Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 27

< January 26 January 28 >

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iodosilane

Iodosilane (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)

Declined prod (proposed deletion). This page does not indicate its notability. Also iodosilane is not significant enough. Mast303 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep It's covered in three peer-reviewed journals, one explaining the microwave spectra of the compound. That's about as detailed as you could want for a compound. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and dozens of citations and articles in Gscholar about the compound and various reactions it undergoes, dating back to at least 1984. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close No way this is going to be deleted. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI about the nominator being a sock (which is pretty obvious) and being disruptive. This silly nomination does not look good in this respect. --Cavarrone 16:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this deletion nomination. Mast303 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melrose Bickerstaff

AfDs for this article:
Melrose Bickerstaff (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 13 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! 23:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the article is an absolute mess of primary sources, unreliable sources and passing mentions, and a search brought up nothing better. Clear WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Devonian Wombat lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have tended to keep the winner, place, and show of major reality shows. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your link doesn't talk about winners of reality shows. But see WP:TOP4 which says that who wins is not the issue. BruceThomson (talk) 06:01, 30 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! 23:04, 27 January 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. As this is primarily due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okechukwu Amah

Okechukwu Amah (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)

Promotional biography of a living person. Does not meet the general notability guidelines for academics. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:38, 6 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) 19:11, 13 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! 20:58, 20 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! 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I considered nominating this myself but held off because of the Google scholar citation indicators which seemed solid. Maybe borderline but I’m not convinced deletion is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sort of article, a primary-sourced listing of career milestones, is ok for academics who pass WP:PROF, but not ok if we are aiming for notability through WP:GNG; in that case, we need instead in-depth reliable independent secondary sources, and we don't have those. But I don't think he passes WP:PROF either: the citation record, while respectable, is not enough to convince me of passing WP:PROF#C1. "He seems to have published a lot" is not a notability criterion. His managerial and administrative roles are not high enough for notability that way. And I see nothing else that could even be a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 30 January 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 17:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers

List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers (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)

Though an interesting topic, this fails WP:NOTSTATS, as this article is simply a database / directory of everyone who has scored a goal in the World Cup. The first two sections should be kept somewhere, but the country by country tally of goals scored should be removed.

This article could be improved to just list the top scorers of each country, but we do not need to list the 2 players who have scored for Iceland, or the one player who has scored for Bolivia. Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per NOTSTATS. We already have FIFA World Cup top goalscorers which is a notable topic and covers it sufficiently. GiantSnowman 11:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Snowman. Sorry, Alphonso. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:TRIVIA. The only encyclopedic content is already covered at FIFA World Cup top goalscorers, which isn't a random intersection of pointless stats like this is. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Goalscorers are unsourced. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this article gets deleted, there are similar articles that should also be considered: List of FIFA Women's World Cup goalscorers, List of FIFA Confederations Cup goalscorers, List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers, List of UEFA Nations League Finals goalscorers, List of CONCACAF Gold Cup goalscorers, List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers. Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They all sound like good candidates for deletion too, for the same reasons as this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree, I know many journalist and pundits who use these for statistical analysis, where do I go for complete lists of goals scorers per country? Scoring just at single goal at a World Cup is a life defining achievement for these Men and women HazardsRabona (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NLIST as an important statistic and an exclusive list. Not every statistic is NOTSTATS. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman and WP:NOTSTATS. Angelo (talk) 16:34, 1 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 per WP:CSK #1(3). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Henry

Lee Henry (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 doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete no charted singles, no critical notice of their work. Not passing MUSIC or even GNG. Nothing turns up in Google, they appear to have faded away. We wish them well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After some digging - it would appear that they havent faded away but changed moniker - see Lukas Setto as current artist name. There is recent coverage here on Lukas Setto: deep tech mag. More coverage: [1] and [2]. I've added to the article with further refs. This one needs more research ResonantDistortion 08:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary source for the multiple monikers [https://www.soulandjazzandfunk.com/news/doing-it-again/]. There's coverage out there for Lukas Setto should be sufficient for WP:GNG. pinging @Boleyn and @Oaktree b for reassessment. ResonantDistortion 09:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that seems sufficient for GNG. Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same - Keep - based upon several new sources found which are significant coverage and independent, and quite possibly a bit of WP:HEY ResonantDistortion 22:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has plenty of reliable sources. NYC Guru (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination after the excellent work done on this has shown he is notable. Thanks, everyone, for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Good improvements. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 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. Star Mississippi 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Esteba

Manuel Esteba (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 doesn't meet WP:N and has been tagged as such for more than a decade. Working in the entertainment field, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Spain. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is a difficult one to source online given the time period and language barriers, but I see indications that sources are available. He has entries (albeit brief) in Directores de cine en Cataluña: de la A a la Z and Alicantinos en el cine. Cineastas en Alicante, suggesting to me that a diligent editor, especially one who speaks Spanish or is familiar with Spanish cinema of the 60s-80s could turn up other sources. Searches using his full name "Manuel Esteba Gallego" and combining it with names of some of his works shows additional potential. Jfire (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although it is a bit difficult to get references in English when looking in the Spanish version you can find better sources. Franco98silva (talk) 00:35, 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.
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. SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mvqr (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Flattery

Willie Flattery (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 former NFL player. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Flattery played 16 games in the National Football League, all but two as a starter, and received much coverage as he was regarded as one of the greatest tackles in the area: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] etc. IAR if not GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 16 games in the NFL (with 14 of them being starts) easily meets WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I should probably have just closed this one given that BeanieFan11 has demonstrated SIGCOV. I sincerely hope that the OP will not continue this batch of poor noms now that he has been made aware that he is creating unnecessary extra work for other editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is improving articles creating "unnecessary work"? Therapyisgood (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this a game to you? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because these are notable articles, and nominating them for deletion is placing a huge strain on me because I have things in real life that I need to do, but I'm not getting them done because I'm too worried that unless I save these articles, they will be deleted! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources found by BeanieFan11. On a sidenote, while Flattery played as a professional, his notability seems to stem from his college career per the sources. Playing in the NFL, especially in its early days, does not equal notability. While the nominator could improve the wording of the nomination, he is not in the wrong with the nomination. Alvaldi (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG clearly. I would further argue that there is no such thing as a "non-notable former NFL player" --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG per sources above and in article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per snow Keep and full notability of the subject, both in college and professional pioneering football. Please hesitate a bit before nomming obviously notable players, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 30 January 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) 18:53, 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]
      • Answering when a user specifically asking for recent similar discussions is not canvassing, that's just being nice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan. Certainly enough to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 19:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage of the subject appears to be presented above in order to meet the GNG notability requirement. Others should stop making claims of "number of games played", which has nothing to do with notability. SilverserenC 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References now in the article are adequate to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources (specifically this one and this one) added to the article include significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. Those sources pre-date his professional career, but being notable as a collegiate athlete still contributes to being notable for purposes of WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:26, 1 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 List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929). There's consensus that the sources are insufficient to support notability, and redirection is an uncontested ATD. This redirect target seems to have the most support; if there's a desire to discuss that issue further, feel free to start an RFD discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Comer (American football)

John Comer (American football) (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 who played in 1 NFL game in 1926. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to vote on this one as of now, but I will say that sources for this individual seem to be lacking tremendously, so a deeper before search will shed some light on whether this one has sufficient sourcing or not. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 21:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on some of the other articles included in this spate of noms, I seriously question if BEFORE was actually performed properly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence do you have that he's notable? Therapyisgood (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have a lot of nerve to demand that I spend time on this when you weren't willing to do any due diligence before nominating. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. That's also how this process works. The article is nominated for deletion because an editor believes it fails GNG. Other editors find sources to confront the nominator, who has a responsibility to do a BEFORE search. If you don't like it, don't participate. If you don't have the temperament to participate constructively in AFD discussions I suggest you bow out. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want to pick a fight with someone, find another target. I'm not impressed with your tactics, and I hope you'll read my comment at your talk page with a slightly more open mind. You may not like what I have to say, but I know how things work around here. As far as this AfD is concerned, I stand by what I've already said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        So much for that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Was unable to find any significant sources during a search, including on Newspapers.com. Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players would be my first choice, otherwise delete. Alvaldi (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep passes WP:GNG and also fits our typical pattern of having articles on NFL football players.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best I could find is this – it seems Comer also played several seasons of pro ball for the Toronto (Ohio) Tigers – this may help in searches. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. Fails GNG as well as WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 5) which mandates that sports bios have at least one piece of SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider if SIGCOV is found and added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:55, 30 January 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) 18:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Being a multi-sport professional athlete is notable. SIGCOV likely exists, but we are limited by what's available to us at the moment on sites like NewsPapers.com. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just letting you know the Toronto Tigers were a football team, so he only played one sport (or did you find something saying he played two?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking my vote, I just don't know. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above, as one of 90 players from the pioneering Canton Bulldogs with encyclopedic articles, and his time with the Toronto Tigers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems several comments were accidentally removed when Hey man I'm josh !voted. I've restored them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @BeanieFan11, I must have been looking at and replying to a previous version when I accidently removed those replies. Sorry about the inconvenience folks. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I had to have been looking at a previous version to miss that I had already voted in this AfD prior to me accidently removing several replies. Thank you for taking special care to not re-add my original vote, as that would have ended up looking like I tried to vote twice. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 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. Saying "sigcov likely exists" is not appropriate for an AfD discussion. This is the place where sigcov needs to be presented, that is the entire point. If it can't be shown, then the subject is non-notable. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of said coverage likely existing without actually having it be presented. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. SilverserenC 01:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of said coverage likely existing without actually having it be presented. – No, they should not be ignored. Saying that coverage is likely to exist (considering the age and topic) is a perfectly valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a valid argument for sportspeople, articles on which are required by WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 to include at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Complete failure to find SIGCOV in RS. My search on newspapers.com has returned only the article Beanie clipped above announcing his contract and another from the same paper mentioning him as one of a few players who left the team. My Google BEFORE is only getting blog posts and databases. LEPRICAVARK's keep is clearly a WP:POINTY stab at the nominator and does not actually address the subject of this article. Randy Kryn's keep seems to be on the basis that some other Canton Bulldogs are notable and the team itself is, but I think WP:NOTINHERITED applies there. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person. That passing mention in a newspaper article is nowhere near enough. I have no objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 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 known 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 evidence of 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 that a redirect to that list would be useful (though the list itself could be improved). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to the redirect target of List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929), as suggested by Levivich below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and also fits our typical pattern of having an articles on a NFL football player who fit under older but now deprecated notability guidelines. Randy Peck (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Indy beetle: PFR: G: 1; GS: 1 – you could afd the list if you really want, but its previously been kept (and I even voted to delete). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck part of my rationale. Secondly, according to the pro-football reference you just provided, his death date was June 28, 1950. There was a "John Hooks Comer", the police chief of Toronto, Ohio, who died that day -> Ap wire. I can't confirm whether these are the same person. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 99.9999% certain they're the same – both John Hooks Comer, and both related to Toronto, OH. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the AP wire treats "Hooks" like a middle name but other sources treat it like a nickname. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. I would be okay with either target. Frank Anchor 21:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to redirecting there. I do suspect that the list is notable inasmuch as WP:NLIST is concerned; I'd be shocked if there haven't been two substantial newspaper articles in the past hundred years about the general group of people who have played in only one NFL game. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929): as the best redirect target, and add his name to the List of Canton Bulldogs players. There is not enough WP:RS biographical information to write an article about this person. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to any of the redirect targets, but the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the most tenuous assertion of notability I can think of (one game? really?) this is not appropriate for a standalone article. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:09, 2 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 a single freaking game 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 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, per the arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete due to lack of SIGCOV. Playing a certain number of games (one, in this case) at a certain level does not satisfy GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect due to lack of SIGCOV, but frankly I'm also OK with getting rid of it entirely. The 2022 NSPORTS discussion decided decisively against participation-based notability criteria, and that's all that exists here. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Advigov

