協奏曲 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Google Translate: The article should be saved. The difference here is that Andy Weir in 2010 was nothing special. However, 13 years later, he has become a world-famous author, and his previous works (Casey and Andy, Cheshire Crossing, etc.) have received increasingly detailed media coverage and articles. and received many articles. discussion. In a series retrospective, Tapas gave an overview of the series (and the author). 首折り男のための協奏曲 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show which three sources are the best, offering in depth and independent coverage of the subject? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I've decided to relist this discussion once more given the relative newness of the editors who have weighed in on this discussion thus far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The existing sourcing in the article seems just about sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Bit of a mix of very old and new sources, but I'd lean towards keeping this article, or redirecting if it fails this discussion. Stowsgripe (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PP Reddy

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

This article is heavily reliant on REFBOMBING. The information currently available on the subject is limited and does not meet the criteria for general notability. Akevsharma (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I found enough evidences about the subject. Passes WP:GNG. GuildGM (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: GuildGM itself is the creator of the article Akevsharma (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two contributions since the relist haven't changed the state of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the DNA India and the second article are both brief mentions, barely half a page. DNA website is full of clickbait articles, I'm doubting reliability. I don't find much more for sourcing, other than confirmation that he's rich. Simply being rich isn't GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and the India Herald (link 3 given above in the HouseBlaster comment above) is also full of spammy links and articles. They all paraphrase one another, farmer's son's wealth increases to Rs 33,000. The pop-up ads on the site are larger than this "article", which also makes me doubt it's a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Currently listed citations are enough to pass WP:GNG. Also agrees with HouseBlaster comment. Misterrrrr (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oaktree b's assessment is persuasive. Indian news media are often unreliable when it comes to flattering coverage of prominent people, see Paid news in India. Sandstein 22:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete as per Oaktree CT55555(talk) 01:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

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

A weird bibliography sourced to a single paper from the SSRN that itself says it will be copied to Wikipedia. A single paper does prove it meets WP:NLIST, all of the entries fail WP:GNG themselves, and as a whole, it reeks of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Kept at the last discussion with one vote which argued that the nominator didn't put forth a reason for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Companies, Lists, and United States of America. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Not sure if unannotated bibliography entries constitute a copyright violation, but this is a copy-paste of [26]. Invalid as an encyclopedia article. Reywas92Talk 21:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A previous version of this was speedy deleted and restored, see [27]. Maybe not a copyvio, but I'm baffled why someone would think Wikipedia is an appropriate place for this. A small selection of relevant publications is acceptable at Freddie_Mac#Further_reading or a similar section of Fannie_Mae, maybe even link to this source but don't copy it all in! Reywas92Talk 21:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's not in violation of copyright. It was uploaded to Wikipedia by the copyright holder. I would love this paper in the "Further reading" section of the two companies in question, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - Doesnt seem like the appropriate place for a list like this and I dont see a public interest in this list. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valiaveetil (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    Thanks for your vote, but you really need to add an actual reason to be considered. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anything sourced essentially from a single source is plagiarism in violation of academic ethics and of copyright in violation of our rules at WP:COPYVIO and WP:OR. See also WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Braun

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

Of the three sources in the article, the Michigan Daily article constitutes substantial coverage. The other two don't since they offer hardly any secondary coverage of Braun. I think the creator has done the best job possible in terms of sourcing: as with many YouTube personalities, it's easy to retrieve information on him, but I haven't found any substantial pieces in solid sources. I think he misses our GNG at this time. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Internet, and Canada. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found one source beyond the three that are here (this), but even combined they do not provide more than passing biographical information. Much of the bio info in the article is either un-attributed or is not found in the cited works. The sources essentially provide chatty information about his TikTok and YouTube videos, but there is very little that would be considered in-depth about him. Lamona (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 17:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. Whitfield

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

As per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#D._Whitfield, this appears to be a hoax with fabricated references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax article. Per The Library of Congress, the Ottawa County Beacon was published under the name The Quapaw Chieftain from 1938 to 1946. The paper mentions this transition in its September 26, 1946 issue. The article's citation 4 could not have been published in the Beacon on September 3, 1946. There also was no paper published on that date, a Tuesday, in the weekly Chieftain, which came out on Thursdays.
    Similarly, the article's citation 5 could not have been printed in the Chieftain on Wednesday, July 21, 1948, as the name had been changed for more than a year. There was no Beacon out on that date either, as it was by then coming out every Friday.
    The paper, when printed as the Chieftain and the Beacon, was almost always four pages long. Page A11, which is suspiciously the page number in every citation that has one, would not have existed. Even if there were an extra long edition, it's very unlikely to have had lettered sections. The locations are also wrong, with the paper always coming out of Quapaw, Ottawa County, Oklahoma, and never out of either Miami, Oklahoma, or Mearle, Arkansas.
    Citations 1 and 7 have the same author, paper, page, and date but two different titles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thanks to F.F.F. for the in-depth research above, and to the folks at the noticeboard. I have little to add to the detective work, but given the investigation so far the article does appear to be an elaborate hoax. Or, if Mr. Whitfield really existed, not having a known first name wouldn't make him notable today either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a likely hoax. Thanks to Firefangledfeathers for the detective work. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farihin Farkhan