Vladimir Advigov (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 anything outside of database websites or Wikipedia mirrors, no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my searches using his Serbian Cyrillic name. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 27 January 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. The consensus among editors is that coverage of this article subject meets GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Robb

Stan Robb (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 former NFL player who played in 3 games in 1926. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Robb played three games in the NFL (starting all three, and scoring a touchdown, too), played several seasons of pro football in other leagues ([12]), and I find it very likely he has sufficient sigcov to pass gng, as one newspaper wrote that he "gained national repute as one of the fastest ends ever turned out at Centre College" (its just that many old newspapers are not online or available – also, here he is mentioned as being part of a team that would be "the greatest collection of college stars ever seen on a Delaware county gridiron") – He also received numerous mentions in newspapers which I believe could be combined to show notability, under the clause of NBIO which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability": [13] [14] [15] (a decent sized report in the Hartford Courant) [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Sure, they're mostly short, but when I think about the sources, "could I develop a decent biography out of this," I think "yes." I'll try to expand it soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that BeanieFan11 has provided sufficient evidence of SIGCOV. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear pass of [[WP:GNG].--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11's excellent research. These time-sink nominations would be best kept on the drawing board and not added to RfD mainspace, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe BeanieFan11 has demonostrated that SIGCOV exists and that this user is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 30 January 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) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references provided by BeanieFan, making this a pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 20:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources given above do appear to be significant enough coverage to meet the GNG, which is the only notability standard that matters when it comes to sports related biographies. SilverserenC 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the analysis above by BeanieFan11 whose reseach shows that Robb meets WP:BASIC, which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found but not byet in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Canton Bulldogs: because there isn't enough WP:RS material to write a biography of the player. Newspaper reports describing games he played in will turn up a lot of hits for his name in search results, but that's not enough to write a biography. We know very little about this person other than that he played a few games for the Bulldogs; just put that in the article about the Bulldogs, no need for a separate page. Levivich (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I currently have to finish a draft I'm working on (I've got a ton of tabs open and I can't delete them all), but afterwards, I will prove to you that a decent biography can be written of this player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, merging his biography with the Canton article would make no sense – its long enough already and you would need to balance it by adding other biographies, which would make it way too long. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @BeanieFan11: show me a source for Stan Robb like this Boston Globe obit for William Brooks and I'll change my !vote. Good job with the Brooks draft. I think there is enough room in the Canton Bulldogs article to mention significant players (indeed, the article would be incomplete without that), but I'd be fine with merging to List of Canton Bulldogs players as well (which could be expanded with paragraph-long player bios). Levivich (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan. Snow close this. Carrite (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Levivich. We don't accept routine transactional and game coverage for contemporary athletes due to their content being unencyclopedick, and the same type of material doesn't magically become adequate just because it's on an athlete from 100 years ago. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge True, the citations here have more meat than the ones at the Marv Smith article, which are just statistical errata. But still, it is just "well, he's hired" bits in the local paper. Insufficient notability. Zaathras (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Routine game coverage isn't sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 3 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) 17:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Levivich and NSPORTS, no SIGCOV, only participation-based notability=not notable. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 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 redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Smith

Marv Smith (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 WP:BEFORE yields no results. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on some of the other articles included in this spate of noms, I seriously question if BEFORE was actually performed properly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence do you have that he passes WP:GNG? He played in one game in the 1920s. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Was unable to find any significant sources during a search, including on Newspapers.com, only brief trivial mentions. Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players would be my first choice, otherwise delete. Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep passes WP:GNG and matches the pattern of NFL players are normally considered notabile. NFL stats. I'm not suprised that online sources are lacking for a football player from 1921, even online records for Purdue don't go back that far.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per logic above. Pioneering players in the NFL have historical reason to have encyclopedia articles on sites like Wikipedia to provide readers with a fuller collection of significantly related pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes GNG. SIGCOV likely exists, it's not available to us yet on newspapers.com, but may be in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking my vote. I'm not sure how I feel at this point. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 3 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) 18:50, 30 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. And, thus far, no evidence of such sources has been given by anyone above. I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of expected coverage without any of said coverage being presented. If such an action is not heeded by the closer, then I expect I will have to take this to DRV afterwards. SilverserenC 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of expected coverage without any of said coverage being presented. – No, they should not be ignored. Considering the age and topic here, saying that coverage is likely to exist is a valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
      • WP:SPORTSCRIT #5; articles on sportspeople cannot be kept unless significant coverage is proven to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some editor can furnish references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person, as opposed to listing his jersey number and other such trivialities. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. @Paulmcdonald and Hey man im josh: Would you be willing to provide links to the sources (or ways to find print sources) that you believe show that the individual has been significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Red-tailed hawk, I often use NewsPapers.com to try to find print sources. Their archives are constantly growing, but there's still a lot of holes in their database. I believe, based on coverage that's been found in other similar situations, that coverage likely exists but is not yet available to us for Marv Smith. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, a good source of older papers online. When possible, nothing beats "boots on the ground" in the local area, so I have some local libraries I hit from time to time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per logic above. Non notable players in the NFL have no reason to have encyclopedia articles on sites like Wikipedia because without sources we can't provide readers with a full and significant pages. Randy Peck (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC) — Randy Peck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete Editors have claimed that the player meets GNG, but have been unable to provide sources demonstrating this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players or delete. The man played a single game for the Canton Bulldogs in their second season in the American Professional Football Association. There is no evidence of significant coverage presented in this discussion offered except the fact that he played a single game in that league. However, there is a community consensus established in the WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC that There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria... The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. By removing them, editors will need to demonstrate that other SNG criteria or the GNG are met. This is reflected in the current WP:NGRIDIRON, which notes that we should defer to the basic criteria of WP:NSPORT (i.e. significant coverage in multiple independent RS) for guidance on whether an individual is notable, and also that coverage in the sorts of wide-sweeping database sources like PFR does not provide evidence of notability in and of itself. In light of this, I think that this article could be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. failing to adhere to the relevant notability guideline), but should be converted into a redirect as a reasonable alternative to deletion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources, per others. ValarianB (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players per WP:ATD. Hatman31 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a target has been identified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ActivelyDisinterested, Hatman31, Red-tailed hawk, and Alvaldi: If it must be redirected I think List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929) would be a better target – at least with that you learn something about him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no objections to having that as the redirect target. Alvaldi (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree seems a better redirect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to that as a redirect target. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not redirect, so long as there are zero secondary sources about this topic, per our content policies. Levivich (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per BeanieFan and Lepricavark. Carrite (talk) 22:26, 1 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." Those who claim the subject meets the GNG are invited to demonstrate the citations they surely collected before making that claim. Ravenswing 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting a lack of newspaper coverage in the 1920s - if anything they are suggesting the opposite, that there was a lot of newspaper coverage in the 1920s so that some of them likely covered this subject BUT little of what was available then is reasonably accessible today. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, per the lack of the required SIGCOV cited in the article and the explicit rejection of participation as a criterion for presumption of GNG (which overrules claims there might be coverage in inaccessible sources). JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both citations in the article are just references that the man existed and once played football, neither meets the criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources. Frankly I am a bit astonished at the apparent deception of several keep votes here, that claim a table of statistics establishes notability. Zaathras (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage has been found. Assertions of notability must be based on actual objective evidence, not just editors' claims that it probably exists somewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tulio Borgias

Tulio Borgias (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)

Yet another attempt to use Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX, this article was created by (now) blocked and locked socks that are part of a paid ring to use several WMF projects as a means for promotion (for more details see meta:Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/MF Press Global ). In the Portuguese Wikipedia, the article was deleted several times and then salted. Pretty much every single source in the article is non-reliable and/or paid. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Mostly agree this is fluff, other than the Young Creators Award he won. It has an article, does it make him in any way notable? Media awards in Brazil, I'm not familiar with, at all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b This is pretty much an internet popularity award created to promote people. In English, the Young Creators Award article was created by a sock which was also part of huge sock ring. Even in Portuguese, I don't think pt:Prêmio Jovem Brasileiro would survive a AfD. The sourcing is just awful. No reliable sources, no in-depth coverage. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just Delete it then. An "actor" with one appearance in a youtube film isn't what we use for ACTOR, and the rest is spam as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll likely nominate that award article for deletion as well, I'll see what I can dig up first before doing so. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are terrible. Without good sources, you can't have significant coverage required for biographies of living persons. The apparent paid editing, which endangers our not-for-profit status, is icing on the cake. In 2007, this could have been excused. In 2023, this situation in untenable. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 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. A weak WP:SNOW because several editors have qualified their keep !votes as "weak", and there are concerns about procedural issues with this nom that are being discussed at ANI. Still, it's not going to result in anything other than a keep, so might as well close this now and reduce the number of open noms in this topic area. (non-admin closure) Levivich (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Williams (guard)

Joe Williams (guard) (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 WP:BEFORE yields no results. Non-notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 30 games played in the NFL, with 22 of them as a starter, is ABSOLUTELOY notable. They were also a second-team All-Pro in 1926. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you kidding me? Williams was an important player on the Bulldogs' undefeated 1923 football team, one of the greatest teams in NFL history, was named Second-Team All-Pro (in case you don't know what that means, he was the second-best NFL player at his position!), and played in a total of 30 games! IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm on an extended semi-wikibreak, but I had to participate here. At the very least, ignoring all rules makes sense here, and I don't have to say anything that BeanieFan11 and Hey man im josh didn't already. A former All-Pro selection in the National Football League is more than enough to have a standalone article. It also seems important to remember that sources from the 1920's were significantly less prominent than now (if I'm wrong about this, somebody please correct me.) I believe this was sent to AfD in good faith, but this one doesn't make alot of sense to me. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, suggest moving to Joe Williams (American football player) or something similar, since much of the world has absolutely no idea that a guard is anything to do with a US sport, and may wonder whether he's a security guard, a railway guard, or a Grenadier guard, or whatever guards might exist local to them. Elemimele (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe to Joe Williams (American football guard)? (since there's other Joe Williamses who played football and have articles) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I originally closed this as keep, but the nom took it to deletion review without discussing anything with me first and managed to convince a few people that the close was premature. It is beyond laughable to me that anyone who understands the content area could honestly believe that this article warrants deletion, but I have vacated my close and reopened to allow further discussion. Hopefully common sense will prevail soon, and people will remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to dismantle one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete As it stands the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There are no sources of significant coverage in the article, none has been presented here and I was unable to find any during a search, including on Newspapers.com. The Second-Team All-Pro selection mentioned was by a single correspondent for Collyer's Eye, a weekly sports journal published in Chicago, which does not convince me that WP:IAR applies. Neither does his games total as mere participation does not confer notability, per consensus established by WP:NSPORTS2022. If somebody has better luck finding sources, I am more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is absolutely nonsensical to suggest that his accomplishments are not worthy of having a Wikipedia article. This is an extremely clear case where we should IAR. Deleting this would be among the most nonsensical things I have ever seen – Williams was an important member of one of the greatest football teams ever, was an original NY Giant, appeared in 30 games, almost all as a starter, and was named ALL-PRO by an official selector. Its frankly bulls**t to suggest that these are not worthy of being covered in an encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely mind-boggling. This place never ceases to amaze me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Weak keep per sources found by BeanieFan11 below. Alvaldi (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep completely passes WP:GNG--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE exist exactly for pages like this. The subject was a starter in the NFL and considered one of the best players at his position as he was recognized as an All Pro by an official selector. Even if he does not pass by the letter of WP:GNG (which may not be the case anyway) due to him playing in an era where SIGCOV was not even close to the level it is now, an article is warranted as he is an objectively recognized top player of his era. Frank Anchor 00:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and brings into question if the nominator should receive more understanding of the RfD process before submitting obviously notable pages. Although nominated in good faith, time sinks of multiple noms of notable players, such as this one, indicate a misplaced lack of trust in long-term article creators. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 30 January 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]
  • Delete Keep (With what has been presented below, I think GNG can be established now) 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 01:21, 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, the closer should not be just ignoring users saying to keep per IAR. That is a policy-based argument. And as I said above, deleting this would be extremely nonsensical given his accomplishments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • IAR is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements. SilverserenC 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • If applying the notability guidelines would not improve the encyclopedia, then it is perfectly fine to IAR. I know as an NFL editor that deleting this would not at all help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • IAR is a policy that literally states rules should be ignored if they get in the way of improving an encyclopedia. And deletion of an objectively recognized top player of his era (specifically an All Pro) gets in the way of improving an encyclopedia. Frank Anchor 02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide a reference to the claim that the policy WP:IAR "is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a reference because the claim that "IAR is not allowed as an argument to circumvent notability requirements" is utter nonsense. First of all, GNG is a guideline, not even a policy, and IAR can be used to override policy. Second, it's IAR, not IAREN (ignore all rules except notability). Third, if there is a rule saying that IAR is not allowed to override the notability guideline, then IAR could still override that rule. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm seeing a lot of mentions of Williams in my newspapers.com search, I'd say he passes NBIO (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability) as well: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], and others here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A large number of those sources seem to be trivial mentions of Williams. Would you be willing to provide WP:THREE sources of the bunch that you think cover Williams the most significantly? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. Second-team all-pro qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor, and my perusal of the sources provided by BeanieFan11 make me think that there is significant coverage of him in at least one reliable independent source. I'd like more, but I think he's likely to be notable based off of the current stuff, and I think that a short (but longer-than-stub) article on him can reasonably be created based off of the sourcing that I'm able to find. The article isn't in great shape at the moment, but WP:DEL-CONTENT wisely notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep this is at least GNG adjacent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly there is coverage, and probably a lot more existed 90 years ago that isn't particularly accessible today. Meets GNG, as should be obvious for an all-pro, even if that is not explicit in NSPORT anymore. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 1 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. The consensus of the editors in this discussion is that the sources found establish that GNG is met. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruel Redinger

Ruel Redinger (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 WP:BEFORE search on Newspapers.com for both "Otis Redinger" and "Ruel Redinger" yields no results. There's one book on him saying he played at Penn State and joined the Army, but otherwise no go. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He played 7 games in the NFL based off Pro-Football-Reference, that absolutely makes him notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per IAR and GNG. Redinger played 7 games in the National Football League, including 5 as a starter, and has received lots of coverage: he's been mentioned in historical football books [35] [36] [37] [38], and plenty of newspapers (even in the New York Times! Twice!) – [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] (which mentions him 23 times) [44] [45] [46] etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • First four book mentions are only in passing (yes, I looked at them), I can't access The New York Times references but based on their length and the title of one I would find it hard to believe he's notable based on those. I'm looking at the others now. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, when someone has played more than half a dozen National Football League games, and has been mentioned in so many sources (books, nyt, loads of newspaper mentions/short articles), we should be able to keep. These could also be seen as a pass of NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's hard to find sources – at least without making a genuine effort – for players who played so long before the internet age. That's not a valid reason to delete. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by BeanieFan11. Seems the subject's common name may actually be "Pete Redinger". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I looked at the sources found by BeanieFan11 but unfortunately I don't think they are enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG so I recommend a redirect to the List of Canton Bulldogs players. Note that !votes based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and playing a game in the NFL equals notability are not policy based and should be discounted. Alvaldi (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think I've been here long enough to know how deletion discussions work. Presumably the same can be said for the closing admin. I understand that not everyone shares my perspective, but it's a cheap move to try to win a discussion by telling the admins to ignore the other side. Also, that page you linked to is an essay that carries no underlying authority. It really is true that the sources establishing notability for early football players can be much harder to find because they often aren't available on the internet. It becomes exhausting trying to make this case when 1) a user mass-nominates a bunch of these articles and refuses to listen to objections, and 2) someone like you rushes in to tell those of us who are familiar with the content area that our opinions are invalid because they don't fit your very tight interpretation of policy. I'm genuinely not trying to be a jerk here, but it gets really old watching a handful of editors try to push the people who care about these articles out of the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to push anyone out of the discussion and I'm neither trying to be a jerk here. But just as you find my above statement problematic, I find it a problem when a group of editors repeatedly post non-policy based keep !votes in AfD's in an effort to keep an article of a subject that has not been shown to pass the inclusion criteria. Out of the five keep !votes so far, only two are policy based. Alvaldi (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You used an essay to claim that my !vote was not policy-based. That's hardly persuasive. As I said before, I know how deletion works. My rationale was not based on this specific case alone (Beanie has demonstrated notability in this case IMO) as much as on the broad concern that the OP is on a quest to target as many of these articles as he can. It is not reasonable for an editor to conduct low-effort BEFORE searches, dump the burden of proof on the editors who care, and then refuse to engage at his talk page before running off to deletion review when he doesn't get his way. Even if I were to concede that some of these articles are edge cases, their existence is not actively harming the encyclopedia. Yet the nom refuses to listen to anyone, and now you are lobbying for our comments to be ignored. Again, I'm not trying to assume bad faith on your part, but it is hard to avoid feeling railroaded. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that !votes based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and playing a game in the NFL equals notability are not policy based and should be discounted. – Users saying to keep because that coverage is extremely likely to exist, just very hard to find, is a completely valid argument for a topic like this – just as is saying that we should IAR and keep someone who has seven games of NFL experience. And FWIW, I disagree with you that the coverage is not sufficient for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I don't want to play waste-the-editors-time by commenting on each of the blitz of nominated articles, so please let me know which ones are close enough to comment on. Isn't there a rule about more than 11 nominations on the field at the same time (or am I thinking of something else...). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources found and provided meet WP:GNG. How about WP:IMPACT also... WP:IAR is sa valid argument if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan making this a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 20:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources given above do appear to be significant coverage, the newspaper ones especially. I can access them and they do specifically cover Redinger significantly. SilverserenC 01:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources identified in this discussion are adequate to establish notability. It would be nice if editors who have access to the full text versions as opposed to snippets and headlines would actually cite and use those sources to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided by BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this individual has been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. As such, this individual passes WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG and is not precluded from having an article under WP:BIO1E, so the article should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to WP:ROUTINE objections raised below, that's part of WP:NEVENT, which obviously is not the relevant notability guideline described in WP:DEL-REASON#8. WP:SBST also characterizes routineness as an event-related criterion, but we're discussing a biographical entry here. I agree that mentions of the subject in some of the sources are brief, but I do think that they demonstrate more than a trivial mention of this individual in multiple independent reliable sources. We have enough to write a short biographical entry on the person that complies with WP:NPOV, so I do still support keeping here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, hawk, that's incorrect. WP:NSPORTS talks about routine coverage in several places: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage...game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage...(1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage... It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability...outside routine coverage of each game. WP:NSPORTS talks about "routine coverage" so much it's even Question 7 of the FAQ:

    Q7: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?