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

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. A Singaporean source search yielded only weak coverage like Straits Times 1, Straits Times 2 and Yahoo. I can't find anything even close to detailed coverage that we can build a meaningful biography from despite playing 8 matches. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete but draftify. The consensus is clear that the article does not belong in mainspace. However @Ivanvector: is an established editor and saving him the step of undeleting if he chooses to work on it. If not, G7 or G13 solve this. Star Mississippi 15:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Assa River

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

I have mentioned the reasons in the talk page, this whole article is based on a folk tale that has no basis in reality Goddard2000 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources mention a folk tale that has no basis in reality. Besides even the original source claims the Kabardinians, and Kumyks were on Egi's side. I don't know why the author placed them separately. If this story had any proof like a military report or anything else really then i wouldn't mind. I believe we should look into wikieditors articles, there are many dubious sources. I mean if we go by his logic and way of doing things then we can record the sayings and folk tales of the clan Äkkhi that claim they defeated French in a battle, even the clan chieftan is known as the "Scourge of the French" in folk tales. Then we might even add this to pages such as "French battle list" as a French defeat and a great Chechen victory. This is Wikieditor's methodology
(I wrote this originally in the talk page but no one responded). Goddard2000 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of authoritative sources and obvious forgery. The article contains deliberately false information. Merjuev Salovdi (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the author of these articles with weak sources, after the articles are taken out of drafts or tested, he adds there without sources Ingush. Note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.131.186 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being a folk tale is not a reason for deletion, as long as the article describes it as such. Being a hoax on the other hand, is. 151.188.137.191 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So a biased folk tale can be turned into a wikipedia article? a folk tale that has no proof of happening in either archeological report or military report? We might as well add Chechen victories over French as a battle since such a folk tale exists among certain Chechen clans, also we can add this French defeat in the "list of battles involving France". If we set a precedent of creating wikipedia battles based on a folk tale by an elder then we would have thousands of fantastical battles. It is better to add this story as a text in larger article instead of devoting a whole article on it. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article does not have significance and authoritative sources, then this is a clear forgery of information. Then let's write articles about all the people in the world, just for quantity. Then no one will catch up with the English Wikipedia by articles. I understand you are allowed to write everything here, in Russian you were forbidden to publish it. --Товболатов (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax Ioe bidome (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - I can't review the Cyrillic sources provided, and Google doesn't turn up any results for a battle at Assa river. However, Google does produce results suggesting a historical conflict did occur between the Ingush and either the Chechens or the Kabardians (possibly either or both as puppets of the Russians) around the 15th or 16th centuries, and the Ingush were traditionally located in the Assa river valley. Whether this article is about a historical battle, or about a national legend concerning the battle, either one can be notable and encyclopedia-worthy but better sourcing is needed. We write about legendary not-necessarily-historical battles all the time if there is appropriate sourcing; the Trojan War is a famous example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chechen-Ingush battles against each other and Kabardins did happen there is no doubt about that but this supposed battle has very few sources supporting it and even they are just hearsay and folk tale from an elder. I wouldn't compare this to the Trojan wars which has several sources including ancient ones talking about it, the legend of Trojan wars is so ancient and talked about for hundreds if not thousands of years, so even if it didn't happen it's still a famous story worthy of its own page. The "battle for Assa" (a modern name for it) is nothing but a story that wasn't even widespread among Chechens, at best it should be mentioned as a text in a greater article about Ingush. It doesn't deserve an article dedicated to it in my opinion, the creater of the article now agrees with me and is even looking for ways to delete it. You can check in my talk page where we had a talk about it. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil Uí Chéadaigh

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

Non-notable primary school. No indication that the subject school meets WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Appears to be a relatively normal primary school that is similar to any other. School hasn't been the subject of any national news coverage (nothing returned in searches in Irish Times, or Irish Examiner or on RTÉ website) and the results in the Independent stable of newspapers is all relatively light coverage in the local Bray People paper. And even that includes mostly ROTM notices and passing mentions that do not contribute to notability. While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES might suggest redirecting the title to Bray, County Wicklow article, I'm not sure that's the best approach (as there are well over a dozen schools in the area, and unclear why this one is any different from others). Would also result in something of an EASTEREGG. Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tried to find some in-depth sources, but failed miserably. Only listings, related sources or passing mentions. Even a link to the education section of Bray seems overdone. The Banner talk 13:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are two sources from Irish Times listed on ProQuest, dated 1999 and 2000, describing this primary school's early challenges to find an adequate location: Big demand for places at Bray's second gaelscoil With the demand for places at gaelscoileanna growing by the day, Jamie Smyth visited one Bray school which is desperately seeking alternative accommodation, and New home found for Bray gaelscoil. Proquest lists abstracts of another 25 articles, but they appear to include only passing mentions of this primary school (sporting events, listings for various clubs meeting there, etc.), but nothing appearing to rise to the level of RS for notability, and besides, we seldom keep articles about primary schools. I do think it's worth a redirect to Bray,_County_Wicklow#Education as one of two Irish-language schools in the county. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woolton (ship)

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

I redirected three articles (Woolton (1774 ship), Woolton (1786 ship) and Woolton (1804 ship)) to this article, and User:Martin of Sheffield then merged them.