    A7: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.

    "Routine" is not an NEVENT thing, it is absolutely relevant to sports notability. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though I had been looking from a general WP:NBASIC perspective since most of his notability appears to come from things other than professional sports. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the whole coverage of the internal dissention within the team is non-routine, significant, and was carried independently in both Pittsburgh and Brooklyn (see below). The WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC required that at least one piece of SIGCOV be presented and, well, we have that. Taken together with WP:NCOLLATH given the national coverage of the individual, I see a persuasive reason to keep. The article will remain short, but I do think he's (marginally) notable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that WP:NCOLLATH seems to be written with modern college athletes in mind, though athletes who [g]ained national media attention as an individual (which we see here given the attention to him in the New York Times) are presumed notable under that guideline. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Per the sources found but not yet in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given the vintage, I am satisfied with the sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Canton Bulldogs: or List of Canton Bulldogs players. We have sources that are game reports, and mention the subject's name, and basic roster moves, but they're all brief mentions. Even combined, it's not enough to support an entire article; we know very little about this player, there is almost no WP:RS that has biographical information (as opposed to being mentioned for having played in a game or tried out for a team). Please ping me if anyone can point to RSes that have actual biographical material about the person, happy to change my !vote. Levivich (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said at the Robb afd, I will expand each of these articles (that have a good chance of being kept or are kept) once I finish the Brooks draft I've been working on. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple games in the NFL confers notability per longstanding WP practice. Carrite (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOCALCON does not override global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. 1: a couple mentions, Red XN. 2: mentions among lists of players, Red XN. 3: likely insignificant mention, but the rest of the preview isn't visible. 4: trivial mention, Red XN. 5 and 6: "Specials" to the NYT with routine transactional coverage of several players, Red XN. 7: routine transfer coverage, Red XN. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14: can't access. 13: mild local coverage of behavioral issues from Redinger and a teammate that would comprise at most a single sentence on wiki, Red XN. Barring actual SIGCOV of Redinger directly in the articles I can't access, GNG has not been established and the requirements of SPORTBASIC are not met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would make absolutely no sense here and I completely disagree with your source assessment, especially since "routine" does not apply to people (its part of the criteria for events). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained to you before and as has been affirmed in numerous AfDs, NSPORT uses "ROUTINE coverage" 4 times specifically in the context of athlete notability, defining it as, among other things, coverage of the subject that appears within routine coverage of events. This explicitly includes repeating of their statistics and mentions in game summaries. Furthermore, NOTNEWS also invokes "routine news coverage" as a separate entity to WP:ROUTINE that is applicable to announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redinger meets NBASIC based on the sources listed above; the contention that all them consist of routine coverage is incorrect. Hatman31 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which are not routine? Levivich (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, which describes Redinger as a "real star" and discusses the effect his transfer was expected to have on Penn State, this, which does the same and describes him as "one of the most promising young backs in the country", this, which garnered a top-of-the-page headline "DISSENSION WRECKS GRID TEAM" (although TBF the actual article is shorter than one might expect given the title's prominence), and this, which goes into further detail about the aforementioned incident and its consequences. I guess this might qualify as well, although it's just a report on his performance in training camp. Hatman31 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A routine transfer report (literally: a report in the newspaper about the transfer of personnel) that calls one of the people 'a real star' is still a routine transfer report. Similarly, a routine game report (literally: a report in a newspaper about what happened during a game) is still a routine game report even if it praises one of the players. The one about dissension at the team is, I'll grant, not a routine transfer or game report. However, it only briefly mentions the subject and provides no biographical detail. If those are four most in-depth sources we have, it doesn't change my mind. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoelleJay's source analysis - We just don't have enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:57, 3 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) 17:11, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse C. Boyd

Jesse C. Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I first saw this page when I was googling about the list of The Walking Dead characters, if I'm not mistaken, only to find short description about the actor and the filmography. I prefer seeing his information in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes.Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Beck (ice hockey)

Owen Beck (ice hockey) (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. – sbaio 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough coverage from independent, reliable sources already in the article to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll just point out that while this AfD was active, Beck played his first NHL game. While playing in the NHL no longer meets NHOCKEY (almost nothing meets it now), this does meet the former NHOCKEY guideline, and I don't think we ever had a situation where we had a GNG issue for a modern NHLer (any issues were related to NHLers from many years ago). Which, besides all the reliable sources in the article, ought to give comfort that he meets our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should really consider reading WP:NHOCKEY, because Beck did not meet any of the criteria listed there until playing his first NHL game on January 28, 2023. – sbaio 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you. He didn't meet the old version of NHOCKEY until he played his first NHL game (while this AfD was active), and even now does not meet the new version of NHOCKEY. But he does meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of this AFD – it should be closed since he played his first NHL game, which satisfies WP:NHOCKEY. – sbaio 14:56, 2 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. Sourcing quality questions remain, but there isn't going to be a consensus to delete this article. Star Mississippi 17:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University

School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University (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 general department of Lanzhou University that does not itself meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG should have a separate department page.. I redirected it to the university then, PROD but the creator of the page refused both times, so the AfD is the only option. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Just a simple Google and Google Scholar search in Chinese found so many sources. (most of the sources I am listing here are academic papers I found on Google Scholar) [47][48][49][50] Also, the article on Baidu Baike is rather substantial. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is Organization not academic person that's why it needs independent and secondary sources to meet the guidelines of SCHOOL and GNG. Your references are unreliable and primary, mostly discussing the individual's research work not the subject itself. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    3 of the 4 references are academic papers, which are reliable. All of the sources discuss the school as a whole or some particular aspect of it. They don't discuss individual research. [51] and [52] are written by people from the university, but [53] (the author 李传辉 has no association with the university) and [54] are independent, which should be enough for notability. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mucube This 1, 2 is primary and connected to the subject. This, this and this are also primary and unreliable sources (user generated research work cum directory). On the other hand, the article's page is also full of primary references. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to use Baidu Baike as a source. The CNKI link isn't user-generated, CNKI is a reputable journal search database in China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I will say that in my time at AFD, I have rarely seen articles on departments or schools of universities kept unless they have sources demonstrating GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 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) 19:07, 27 January 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 List of Canton Bulldogs players. The keep !votes are problematic from a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS perspective, but even if I were to give them full weight, the large number of guideline-based delete/redirect !votes would still be sufficient to form a consensus. There isn't a consensus for outright deletion, so closing as redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Babcock