However, neither of the three is notable, and while the second one replaced the lost first one, there seems to be no link with the third one. If the individual ships aren't notable, having a "list" which is just a sequence of three articles isn't any better. There are no sources about "ships called Woolton", it's not a topic of interest as such. Such a list where at least one ship is notable and has its own article may perhaps be useful, but if none of them warrant an article, then a group of articles masquerading as a list is equally unwarranted. Fram (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the articles because Fram considered the individual stubs to be of no interest (to him) but did decide to keep the list (including circular redirects). A bare list is of no use to anyone checking up on the details of the ships whereas including the information from the stubs makes a useful resource. The work has been properly cited (Lloyd's Register and four other sources). The 1804 ship is of particular interest being involved in the slave trade right at the end (indeed she was wrecked in the same year that the Slave Trade Act 1807 was passed). Individuals' interpretation of WP:NOTABLE is notoriously idiosyncratic, let alone whether or not one finds it "not a topic of interest". I suspect that this is a classic disagreement between Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia.
In short, having decided to set up a redirects to an article it seems a little odd to now be trying to delete the self-same article because it has been improved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised at the time that the redirects meant that no individual entries were left. The sources are primary (Lloyds, usually passing mentions) and databases, none of the ships have significant coverage in secondary sources (if I missed any, please list it here). Fram (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the content needs reducing it is a set index article which are created for all ships having a common name Lyndaship (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a set index is not sufficient reason to keep an article, in a case like here were none of the individual entries are notable, the group has had to have received some attention. We wouldn't accept a set index of bakers called John Smith even if we could verify the existence of a few of them, something more is needed to be an acceptable set list. Fram (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I refer you to WP:CSC in particular Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles Lyndaship (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That doesn't mean that you can have a list where every entry fails the notability criteria, and the list topic as a whole hasn't received attention. Otherwise one can create lists for everything that is verifiable, without any other care about any notability whatsoever. Fram (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't agree with the proposer's interpretation of WP:CSC; to do so negates the whole purpose of ship name lists. They serve the interests of readers seeking information about a particular ship named Xyz - that is not a contrived request, it is exactly what readers do. These ship ilst not only point readers to any that have existing articles (as a dab page would), but also inform that there are other examples of the name about which verified information on their activities and characteristics is available, even if limited. In many cases more detailed information can be present in other articles which can be signposted (eg participation in events or activities, shipbuilder articles, wrecks).
Observation. This seems to be a new tactic to evade established due process for deletion via WP:AFD, in this case, three articles - for example Woolton (1786 ship): (1) delete all the content and convert to redirect, (2) propose the deletion of the target article, (3) if latter successful, the redirects will fall (together with the original page histories). The first stage is directly contrary to WP:BLANK. Davidships (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did seem an odd way to do things. Whether he was right or not, one person can convert an article into a simple redirect without the need for AFD or even speedy delete. That's why I sought to preserve the information, which I'd come across a year or two ago when specifically looking for Woolton (1774). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator stands correct in their criticism. Even then, the conclusion to delete is wrong. These lists should be short, about 2-3 lines per ship and include REFERENCES. The references is what we NEED to merge after an AFD does not end in keep. Not entire articles because these entries are NOT regular articles in which every section is a chapter. Otherwise, the texts of the merged/redirected can be used to improve the existent description but NOT to significantly extend descriptions! These are LISTS in which the name connection is enough to list the vessels and only to list and briefly describe them! So NO to delete as this should be fixed under WP:SOFIXIT. Even so, THIS 1 AfD is justified to create a consensus around these lists. gidonb (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been trimmed back to a normal list since writing the opinion above. So now no objection to the existence of the article and almost no problems with the execution. I would still like to have at least one reference to the historicity for each vessel. gidonb (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there were references to the vessels — on the pages that Fram deleted. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martin of Sheffield, correct. We need these (also) in the lists. One reference per vessel is the absolute minimum. Ideally, we will be able to reference each sentence through multiple sources. gidonb (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote out stuff which was lost when I hit save, but obviously keep, anyhow. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we can easily underestimate the utility of these ship indexes. The existence of many vessels with the same name, at the same time, sailing in the same areas, and frequently of similar size, gives rise to confusion. I have seen references to vessels in histories of stamps, in histories of railways, biographies, in catalogs of auctions of marine paintings, in genealogies, local histories, and the like. Many people don't realize that not all British vessels are "HMS", or that two vessels with the same name are not the same vessel. I have just corrected the article on George Hibbert because the vessel George Hibbert (1803 ship) was not the relevant "The Hibbert" of the article. It is also important to preserve references. References don't only verify, they also point readers to where one might find more information. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with previous comment. --Broichmore (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. As per above. No point keeping this open. Desertarun (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any indication which policy allows pages where neither the group nor the individual entries are actually notable? Because this would basically allow any and all lists as long as they are verifiable and the entries have something in common. List of streets named "Rue Jean Jaurès"? There are dozens of them, and they have two things in common (the name and being a street) and are easily verifiable. What's the difference between such a list and this one? Fram (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Written texts often don't give the year ships are built or many details about them. They merely write Woolton, and when there are several ships with this name it becomes a headache tracking down which ship is being referred to. Ergo ~ these lists are encyclopaedic and useful academic resources. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, no policy at all then, just WP:ITSUSEFUL? Fram (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • See WP:CSC. Desertarun (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about going with wp:con and wp:iar and just moving on? (jmho) - wolf 12:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, not just useful, the content is also encyclopaedic, ie the kind of information expected to be found in an encyclopaedia. Similar information is widely included in this encyclopedia, in some cases there is sufficient for an individual ship to meet WP's criteria for a stand-alone article, sometimes there isn't, or sometimes an article has not yet been written. The whole point of ship name set lists (as, for example, with the lists of shipwrecks) is to present information that is available and verifiable, in a form that is useful to readers. This is reflected in a common view in AfD reviews on similar cases that, where consensus is for deletion, it should be on the basis of a merge. It is not a requirement that such lists comprise only those ships that have a fuller treatment in their own articles or elsewhere, nor is there any logic in the existance of such a list depending on the happenchance of one or more of that name having its own article. The WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument is no more convincing than its converse would be. Davidships (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've seen from other examples what a page like this can be built into. - wolf 12:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful set index, per others. There is coverage of the 1885 ship here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert A. Rogers

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

There is no mention of this on Google Scholar. I found some WP:PASSING mentions from reliable independent sources on Google books, but that is about it.

The subject clearly does not meet WP:BIO (being the centre of multiple independent reliable sources over time, being remarkable) and therefore should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. Veverve (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Google newspapers have a hits on other people with this name, nothing about a bishop for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I understand Old Catholic to be a significant denomination, accordingly one of its archbishops ought to be notable. However I have no means of finding out how many Old Catholic congregations there were in New York at the time, so that I have little indication how many members he was overseeing. A lack of mentions in Google Scholar for a cleric in pastoral ministry is not significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that GNG and BIO do not apply if the subject is claimed to be Old Catholic? Otherwise, do you have any proof of notability for the subject? Veverve (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find any independent sources with significant biographical information. There is the one naorcc source with some information, but it is a publication of the church he was part of. There are some non-reliable sources, like the PRA World Biographical Encyclopedia, which seems can be edited by anyone. I wouldn't expect to find him in Google Scholar, but Peterkingiron, can you suggest where we might find reliable sources for an archbishop? Lamona (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatrabali Singh (politician)

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

Was deprodded that as a member of Zila Panchayat, that confers notability. However, not sure that being a member of that body meets WP:NPOL. And there is not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upward communication

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

No sources. -- Beland (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. no sources, WP:GNG not met. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search reveals this is a concept with a long-standing history in business and management theory, dating back to at least the 1960s. I will add some sources to the article.JohnmgKing (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or at least Draftify. As currently written, the article is facile and includes speculation, "This type of communication is becoming more popular." Of course, any organization has upward communication, downward communication, and lateral communication. Rhadow (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources JohnmgKing have added to the article demonstrate that this concept meets WP:GNG. It certainly needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. WJ94 (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the journal articles added, now at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loon (yacht)

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

This reads like an advertisement for a charter yacht, probably because that's exactly what it is. It doesn't establish the notability of the boat. It only serves to promote the product.

I did PROD this, but the article creator who has made few other edits removed the PROD notice as is his right. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this advertisement. There is nothing notable about this boat, aside from its size, and likely, its price per day. The reference websites are PR engines failing independent, not journalism. Ask yourself whether any of the attributed authors of articles have actually seen the Loon, failing reliable. Rhadow (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite a raft of sources in the article, all have issues with independence and reliability being largely promotional pieces. The article as written fails WP:PROMO, so even if reliable secondary sources could be found, there's nothing here of value worth keeping. WJ94 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I should have SD-nominated it instead of PROD'ing it in the first place. Perhaps a friendly admin will come along and closed this AfD early - if there is such a thing...--10mmsocket (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obvious advertisement wholly unfit for an encyclopedia. Clear failure to assert any real notability, just a bunch of promo for sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is advertising. Most of the work on this article was paid work by Global Superyacht Marketing. It fails independent, reliable and secondary source. There are plenty of yacht directories. WP need not be another. Rhadow (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not the article was written for money/as an advertisement, there is significant coverage in independent sources: Forbes and Business Insider, for example. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As pointed out by 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆, there is no lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:COI is a concern and warrants extra scrutiny. Having scrutinized this situation: Loon (yacht) can easily be cleaned up. Absolutely no need for WP:TNT! gidonb (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a near WP:G11 by a (declared at least) paid editor, with no prejudice to recreation by an uninvolved editor with significant sources. Jumpytoo Talk 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - consensus is that this person is not independently notable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Villa