Sam Babcock (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 sufficient WP:BEFORE yields no sources, no books on him, no hits from Newspapers.com, etc. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since Brady retired? I know, it's a bummer, and this guy's eight games seem pretty wimpy compared to the GOAT. Chin up, Brady might just be taking a year off. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on some of the other articles included in this spate of noms, I seriously question if BEFORE was actually performed properly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Searched for "Sam Babcock" and "Samuel Babcock" and found only trivial mentions. Redirect to Canton Bulldogs List of Canton Bulldogs players would be my first choice, otherwise delete. Alvaldi (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. Fails GNG as well as WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 5) which mandates that sports bios have at least one piece of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't think playing the majority of a season in the National Football League is enough to IAR (which can trump "SPORTBASIC")? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• We are talking about the NFL of the 1920s which included many small city squads (like Canton) and was not the big league that it later became. I am simply abiding by the rules established by community consensus. If something even close to SIGCOV existed, an appeal to IAR might be more palatable, but nobody has come forward with anything ever close to SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep played in the majority of a season during an era in which WP:SIGCOV did not exist even close to the level it does today. This seems like a clear case of WP:IAR to me. Frank Anchor 13:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep played in the NFL. Real games, not practice or pre-season. We keep those. how many of these do we have?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NFL player articles or AFD nominations? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or community consensus dictates that articles of players participating in a NFL game gets kept? Per the concensus established with WP:NSPORTS2022, mere participation in a game, including in the NFL, is not enough for inclusion in the absence of significant sources. Alvaldi (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a robust essay that contains a Player notability discussion library.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would constitute as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which does not override the wider Wikipedia community consensus that these subjects must have the SIGCOV to pass GNG. Playing in the NFL 100 years ago was in no way similar to playing in it today, in terms of likelihood of notability. And those are not just my words. Alvaldi (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Alvaldi. The broader Wikipedia community concluded that (1) playing in the NFL is not enough, (2) athlete bios must contain at least one piece of SIGCOV. For gridiron fans to then simply wave an IAR banner every time an NFL bio is challenged is simply flouting the broader community consensus. If this conduct persists, it is simply going to draw an even more draconian response. We as gridiron editors need to be able to police ourselves in accordance with the rules. Babcock does not appear to me to be an edge case that warrants the IAR card. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Babcock played part of one season for a small city team that finished in 20th place behind other small city teams like Pottsville, Akron, and Racine. The NFL of 1926 was not the major league it later became. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Babcock played part of one season for a small city team ... The NFL of 1926 was not the major league it later became. – I don't f-ing care – Babcock still played in the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, meaning he was among the best football players of his time – and wasn't just a one-gamer, either (you say we need to respect "consensus" by getting rid of at least the one gamers, but now you're suggesting to do it to the people who have played a majority of a season, too?) Also, I'm currently in the process of contacting Pro-Football-Reference.com to see what they can find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • “I don’t f-care” (IDFC) is not a good response to notability/inclusion standards that are based on community consensus. IAR is not intended to allow small group of fans to resist standards adopted by the broad community. If you or anybody could find something remotely approaching SIGCOV for Babcock, that would be much more persuasive than IFDC. Cbl62 (talk)|
  • It's just extremely upsetting for me to see these AFD nominations. I'll end with this: I believe this article is worthy of an IAR exemption to the "standards adopted by the broad community" with eight NFL games – you may disagree – but that is my opinion and I will not change it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for examples and I gave them to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, playing eight games in the early NFL certainly meets the standards for encyclopedic inclusion. RfD attempts of pioneers of the game should receive full encyclopedic status, especially those who easily meet standards for inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 January 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) 18:53, 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]
      • Request Therapyisgood strike the accusation on this and other pages where it was posted, this was just answering a specific question from a user.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a few issues with the page, most notabley the football databases disagree on who this individual is. Pro Football Reference has Babcock being born in NY in 1900 and dying in 1960. (This is what is linked in the page). Other databases have Babcock being born in Iowa in 1901 and dying in CA in 1970. (This is what is mentioned in the page). I wanted to come here and say IAR, but all that seems to be certain is Babcock went to Syracuse and played for Canton. Without other sources, verifiability is a concern. --Enos733 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I contacted Pro-Football-Reference.com about this, awaiting a reply. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:18, 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 01:20, 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, the closer should not be just ignoring users saying to keep per IAR. That is a policy-based argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can find significant coverage of this person in several reliable sources. This is the bare minimum required to justify a freestanding Wikipedia biography. Invoking IAR can never override the projectwide consensus that supports the GNG in these cases. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The encyclopedia is not improved by keeping a permastub sourced to a single database entry that is devoid of prose, especially since the basic facts of his life are disputed. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invoking IAR can never override the projectwide consensus that supports the GNG in these cases. – Yes it can. The name literally says "Ignore all rules" (unless you're suggesting GNG is not one?). And I disagree with you on that the project is not improved by keeping NFL players with 8 games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am surprised to see IAR invoked as a reason to ignore perhaps the only immovable rule of Wikipedia, WP:GNG. My own search has only turned up a marriage license and I don't see evidence of notability here. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're suggesting that "ignoring all rules" cannot be used when the issue is GNG? That doesn't make sense, or it would be called "ignore all rules except for GNG." BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I am, and your badgering isn't helping this process in any way. Nobody in this discussion has provided any evidence of notability except for vague references to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody in this discussion has provided any evidence of notability except for vague references to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. – What? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 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) 03:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The arguments to keep require imposing a local consensus overriding a broader consensus that decided participation was insufficient to establish notability; such arguments are invalid. BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This player played eight games in the pioneering era of the sport so keeping his page should be automatic. The extremely overly complicated consensus used for this ridiculous nomination (nommed in good faith of course but still ridiculous, eight games in the NFL!) has been questioned and a requested re-do may be pending. Come on, eight games in the 1920s?, that's as notable as can be. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players per WP:ATD. Hatman31 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually WP:ATD supports keeping this page. Let's focus on the fact that this professional athlete played for over half a season in the era of pioneering football, that his participation is verified by two sources (NFL and PFR), and that, when you think about it, nothing is broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Per Red-tailed hawk. As a side comment IAR is appropriate for edge cases, this isn't such a situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The player played for over half a season in the pioneering years of the National Football League, confirmed by two sources which, neither here nor there, are accepted as reliable by NFL adherents, and yet...the deletion attempt continues. I'd suggest that it should be withdrawn per common sense. Played for over half a season, on the field in the mud, sourced well enough to matter, and here we are, thinking of dumping due weight overboard. I'd say that's an edge case. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not redirect, so long as there are zero secondary sources about this topic, per our content policies. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple games in the NFL confers notability. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a false statement, Carrite, and has been ever since the NSPORTS RfC determined that the GNG must be met by all sports biographies. SilverserenC 00:16, 2 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. This being "the era of pioneering football" gives even less weight to any theory of automatic notability, because this does not indicate as much national competition or a career that included college as it would now. Reywas92Talk 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Canton Bulldogs players as alternative to deletion. The content in a sports database is not nothing, it is just that the community determined that a database entry can not be used to determine notability. --Enos733 (talk) 16:45, 2 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. Nor is working in the mud notable (and I can't believe I need to say that), and 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 17:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for the note on newspaper coverage. I'm always almost surprised when I'm researching someone from the mid 1800s to early 1900s because it seems like everybody was covered in the newspaper, even if it was just to say "this person's parents came to town for the day." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its true that there were more newspapers then, but also true that less of those are online today/easily accessed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but many are, and we shouldn't keep an article on the premise that sources could, theoretically, exist - We need to know that they do. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, per the well-reasoned arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significant coverage can be found. Playing a certain number of games at a certain level does not satisfy our notability requirements. –dlthewave ☎ 03:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. The complete lack of WP:SIGCOV makes this outside the scope for a standalone article. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 18:12, 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 keep per WP:SNOW, meets WP:GNG based on sources posted in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Levivich (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ja'Quan McMillian

Ja'Quan McMillian (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 with no indication of lasting notability. All sources are trivial. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and North Carolina. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A person who just recently made his NFL debut (as a starter, too) and has multiple pieces of sigcov, clearly enough to pass GNG: Former ECU CB Ja'Quan McMillian impresses in NFL debut from 247Sports; Broncos roster review: Rookie cornerback Ja’Quan McMillian from SB Nation; NFL Draft Profile: Ja'Quan McMillian, Cornerback, East Carolina Pirates and Broncos Player Profile: Ja'Quan McMillian #35 from Sports Illustrated; Broncos undrafted free agent spotlight on CB Ja’Quan McMillian from Fansided; etc. Silly nomination. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As BeanieFan11 pointed out, there's quite a bit of significant coverage out there for Ja'Quan. Generally speaking, starting in an NFL game is enough to establish notability. I haven't yet seen an NFL player that started a game get deleted at AfD, and I have tried to nominate a few of them myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. This is a head-scratching nomination. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized that this nomination occurred less than 3 hours after the page was created. If this is supposed to be a joke, it's not funny. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand why some users might have concerns about the independence and/or reliability of some of the listed sources, but his Second-Team All-America award was also covered here by WNCT-TV. On balance, I think this adds up to a pass of NBASIC/ANYBIO. Hatman31 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep passes WP:GNG, WP:IMPACT, WP:N... --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proper sourcing and coverage is presented above, one of the few cases in these sports AfDs where that's been done. SilverserenC 01:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References currently in the article are adequate to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources linked above by BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this individual has been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of more than a single event. As such, the individual passes WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG and is not precluded from having an article by WP:BLP1E, so the article should be kept (and improved to include more info from these sources). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage found by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the work that has been done to the article since this AFD was started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 1 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! 21:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aivar Kisel

Aivar Kisel (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. Played in youth level, no WP:SIGCOV. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deprodded so ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Alvaldi. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 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 speedy delete. With this discussion highlighting that the article is clearly a hoax and moving towards !votes for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3, no need to delay its extinction. Complex/Rational 01:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murexia xenochromus

Murexia xenochromus (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 appears to be a hoax. I can find no evidence for this name in any of the literature, and the sources cited here do not mention the name.

I am very familiar with the taxonomic literature for this group and I am confident the name has no basis in reality. The cited authority, Tate & Archbold (1941), does not include this name. There is a corresponding Wikispecies article that I got deleted; it attributed the name to Laurie (1952) instead, which doesn't include the name either. Neither does it appear in Flannery's (1995) book on the Mammals of New Guinea, Van Dyck (2002) who reviewed this group, Groves (2005) a major taxonomic compendium, Krajewski et al. (2007) a recent paper about this group, or the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Diversity Database.

I found two online references to the name:

  • A forum thread that references xenochromus as a subspecies.
  • A picture on Commons that purports to be the holotype of xenochromus. However, specimen BMNH 1911.11.29.10 is actually the holotype of Phascogale venusta rubrata (=Neophascogale lorentzii), a different New Guinea dasyurid (BMNH catalog). If you zoom in on the picture, you can indeed see a handwritten label Phascogale venusta rubrata.
    • Edit: The picture is an altered copy of commons:File:Speckled dasyure (Neophascogale lorentzii) .jpg, with the name edited and the colors changed. Ucucha (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is sourced to UK's Natural History Museum's collection, probably a reliable source.--Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • Flannery, T.F. 1995. Mammals of New Guinea. Reed Books, 568 pp.
  • Groves, C.P. 2005. Order Dasyuromorphia. Pp. 23–37 in Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2142 pp.
  • Krajewski, C., Torunsky, R., Sipiorski, J.T. and Westerman, M. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships of the dasyurid marsupial genus _Murexia_. Journal of Mammalogy 88(3):696-705. doi:10.1644/06-MAMM-A-310R.1
  • Laurie, E.M.O. 1952. Mammals collected by Mr. Shaw Mayer in New Guinea, 1932–1949. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology)1(10):269-318.
  • Tate, G.H.H. and Archbold, R. 1941. Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No. 31. New rodents and marsupials from New Guinea. American Museum Novitates 1101:1-9.
  • Van Dyck, S. 2002. Morphology-based revision of _Murexia_ and _Antechinus_ (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 48:239-330.

I believe this is an elaborate hoax. Ucucha (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 27. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no competence in this area to make a judgement hoax vs real. What I have done is started c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Murexia xenochromus specimen.jpg to alert Commons that there is/may be a problem. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deleted this file on Commons as fake. All other images were deleted as copyvios by another admin. Yann (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've dug quite deep now, and it appears that every mention of the name on the web can ultimately be traced back to WP. Note, the taxon was also present at Dasyuridae, inserted by the same author [55], before being removed last December [56]. One peculiar exception: the forum thread linked above predates WP appearance of the name by three years. Still, overall it sure does look like a hoax. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae Does this cast doubt on that author's other uploads to Commons? See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Big_baboon_272 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it does, but maybe Ucucha may be placed to identify these guys by habitus? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be confident identifying these, as many of these dasyurids look quite similar and I don't have experience with the animals themselves, only their names, but based on the pictures in Flannery (1995) the identifications look solid. For example, Murexia rothschildi indeed has a broad black stripe, and Murexia melanurus has a yellow rump and black tail.
I'm a bit skeptical about the sourcing for these images though, given what we now know about the author. They claim the pictures were own work, but these are hard-to-find tiny mammals living in a remote place (New Guinea); there aren't a lot of people who really would be able to have pictures of them in the wild. So we should seriously investigate the possibility that the pictures were taken from somewhere else. Notice that commons:File:Murexia_habbema.jpg has an "(a)", suggestive it was part of a multi-part figure in some source. The most likely candidate would probably be the marsupial volume of Handbook of Mammals of the World, but I don't own a copy so can't check. Ucucha (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, found the source. I'll continue this discussions over on Commons. Ucucha (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ucucha, @Elmidae I have created a precautionary DR at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Big baboon 272. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should never have been accepted at AfC as the sources are not about claimed subject. I can find no evidence of existence and the manipulated image shows this is clearly a deliberate hoax. KylieTastic (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got the energy to go through the rest of the users edits as I'm sure well find more issues - unless they were not the origin of the hoax but took this from another source that was the hoax. KylieTastic (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABig+baboon+272 where this Commons uploader has been indexed for fake image and copyright image upload. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=728552248#image-manipulator section "Image manipulator" for the Commons Admin take 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see ANI where interested parties are requested to contribute. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3 Speedy Delete - Clearly a hoax. I removed the references as none of them mention the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 23:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I didn't know it was hoax at that time when I reviewed this through AFC, as I 'forgot' (more like should have done) the reference checking. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:24, 29 January 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) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socially (app)

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

Article on a non-notable app sourced to a company listing site, Google Play and Wikimedia Commons (!!) This would be an A7 candidate if software were eligible for A7, but it's not, so here we are. Spicy (talk) 16:15, 27 January 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! 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotland enigma

Gotland enigma (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 is interesting stuff, but very much the work and synthesis of a single researcher, Troppenz. His book [57] is the only source of related material; all the other opinions cited in the article are otherwise unpublished personal communications that Troppenz recounts. We can't really sustain an article based on one author developing a hypothesis in one non-peer-reviewed work. WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- It should be expected, as is, that a subject so unknown does not have much literature on it. While yes, I do agree with you on the points you make about the re-accounts of the quotes. However, more people than expected know about it: Sven Littkowsky is one of the people I'm focusing on. Sven has worked with Troppenz and others to make this artwork which has the Gotland Enigma in it. While not similar, the Francevillian biota article covers a topic that is not widely known, like the page I made, however on a topic that is relatively more well known just for its importance. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no other sources discussing it other than the one given. GNG needs at least a few sources (more than one) for notability. We don't have that here. I don't see anything in Jstor or Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter how well-meaning, the article's creator has long had a tendency of delving into the most obscure and technically most challenging areas of ancient palaeontology with tons of enthusiasm, but without a sound understanding of the complexities of the topic, and bravely churns out new articles based upon old, outdated or theoretical publications. I fear this one is no exception. The author of the Researchgate article on which this detailed page is solely based, states in their ResearchGate bio "Goal: I wrote books about multicellulary life in the "Pre-Cambrian", especially in the Paleo- and Mesoproterozoic. I am connected with paleontologists, who work in the Proterozoic and the Archaean to find multizellular organisms. My goal is to get more verifications and proofs for my findings and theses." (see here).
Unless sources for highly speculative fossils or pseudofossils are derived from multiple, serious, peer-reviewed scientific papers with an extremely high degree of professional competence, simply basing a Wikipedia article on one journalist's imaginings in this specialised field is most unwise. It is simply WP:TOOSOON. I have previously advised User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus of my concerns over their misinterpretation or incorrect use of sources that are not WP:RS, and I see it once again here. Whilst undoubtedly done in WP:AGF, this simply does not meet the standards we need to set in such specialised, technical areas, unless we are willing to see Wikipedia become the promoter of vague interpretation, hypothesis and imaginary artists' illustrations. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; more than one source is needed to notability. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single self-published source clearly fails the WP:GNG. 23:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Draftify or delete. I concur that the topic is not notable - the article is based on a niche work of dubious reliability (is the author reliable? publisher? I don't see what makes them so?). In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I can only suggesting that this experiment is draftified instead of being deleted. Maybe the topic will become notable one day, when reliable sources discuss it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Sweden. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 1 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Agencies Serving South Asians

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

Article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but rather they must pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the depth and geographic range of their media coverage -- but six of the eight footnotes here are the organization's own self-published content about itself, one is entirely tangential verification of a stray fact in a source that fails to mention this organization at all in conjunction with said fact, and one is a deadlinked (but locatable via ProQuest) news article that isn't about this organization, but just briefly glances off its existence in the context of quoting its executive director as a provider of soundbite on a topic other than the organization itself.
All of which means that absolutely none of the sources here represent third-party coverage about the organization in sources independent of itself -- and even on that ProQuest search I undertook to find the deadlinked Toronto Star article, I still just get a lot of namechecks rather than substantive coverage that would pass either GNG or ORGDEPTH. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 27 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jagathalaprathapan (1990 film)

Jagathalaprathapan (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any third-party sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:44, 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 13:02, 27 January 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) 19:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Bhalerao

Vivek Bhalerao (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)

Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that Vivek Bhalerao entirely fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I found a few blogs and his own website, and the one page that is referenced in the article, but there is no wider coverage. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did research to see if I could find anything on him, couldnt find any information on him, but his own website. Fails [WP:NBASIC]] and WP:ANYBIO. Further, seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. --RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing found at all for this person. Links for other people on social media and linkedin, no musicians found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBASIC, Nothing at all was discovered in RS for the musician. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 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) 19:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Weiß

André Weiß (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)

Had to end his career after just a few games due to injury. I have found no noteworthy coverage in reliable sources, and frankly not much at all beyond databases, WP mirrors and this [58] (archived but endearing) club profile page. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DraftifyGiantSnowman I tried making findings by searching for source I was able to see this [59] [60][61] He looks like a good prospect, if work on.Epcc12345 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All run-of-the-mill databases, none show notability. GiantSnowman 20:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject is 39 years old, retired ages ago so can't see a reason to draftify, which we would only generally do if future notability is near-guaranteed. WP:SPORTBASIC needs significant coverage, excluding database coverage, which kicks out all above sources Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:21, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Croot

Jason Croot (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 BLP of an actor and director is poorly sourced and there is no claim of notability that meets WP:NACTOR. Current references are YouTube (looks like a self-published video), three interviews and IMDb. There are three more interviews listed in external links, so there's been a bit of interest in him, and he directed Le Fear on which we have an article, but I don't think he meets WP:GNG. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found reliable sources to add. Has been tagged with dubious notability since 2017. Possibly WP:TOOSOON? Tacyarg (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources discussing him, Moviefone, fandango, imdb and the like. Social media hits, but no critical reviews, fails ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. There are no reliable sources, and therefore WP:BLP is violated. Even assuming that sources could be found, I don't see how the subject passes WP:NACTOR. We would need to see both better sources and more information of roles that justify inclusion. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brightline (company)