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

A previous article on this subject was deleted at AfD in November 2020. Regarding this current instance, it falls under the same concerns as before, as to whether coverage which is predominantly about the Yokkao company also establishes biographical notability for the individual. The coverage is mixed: some appears to be coverage originated from the company (Forbes/Ascend Brandvoice, Digital Journal/PRshouts, Muay Thai Citizen - which also features the photo cropped here as "own work"), and CNNMoney mentions the company but not the individual. A redirect to Yokkao could be an alternative, though as DGG noted in the earlier AfD, that article may also need some attention. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Samanthajjo: Notability is not inherited. Anarchyte (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be sufficient coverage to meet GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although articles talk about him in relation to his company's products, none of them give more than shallow marketing information about his love of his sport, etc. and how that fits into his business. All of this makes more sense on the article for his company as the motivation behind his designs. And I agree that the Yokkao article is WAAAY over the top, with lists of every related event, etc., most of which is un-referenced. Lamona (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is simply not enough in-depth coverage about him, and not his company, to meet WP:GNG. Redirect to the company would also be okay as per ATD.Onel5969 TT me 17:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional and non-notable. Anarchyte (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Français MLF d'Al Khobar

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No significant coverage LibStar (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Kage Baker. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zeus Inc.

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

Zero sources cited except for a Google Maps link, and unsure what the notability claim here actually is. Page appears to comprise only OR. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to author, Kage Baker and someone can merge anything they can untangle and source. If anyone finds any sources indicating notability, feel free to ping me. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, in the absence of an article to the potentially notable Company series, to Kage Baker#Novels set in the Company universe. There are actually number of secondary sources on Dr. Zeus Inc. (e.g. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]), [35]), but all I could see in a limited search were rather short. So I think this should be expanded from the very limited information in the Kage Baker article, but I am not sure it can support a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete or perhaps redirect to the author's page. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, echoing Jclemens. This isn't a merge candidate - it's gigantic and unsourced. -- asilvering (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pull my finger

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

WP:NOTDIC. Aside from dictionary entries the only academic source I could find was The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren by Iona and Peter Opie, though both mentions of the phrase appear to be unrelated to this meaning. There was some non-academic coverage such as from Jim Dawson who appears to be more of a humor writer rather than a subject matter expert. Otherwise I don't see anything that makes this subject encyclopedic. QuietHere (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is the Opie book. The two mentions are on pages 61 and 406. If there's a way to link directly to specific pages from Google Books then I don't know/remember it. QuietHere (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any significant coverage, also the first AfD is laughable. (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't even see that one. Golly, those arguments are so persuasive! I should just withdraw right now!
That, of course, was sarcasm. Wow, 2005 WP sure was a time, huh. QuietHere (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull my finger! No, this is not notable. Delete for any kind of sourcing on the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator. CT55555(talk) 05:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Expansion of the article has addressed the concerns in the nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Martin (broadcaster)

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

Fifteen years without a reliable source for a subject with a thin claim to notability in the first place is more than enough. BD2412 T 05:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venkoji Koli

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

This has been redirected several times. There is zero in-depth coverage of this individual, and zero of the information in the article is verified in the sources, other than the threat to cut communications. According to the current sources. there was an individual named Venkoji who was a clan chief of the Koli, but that, in and of itself, is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, article seems not suitable.--Doctorlimp (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find only passing mentions in English, and nothing sufficient to support a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez

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

Non-notable academic. Her IEEE page only shows 2 publications with 9 citations [36]. Sources used include her resume and her work bio, appears more like a LinkedIn biography than a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator, per WP:PROF#C3. We only just today closed an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Alagón Cano, in which there was overwhelming support for a keep, with most participants (including me) basing that opinion primarily on the fact that that he is a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. Rodríguez-Vázquez is also a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences; in fact, that's why I created the article on her. (The Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz Recognition prevents that from being the sole reason for notability but I don't think it would be enough by itself.) The standards for admission to the Mexican Academy are lower than they would be in a first world country but they are still very selective among the much larger number of academics in Mexico (I think in terms of absolute number of members they are similar to the US National Academy of Sciences). Incidentally, although she has published under the names "Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez" and "K. Rodríguez-Vázquez", her better-cited publications appear to be under "Katya Rodríguez" (I didn't try "K. Rodríguez" because I imagine there would be huge numbers of false positives): 145 citations on Google Scholar for "Identifying the structure of nonlinear dynamic systems using multiobjective genetic programming" (as first author), 112 for "Classification of DNA microarrays using artificial neural networks and ABC algorithm", 79 for "Multiobjective genetic programming: A nonlinear system identification application" (as first author), etc. This would not be enough to convince me of notability just based on the numbers, but it gives a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1 and suggests that your searches for publications were looking in the wrong place. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:PROF based on being a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. TJMSmith (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz Recognition gives an arguable WP:ANYBIO pass, plus all the rest makes me comfortable to !vote keep. CT55555(talk) 15:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I buy the Mexican Academy of Sciences as a pass of WP:NPROF C3. Comment that although the subject here doesn't have a Google Scholar profile (and has a name that can be tricky to search for), the citations on Scopus are reasonably solid, and help support MAS as the kind of fellowship meeting C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be sufficient coverage to meet GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Regina Farmer