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - insufficient coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not sure how this doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPT! Many of the citations arer very deep. For example:
- Fast Company - Full article about them + There is a 2nd Fast Company Article that has further info and ranks them as The 10 most innovative health companies of 2022
- fiercehealthcare.com - Full article about them, lot's info about company provided. Not just an announcement.
- Bloomberg- Full article about them, lot's info about company
- bizjournals.com- Lot's info, make sure to check all 3 pages from the bottom.
- bhbusiness.com - several paragraphs of info about company
- fiercehealthcare.com- deep coverage Threevian (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brightline’s behavioral telehealth platform is giving kids—and their caregivers—peace of mind (FastCompany, Mar. 8, 2022) - this 4-graf article begins with a focus on CEO Naomi Allen, her personal experience, and a quote from her. It then mentions the 2019 formation of the company, the 2021 expansion, and has another Allen quote. Then there is a 3-sentence overview: 1) of the product, 2) insurance coverage, and 3) "Through these relationships, Brightline will be available to employees at 33 companies." The final graf begins with "Allen says", includes what "the company plans" and more of what Allen says. WP:ORGIND notes Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties.
  • The 10 most innovative health companies of 2022 (FastCompany, Mar. 8, 2022) is an example of trivial coverage per WP:NCORP because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.
  • Startups Brightline, Brightside Health spark big investments for virtual behavioral health (Fiercehealthcare, Mar. 30, 2022) - this is trivial coverage of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, "The company plans to use the new investment", "Brightline also plans to", "said Naomi Allen, co-founder and CEO of Brightline" and a limited superficial description of the company, and similar trivial, superficial, nonindependent coverage of another company Brightside Health.
  • KKR Values Behavioral-Health Startup Brightline at $705 Million (Bloomberg, Mar. 29, 2022) - this is trivial coverage of an announcement of a capital transaction, such as raised capital and quarterly [...] financial results, based on "Brightline [...] said", "Allen said", "said Allen", "Allen sees", "Allen said", "Allen said", "Allen said", "Allen said", and "Johnny Kim, a KKR director who has joined Brightline’s board, said in an emailed statement", without critical coverage, so this is also not WP:ORGIND.
  • Brightline scored $105M in a new round. It's the latest funding for a startup founded by a Livongo vet (bizjournals.com, Mar. 30, 2022) - this is a low-quality promotional site, with similar trivial coverage of an announcement of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, and statements from Allen about Brightline and her past career, then promotional/trivial coverage about a funding announcement at another company, a list of other companies founded by people Allen used to work with, and a closing quote from Allen. This is also not the significant coverage of the company itself needed for WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Pediatric Behavioral Health Provider Brightline Launches Virtual Coaching Program to Support Parents (Behavioral Health Business, Apr. 13, 2022) - this is trivial coverage of a product or a product line launch that links to and appears largely based on the press release published the day before.
  • GV leads Brightline's $72M boost to expand virtual therapy services for kids, teens (FierceHealthcare, Jun 16, 2021) - this is more trivial coverage about a capital transaction, such as raised capital, a statement about the company "according to Brightline", information from "Brightline’s own survey", "according to Brightline executives", a large quote "said Naomi Allen, Brightline CEO and co-founder in a statement", "according to the company", "said Ben Robbins, psychiatrist and venture partner at GV who is joining Brightline’s board of directors", "Brightline also announced", and a brief superficial description of a product or a product line launch and expansion. This is also not WP:ORGIND.
Per the sources, WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO, delete seems appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I don't agree with most of your assessment. Many of these even tough are announcement they also contained more info that are not announcements and are about what the company does. The subjects of the articles may give the impression that they are just announcements but if you read the full article you will see that they also contain detailed info about the company, hence meeting WP:CORDEPTH. Including:
- Fast Company - Full article about them + There is a 2nd Fast Company Article that has further info and ranks them as The 10 most innovative health companies of 2022 - The policy says when there are more than 1 article on one website, you may combine them to get a more inpdeth article. Combined there are 4 paragraphs of info about the company that meet criteria of not being an announcement or quotation.
- fiercehealthcare.com - More than 6 paragraphs of info about them, including what company does and what its prior name was.
- Bloomberg- Another editor below agreed that this is an acceptable article. Not including quotations, there is 7 paragraphs of info.
- bizjournals.com- Counting 5 Paragraphs, not announcements, not quotes
- bhbusiness.com - You say its based on a press release, but if this was the case, then almost all articles are. For example, Microsoft announces on a press release that they just released Windows 10 then hundreds of publications write about it. Does that mean that none of the publications can be used?? Don't just come up with your own policy as to what is a press release. If it does not say it is a press release then it's not. If you know of specific Wikipedia Guideline that says articles written based on a press release are not acceptable, then please share it here. When a credible publication writes a story based on press release, it is assumed they do their due-diligence to verify the info, so it is no longer considered primary info.
Threevian (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you I did read the full articles, and did not base my analysis only on the headlines, and I hope the descriptions I provided above helps demonstrate that, e.g. the very promotional (according to our policy) Bloomberg source that is nearly entirely based on statements by the founder (including paraphrased content attributed to the founder), which is not usable for supporting notability per WP:CORPDEPTH nor WP:ORGIND, as explained above.
  • The quality of sources declines from there, and WP:SIRS states Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability - there is no provision for combining sources similar to the WP:BASIC section of WP:BIO, and a combination here would still be trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, as explained above.
  • With regard to the low-quality sources, these are a hallmark of a lack of notability per WP:CORP, and note that bizjournals.com is part of American City Business Journals, which describes itself as offering "business leaders many avenues for making connections and gives them a competitive edge locally, regionally and nationally. ACBJ is the premier media solutions platform for companies that target business decision-makers" - this is a promotional medium, with "brands" of platforms, so it is a very low-quality source to rely on for supporting notability, especially per the WP:ORGCRIT section the WP:NCORP guideline, which includes, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. This article looks, walks, and quacks like an advertisement, because of the low-quality sources and the lack of significant coverage of the company itself. We need more than promotional announcements and coverage to avoid having articles that mimic advertising from the company, regardless of their size.
  • I also assure you that I am not making up policy about the use of press releases. The WP:ORGIND guideline includes, Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Per this guideline, we do not assume fact-checking has occurred, and this appears even more important with low-quality sources that indicate their reliance on narratives produced by the company. For example, bhbusiness.com offers a branded content strategy that includes articles, has one reporter listed on its small staff, and regurgitates content directly from company personnel, its website, and a press release, in the post bylined to a guest contributor. This is not a credible publication, which is even more reason to not presume fact-checking has occurred in a source promoting the company's perspective on its products and services.
Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the Blomberg coverage is probably the best, but as explained, it's still not sufficient. The rest are as explained, not suitable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get more coverage on a railway company associated with Richard Branson than about this enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added a few more citations. Notably, these ones are indepth and have deep coverage about the company:
- hitconsultant.net - It's an announcement but also has a lot of details about the company.
- Forbes - Announcement but also detailed
- healthcareoutlook - one long paragraph of info about the company. Threevian (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a different standard applied to references used to support information and facts within an article and those used to establish notability. For notability, we need to see significant articles about the *company* and the content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Regurgitated press releases and announcements are fine for the first use but fail the criteria for the second. I agree with the analysis of the sources above. None of the sources whose content can be described as "announcements" but which contain "other information" contain "Independent Content". There's no original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation as required. Also, while policy says articles can be combined in order to create a more in-depth article, this does not apply when examining sources for meeting the criteria for establishing notability - check out WP:SIRS. Looking at the last three references above, the hitconsultant.net source above is a regurgitation of their Press Release and the company blog post. The next from Forbes from a staff writer relies entirely on an interview with the CEO. It is a puff profile and has no "Independent Content" whatsoever. The third reference from the Healthcare Outlook source (no attributed journalist) lists 10 Healthtech companies with a short descriptive paragraph on each. This topic company is described in 6 sentences and is a simple summary/description. It is neither significant nor in-depth. None of the references meet NCORP/GNG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:02, 31 January 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! 08:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PumPumPum

PumPumPum (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:NCORP. Coverage is mostly routine and revolves around fundraising and appointement of executives. This article looked promising, but it is a slightly toned down version of this promotional press release. The only worthwhile source is this article in Forbes India by Rajiv Singh, who has now become notorious for publishing WP:ADMASQ. Maduant (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and India. Maduant (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, the sources as explained seem promotional. The Forbes piece as well, is really only a puff piece. I don't see GNG or NCORP. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails per WP:ORGDEPTH, as no RS found other than Financialexpress and ForbesIndia. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Haryana. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by WP:NCORP. While I am not inclined to reject sources because they covered this or that, sources absolutely need to be independent. Another way to look at this is through WP:TOOSOON. PumPumPum is a small and rather new company. It wants to expand nationally, but so do others. If it succeeds, there will be more coverage. gidonb (talk) 02:17, 2 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! 08:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Spanish Figure Skating Championships

2004 Spanish Figure Skating 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)

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I wasnt able to locate anything that has any reliablity on google or wikipedia library. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:33, 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! 06:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Delete: The only reference of the article is the results of the championship website itself, however, checking Wikipedia we have articles from different editions of the same tournament, also only referenced by its own website, I searched and did not find references however you can probably find good references and improve the article. Franco98silva (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. The other years' events should be deleted too. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 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) 18:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No More Heroes (record label)

No More Heroes (record label) (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 recording company fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH, No RS found, trivial coverage in Billboard and Chicago Reader. Not to be confused with No More Heroes (album), No More Heroes (series), No More Heroes (video game). M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to keep this community civil and to refrain from making retaliatory deletion requests. The sources are clearly not trivial as they are the primary topic mentioned in both the content of the articles and the title of the articles. These are the 2 sources (out of 4 total) that are being questioned.
Chicago Reader - No More Heroes are Building the Future of Hip Hop
Billboard - DCG Brothers Sign to No More Heroes/Atlantic Records, Release ‘House Party’ Video
Officialangrydub (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that the nomination is retaliatory? Perhaps it's at a talk page elsewhere; if so, then show it. Meanwhile, the nomination does not strike me as un-civil though it is quite vague. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the users Talk page. Officialangrydub (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There aren't a lot of sources out there, but those that can be found (and which were in the article before the nomination) indicate that the professional music media has seen fit to report on the label, its artists, and an agreement with Atlantic Records. This is an acceptable stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this topic closed, my apologies for the confusion, but I assumed this response meant this was situated. Officialangrydub (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the talk pages for the two other people in this debate plus the record company's talk page, I do not see a single thing that is retaliatory or uncivil. It's just a minor disagreement on sources and a little education on how deletion nominations work. This here AfD debate is about the notability of the record company so let's focus on that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The sole keep vote doesn't really list sources beyond those in the article, and I'm frankly not able to find sources that meet SIRS that are not listed in the article. A full evaluation of the sources in the article in light of WP:NCORP is below:
ORGCRIT assessment table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Chicago Reader Yes The Chicago Reader seems independent of the record label. Yes Not listed at WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG, nor WP:A/S, but WP:NEWSORG appears to cover this alternative weekly. Yes No More Heroes is the direct subject of the entire article Yes This seems to contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, compiling both direct quotes from interviews and giving a history of the organization.
The Hype Magazine No This is an advertising agency that publishes advertisements disguised as news stories. No This is an advertising agency, not a WP:NEWSORG. Yes The advertisement is about them and covers their activities broadly. No Advertisements are primary sources.
Kazi Magazine No Per themselves, Kazi is a promotional blog. No Per themselves, Kazi is a promotional blog. No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage is not significant coverage. Moot as a promotional blog.
Billboard – Billboard is an independent WP:NEWSORG, but WP:NCORP requires that the coverage be independent content to qualify for WP:SIRS. Much of the story is direct quotation of non-independent individuals. Yes Billboard is a well-established WP:NEWSORG. No Three sentences mention No More Heroes: one in passing, one briefly commenting on a music video they produced, and one describing why they chose the DCG brothers. Per WP:ORGDEPTH, significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization, and this article is nowhere near that threshold – Majority of the article is direct quotes, though there is some limited summary/synthesis by the author.
The sources I can find online outside of those in the article are New York Weekly (a site run by a PR firm that masquerades as a news website and is on the Wikipedia blacklist) and Clark Street Collective (a self-published blog of a video/photo studio), both of which clearly fail to contribute to notability. Since the sources in the article do not satisfy WP:NCORP, and a search of sources online does not appear to turn up any sources that would contribute to NCORP, it looks like this should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8 as having an article subject who fails to meet the relevant notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 02:42, 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 redirect to Death sentences during the Mahsa Amini protests. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Rohi

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies.  // Timothy :: talk  05:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only sources that I can find about the subject are news articles like this one, in which the subject was only referenced once for being sentenced to death. No significant coverage can be found that can justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 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! 05:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect top the protest article, we can't possibly keep a list of everyone that loses their life during this ongoing event, sadly most won't be notable GNG-wise for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per TimothyBlue. Mccapra (talk) 10:14, 27 January 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 Death sentences during the Mahsa Amini protests. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homan Abdullahi

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

Article does not meet GNG or WP:VICTIM; WP:1E applies.  // Timothy :: talk  05:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Information for this individual is already in [[Deaths during the Mahsa Amini protests

Death sentences during the Mahsa Amini protests]]; no objection to a Redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  18:23, 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! 05:50, 27 January 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 Azerbaijan-Turkey relations. Consensus is to not keep the article as is. Redirecting as an alternative, since the embassies are mentioned at the target. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Baku