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

Little to no third party coverage as far as I can tell. Likely to fail WP:NBIO KH-1 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable individual, I find no mentions of them in Gnews or Scholar, I don't think the positions held for the Nursing association are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've made some improvements to the article. Note that she seems mostly known as "Jennifer R. Farmer", especially as an author. I was unable to verify the award, there is one good review of one of her books, but I'm still undecided on notability. As the article stands, I think WP:BASIC is probably the best way to establish notability. CT55555(talk) 15:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find the sources needed to meet NAUTHOR. There are minor book reviews, as in Publisher's Weekly's one paragraph. The main source about her, Hollywood Times, is an interview. I realize that her niche as a Black women writing about PR from a Christian perspective makes proving notability difficult. I'm willing to be persuaded. Lamona (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see a consensus here to Keep this article. Any discussion of turning this page into a Redirect can occur on the article talk page. I don't see the advantage of having a newly created Draft article on the same subject so perhaps that should be tagged for speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wyver

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

Non-notable small nature reserve. Article has no references and has been tagged as such for a decade. Searches just find tourist guides and so on which only indicate that the reserve exists but don't give any detail of its history or anything to indicate it's more notable than any other small area of land used for conservation purposes. Neiltonks (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reserve is fairly well known, at least in a Derbyshire context (Derbyshire Wildlife Trust page calls it "one of the Trust's most important wetland reserves"). There are articles for Cheshire Wildlife Trust reserves of similar notability (e.g. Warburton's Wood Nature Reserve). References doubtless exist for Wyver Lane (notably official DWT page); better to improve the referencing than delete. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it seems to me that the best solution for all of the Trust's holdings would be a list with relelvant data and a summary within its article. That said, the curent content of the article is entirely OR and isn't mergeable as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be notable per WP:GEOFEAT but it isn't an SSSI so I'm not sure it qualifies as "protected status". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wyver isn't just the reserve, it's a wider locality too, much of the area to the west of the Derwent river. Formally recognised as a place name by ONS and OS, other local features use it as a prefix (lane, farm, wood), the farm in particular dating back to at least the 14th century, and later associated to the nearby mills. Could expand by adding non-reserve detail and as mentioned add some refs. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can those wanting to Keep this article locate a few reliable sources that can be used to establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the area is completely within the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.
Several listed buildings are in Wyver including the aforementioned farm - Listed buildings in Belper - links and sources of those are within.
The lane has a historic connection to the owners of the Belper mills https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR15538
Local quarries existed - https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR13561 https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR13562 The Equalizer (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keep arguments. Libcub (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. Outside of the official website, I can't find any significant coverage online. The sources provided by the Equalizer relate only to surrounding features, not to the reserve which is the subject of the article. Possibly sources do exist in local libraries and such, hence I suggest redirecting rather than deleting, to preserve the content. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The content might be predominantly for the reserve, but the title of the article isn't reserve specific.
    Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a pretty exhaustive search for sources to use in this article and couldn’t find anything substantial enough to merit having an article for it. Therefore it doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Serratra (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. A user only contributing 55 edits, account created in 2021 yet first used in 2023? WP:SLEEPER is not encouraged. Already editors are questioning some of those edits on your talk page? Also an account created as on your talk page note to review articles for deletion? Only? No article improvements or contributions? Feels like a sock puppet account, which is discouraged too as WP:SOCK. I think editors should be aware of these when considering your comment. The Equalizer (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:The Equalizer, it was just another sock. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thought as much, how shady, they even cleared their talk page after I mentioned it, presumably to delete evidence. Thanks for confirming. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty positive so I created Draft:Wyver if anyone wants to help bring it up to the required standard alongside me... I've already begun.
Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marine vertebrate

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

I am nominating this very cautiously given the length and mostly well-sourced content, but there is simply no use for an article on such a topic. Many of the species discussed here are not particularly closely related beyond being vertebrates, nor do they have similar modes of existence beyond living in the ocean. There is nothing that could ever be included here that would not fit better into another article and it could never read as anything other than WP:SYNTH of marginally related subtopics. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even the most superficial of searches shows that this is a topic with reams of available reliable sources that focus on marine vertebrates as a specific class of animal. Therefore it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia, regardless of overlap it has with other topics. Here is just a small selection from the first pages of book and scholar searches:
  • Sydeman, William J.; Poloczanska, Elvira; Reed, Thomas E.; Thompson, Sarah Ann (2015-11-13). "Climate change and marine vertebrates". Science. 350 (6262): 772–777. doi:10.1126/science.aac9874. ISSN 0036-8075.
  • López‐Martínez, Sergio; Morales‐Caselles, Carmen; Kadar, Julianna; Rivas, Marga L. "Overview of global status of plastic presence in marine vertebrates". Global Change Biology. 27 (4): 728–737. doi:10.1111/gcb.15416. ISSN 1354-1013.
  • Aguirre, A. Alonso; Tabor, Gary M. (2004-09-01). "Introduction: Marine Vertebrates as Sentinels of Marine Ecosystem Health". EcoHealth. 1 (3): 236–238. doi:10.1007/s10393-004-0091-9. ISSN 1612-9210.
  • Burger, Joanna (1988). Seabirds & Other Marine Vertebrates: Competition, Predation, and Other Interactions. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-06362-3.
  • Rossi-Santos, Marcos R.; Finkl, Charles W. (2017-08-10). Advances in Marine Vertebrate Research in Latin America: Technological Innovation and Conservation. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-56985-7.
Jfire (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This strikes me as a fine broad-concept article - a collection of short summaries leading off to in-depth treatement in more specialized articles, and wanted in preference of disambiguations where the topic has sufficient depth. See Wikipedia:Broad-concept article for these tenets. (I do not believe it is necessary to list examples for the term being in use, as done above, as that is trivially obvious and we could fill the page with related textbooks and articles.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A common enough individual subject in online searches and in books etc., just because a topic has a wide subject matter does not seem to warrant deletion but are ideal overview articles.Hardyplants (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not piling on for the notability reasoning but to maybe explain why such a grouping is useful. The references that Jfire posts above are all from global change biology, and 'marine vertebrates' as a grouping are useful to explain how ecosystem changes may affect large-bodied taxa (as distinct from e.g. algae/plankton) amongst a broad range of phyla. Consider similarly Megafauna which are also very different species but are usefully classed together to explain their gradual disappearance from the modern day. It shouldn't be seen as a systematic group.
I agree there's something up with the article that very few of the references actually act to explain the concept of "marine vertebrates". The article just provides examples of some vertebrates that live in the sea, not that "marine vertebrates" is a ecologically-meaningful/useful grouping. Maybe I could start rewriting it with the references Jfire has provided above. Thanks all. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While not monophyletic, Marine Vertebrates are a broadly used grouping of organisms which warrant a common discussion. See also the useful page on Flying and gliding animals or Marine fungi.
Ababaian (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm closing this discussion as Keep as that is the opinion of the majority of editors here. It would help if those editors wanting to keep this article worked on improving the article and its sourcing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Farquharson

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

Spammy content, not even clear if its sourced (has two external links but because of the giant WP:WALLOFTEXT in the body I can't verify if they are actually references or not). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Order of Canada would be notable, but I can't find any detailed sourcing about him. This very brief bio [37] from a reputable organization gives us hints that he is notable. Most coverage is likely to be found around the Bre-X scandal, which is likely in mostly paper sources, based on how long ago it was. Either way, we need to TNT this wall of text and get some proper sourcing happening with in-line citations and an infobox. Could perhaps ask someone on Wiki Project Canada (I think it is) if they can take a stab at this person's article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note on the project talk page (item 25 in the list) [38], we'll see if it helps. Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My vague feeling is that the Order of Canada makes him notable, but then again he received it in a ceremony with 130+ other people per the Governor General's website. So maybe even that doesn't qualify him. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only those statements that can be confirmed in sources. There is an obit which is partial but the full one is behind a paywall. There's a short obit in the Globe and Mail that might yield more bio facts. He has a few publications, none of which are heavily cited but which could be mentioned. For the philanthropic section, I find just a few references to a fellowship under his name but these are all in the area of medicine and I cannot determine if it is him or someone else of the same name. Lamona (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something much better than this. There are things here (Order of Canada) that would be valid notability claims if they were sourced properly, but there's nothing that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of sources for the Order of Canada (1 and 2 for example). Mooonswimmer 19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Securing the notability of an Order of Canada recipient does not hinge on just offering simple verification in Order of Canada listicles of the fact of his appointment to the Order — that's obviously necessary, but it isn't in and of itself sufficient. What has to be shown is not just the fact of the OC itself, but pre-OC coverage in the context of the work that he did to earn appointment to the OC in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got quite a few hits on Newspapers.com. Relatively significant coverage in papers such as The National Post mostly in the context of the Bre-X scandal as Oaktree b mentioned above. Mooonswimmer 20:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 1993 National Post article describes him as "best-known for leading the investigation that identified Bre-X as a fraud" and notes that he is a member of the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame. This one describes him as "instrumental in exposing the salting scandal at Bre-X Minerals Ltd." while this article describes him as "the man who put the final nail in the coffin of Bre-X". Multiple articles refer to him as the president of various mining companies, including Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. and Nanisivik Mines Ltd, while this one mentions his appointment as board member of Placer Dome. Mooonswimmer 19:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on these sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I figure there are more sources "out there". Almost the whole article is sourced with one source but there doesn't appear to be a plagiarism or copyvio issue. There is a large "wall of text" (per Oaktree b) that needs sourcing or trimming. Aside from contributions to the mining industry, the subject's philanthropy includes the Physicians' Services Incorporated (PSI) Graham Farquharson Knowledge Translation Fellowship, that, among other things, funded research at the University of Toronto and the Anna-Liisa Farquharson Chair in Kidney Cancer Research at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think there is enough to warrant a page, although if it survives it may require cutting back if someone doesn't add a HEY.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist after no comments after the last relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs work but subject's role in Bre-X along with the order of Canada should pass notability. [39] [40] [41] LizardJr8 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as No consensus as opinion is evenly split and there has been no additional participation has come from the prior two relistings. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Gabet

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

Unclear whether this passes WP:N, and when combined with systematic issues of a poorly written page with the most of skeletal sources, deletion seems to be the best solution. Maximilian775 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sourcing isn't stellar but I found enough to build up a short encyclopedic entry ([42], [43], [44]). However, the independence and reliability of these sources are sorta on the edge, so consider this a very, very weak keep from me. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep not sure how North American district superior ( US and Canada) equates to the role of a Bishop, possibly superior. Also reliable sources coverage has been identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The past head of Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, an organisation with a clerical membership of 542, does not seem to be to have an authority similar to a bishop. Examination of that article shows that the superiors-general have articles, but none of the current four district superiors do, which suggests to be that the position is not WP-notable. Apart from this he appears to be a run-of-the-mill parish priest, no doubt a worthy man but NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is mostly routine. The article in Today's Catholic is from his home town, and can't be considered independent. BruceThomson (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Lesca

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

As a microstub that duplicates a database violates WP:NOTDATABASE. Violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 due to the lack of sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search found no suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konjam Pesinaal Yenna

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

Unreleased film that fails to establish notability. Unlike other unreleased Tamil films, this film did not have its entire soundtrack released. This film is only notable if it releases and either should be moved to the draftspace or deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft for development of sources indicating release of the film and consequent notability. If no improvement is forthcoming, it will be deleted as a matter of course. BD2412 T 02:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'd ordinarily do a procedural close for an AFD nomination that doesn't provide a deletion rationale. But the lack of one hasn't fazed six editors who believe the article should be deleted so I'll abide by consensus and close this as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delfino Agencies

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

I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delet MumQuin (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If you look only at the references, you would conclude that the article is about Bryan 'Mack Delfino' Roberts. Some references don't even mention Delfino Agencies. A transcript of an interview is a WP:primary source. The article is a PR piece. Rhadow (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or improve, as of now I only see 1 eligible source, being https://www.ecurrent.com/music/mack-delfino-showcase-and-more-monger/ Officialangrydub (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional article which does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 17:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dolphin Tale 2. I selected this redirect target because two editors mentioned it while the other target only got one mention. But if is a better options, please bring it up on the redirect talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope (dolphin)

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

Not seeing any sources other than her connection to her more famous companion, Winter (dolphin). A redirect to Dolphin Tale 2 would probably be best. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as noted by The Grid above. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Lacks significant coverage. Not even any interviews... Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Thumbprint

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

Creator Tanbircdq felt we should have an article on this book and its author, whereas Usernamekiran and St.teresa each thought both subjects non-notable. The four-year-old notability tags should not become permanent badges of shame, so I invite discussion.

The bulk of Wikipedia's critical response section is capsule comments from flap copy. The one cited review is based heavily on an interview with author Akbar.[45] One could read WP:NBOOK as discounting it for book notability purposes as a publication where the author speaks about the book. I found only one other non-trivial review.[46] (page 8) That reviewer published a book with the same publisher the following year, a book which was launched at the Dhaka Literary Festival (organized by Akbar), which muddies the question of independence.

The only other source of any depth is British Bangladeshi Who's Who,[47] a type of publication often discounted when evaluating notability on the grounds that their capsule bios are based on information supplied by the subjects, and self-promotion is not the road to a Wikipedia article.

More recently (2021), Akbar has been mentioned briefly in Brill's Journal of World Literature in a list of "young and emerging Bangladeshi poets".[48] This characterization suggests that a Wikipedia article about him may be WP:TOOSOON. Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only things I find are for Haddock fish, for which this is a slang term apparently. Lots of quotes from other notable individuals in the article, but all are un-sourced, so this almost seems like fluffy promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Sjoberg, Lore (12 December 2006). "After the Punchline". Wired. Retrieved 12 December 2006.
  2. ^ Kitty, RP (27 May 2005). "Review of GURPS Casey & Andy". RPGnet. Retrieved 27 May 2005.
  3. ^ Beal, Jake. Review: If I Were An Evil Overlord. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Science Fiction Society, 31 May 2007.
  4. ^ Lefebvre, Eliot (29 October 2010). "Storyboard: Roleplaying in MMOs: The Unshuffled Mortal Coil". Engadget. Retrieved 29 October 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_3&oldid=1138679455"