Embassy of Turkey, Baku (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:ORG and WP:GNG. No significant coverage, only a primary source provided. All the article does is confirm the embassy exists. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 13 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! 05:27, 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! 05:48, 27 January 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 Zee Bangla. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 17:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waaris (1999 TV series)

Waaris (1999 TV series) (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 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! 02:45, 20 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! 05:45, 27 January 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 don't readily see how this could be merged to Zee Bangla, but interpret the "merge" !vote as indicating that a stand-alone article is not justified. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranga Bou

Ranga Bou (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE entertainment news articles about the upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 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! 02:45, 20 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! 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any coverage in RS I recognize, the redirect seems appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page [62],[63], [64] has enough depth on these reliable sources to clearly pass WP:GNG. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable article which doesn't have any reliable sources about this series. 49.32.235.79 (talk) 04:10, 2 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattwor Bodhbuddhi

Bodhisattwor Bodhbuddhi (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)

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage consists largely of WP:ROUTINE articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 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! 02:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page has many reliable sources. Even searching on Google found reliable sources linked to this page.[1] Besides This show came in 41st week in 2022 and was TRP rank 19 BARC Viewership of TRP[2] clearly passes WP:NTV with sufficient WP:GNG. Nilpriyo 8:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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! 05:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't read Bengali, but ... really? More than one article primarily about this series in The Times of India, one of that country's major national newspapers IIRC? Airing on one of the country's major cable networks, and probably the major one for Bengali-language programming? Easily passes under NTVNATL. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 29 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial margarine

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

Article is short and has references to YouTube and retailer sites, which aren't reliable. AKK700 05:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mason (company)

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

Previous AfD ended in a 'soft delete'. I agree with the original nom's assessment re: sourcing, the company is likely to fail NCORP. Relisting to get a proper consensus. KH-1 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this marketing brochure unless references to significant coverage in reliable independent sources are provided. The most interesting sentence in the article, It offers a self-serve no-code platform that powers Marketers, Product Managers, and Founders to upgrade their D2C storefronts from storytelling to selling to scaling. is overtly promotional and Wikipedia is not an advertising or marketing platform. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: As this article has been reposted with a minor name variation, I will repeat my previous "Delete" opinion from last week's first AfD: An article on a start-up firm. Some of the content relates to the individuals who established this firm, from whose prior or other roles notability is not inherited. Other content relates to funding announcements, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, and various industry awards which are non-notable (and one of which is from a partner company). As the nominator said, some content is rather promotional, e.g. "a self-serve no-code platform that powers Marketers, Product Managers, and Founders to upgrade their D2C storefronts from storytelling to selling to scaling". That aside, though, such coverage of the company as is available is interview-based; I don't see attained notability as being demonstrable at this point. AllyD (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Fein

David A. Fein (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 meeting GNG. appears to have been copy pasted using a template, without removing the template pieces. Born "Birthdate" and the like (with square brackets we can't reproduce here due to wiki formatting)." David A. Fein was born in [City of Birth] on [Birthdate], to [Parents] who were [Parent’s Occupations]. *Only include if relevant* " Blatantly promotional. No sources of any kind found. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond the problems noted in the nomination, of being a promotional half-filled-out template (I can only imagine that if this was paid editing, then someone didn't get their money's worth), he appears to have few or no academic publications (so no chance of WP:PROF) and no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources (so no WP:GNG). I did find one local news source quoting him, but it appears to be both non-in-depth and too promotional to count as independent and reliable enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    David, I am new to using Wikipedia and did not realize that this article had been published already. I can assure you that the article was not created using a template, but I have removed the portions that may appear to have been copy-pasted. I will also continue to add independent, in-depth, reliable sources. GTLPhD (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the refs seem to be significant coverage of the subject and most do not appear to be reliable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:41, 2 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. There is no consensus for any of the ideas that have been put forward so far, but there is a clear consensus not to delete the page, so the deletion discussion is closed. Please continue on talk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Byelorussia

Byelorussia (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)

Byelorussia is an exact synonym for Belarus. The name is a dated exonym for the country and nation which has existed under several states going back at least to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 1236–1795. The title should be redirected to Belarus.

The first three links point to articles that are summary-style children of the parent article Belarus. The fourth link, the asteroid, can be moved to Belarus (disambiguation), where the “other uses” link at the top of the main article leads to.  —Michael Z. 01:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on “exonym,” Belarus is a romanization of native Belarusian Беларусь, Belarusʹ, while Byelorussia is a rendering of Russian Белороссия, Belorossiia (compare En. Russia, Ru. Россия, Rossiia).


  • Redirect Since it is an synonym of it, change to a redirect to Belarus. BeckyAnne(talk) 05:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there WP:POTENTIAL for more entries beyond the single asteroid? If not, you should just use {{redirect|Byelorussia|the asteroid|2170 Byelorussia}} in a hatnote, because the average English reader probably won't immediately recognize the synonymous nature of Belarus and Byelorussia and so it's fine to make it a bit more explicit. --Joy (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this situation isn't obvious to the average English reader, and that's why keeping the two dab pages separate is in my opinion the better option. I don't think a hatnote is a good idea: it means dedicating space at the top of a very popular article for a mention of a very obscure asteroid. – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the country entries (like Byelorussian/Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic) should probably also be listed at Belarus (disambiguation), still leading to a largely redundant situation.  —Michael Z. 17:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also hatnote templates that include multiple alternate meanings on the same line, surely there's way to format this in a sensible manner. --Joy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First off, this is a valid dab page as it lists four topics, each of which has, historically or currently, been referred to as "Byelorussia". The aim of the AfD is a merge of this page into Belarus (disambiguation). That's a valid proposal, but I don't think it makes sense for readers: the overlap between the two dab terms is only partial: the tractor and piano brands, for example, are not known as "Byelorussia", and neither is the asteroid referred to as "Belarus". – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some G Books and G Scholar searches, and confirm that about the usage of spellings. But readers may not know that, and may well not differentiate between the spellings and historical/non-historical usage of Belarus, Belorus, Belorussia, and Byelorussia. It may be more useful for them to have one medium-sized inclusive disambiguation page than two to four smaller ones that they may never see, according to the data management principal of don’t repeat yourself (DRY).  —Michael Z. 18:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather say the opposite - a list containing multiple spellings is typically harder to navigate than two distinct straightforward lists. But, in this case there's sufficiently few entries that it's doable. --Joy (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, the alternate spellings Belorussia and Belorus redirect to the main article. (relative frequency of usage: 1935–1985, 1985–2019). And from 1987, the most commonly used historical spelling is Belorussia, not Byelorussia.[65] —Michael Z. 18:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a hatnote on the article Belarus, and move the present target to Byelorussia (disambiguation). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uanfala above. Libcub (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 04:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This should not have been at AFD. There is no proposal to delete, there is only some suggestion for which wp: Merge would be relevant. AFD is not for clean up nor is it for fake-type proposals. Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:16, 1 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! 04:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy similarity based TOPSIS

Fuzzy similarity based TOPSIS (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’ve checked this article carefully for a long time and found several issues. I’ve requested to delete this article because of the following reasons:

(1) There is an article for TOPSIS method already. Why do we need another article for a small extension on the TOPSIS method? For example, there is a page for Analytic hierarchy process. Should we have a page for “Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process”?

(2) This is a clear case of self-promotion on Wikipedia (user name = author's name of the primary reference). Also, Similarity-based-TOPSIS has been deleted recently because of self-promotion issue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarity-based-TOPSIS

(3) There are not enough independent references, and it cannot pass the notability factor of Wikipedia.

(4) This article is hard to read and has no value for the readers. The structure of the article is like an academic paper. Also, there are so many extensions to the TOPSIS method which are more valuable than this small extension.

Also, there are more reasons, but I think the above reasons are enough to delete this article from Wikipedia. Scholartop (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge to TOPSIS as per the prior AfD. PianoDan (talk) 22:22, 2 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! 04:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Pirojenko

Daria Pirojenko (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 sourced in a way that proves notability. A quick Google search shows the interviews, etc. already sourcing the article. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Visual arts. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS found, most are social media. Inkedmag is about the only "news" coverage found in GNews, and it's just a name drop most times. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, nothing found except inkedmag. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1 page of text, plus 4 pages of photos of her work at Skin & Ink Magazine - SUMMER 2021. (n.d.). (n.p.): Skin & Ink Magazine can be found by searching in Google books, this interview, plus the many mentions in Inked (e.g. 1) and a brief mention in Vanity Fair combined suggest notability to me. CT55555(talk) 07:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find references for the biographical information presented in the article. This article was the 11th edit for Sheitelman and placed into main space, formatted with inbox and categories. The ten previous edits were minor edits to the user page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:37, 30 January 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 as sources meet GNG standards. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srdjan Djokovic

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

I'm proposing deletion for the following two reasons:

  • Srdjan's coverage in sources (until the past 48 hours) is based on his interactions or comments on his son's tennis career. This is usually fleeting news coverage or part of longer biographies of Novak. See WP:INVALIDBIO
  • The recent event concerning Srdjan would fail WP:BLP1E if it wasn't for the inherited notability aspect. Again coverage is quite fleeting and shallow mainly focusing on the Russian invasion of Ukraine angle rather than the person of Srdjan.

This level of notability can be applied to almost all parents (even siblings or partners etc) of top 20 tennis players and in these cases we do not have stand alone articles for them - unless they have independent notability Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Serbia. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. While he isn't my cup of tea, he's got coverage in the Washington Post [66], the NYT link above has at least 5 hits on his name, and all the other sources given, he's at GNG. So long as we keep the tone neutral, the article is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite dislike the fellow, but his article has merit. We have sourcing to support what's written here, that's what's important. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator). Srdjan Djokovic meets WP:GNG due to the multiple reliable sources that each provide significant coverage. WP:BLP1E is of course relevant to consider, but does not apply, for the reasons explained at WP:NOTBLP1E i.e. he is notable for a few things, his support of his son, his appearance in Australia.
The statement about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is odd, as he has been notable for his statements in Australia about COVID-19 rules and most of the articles before recently have no mention of the war.
Arguing that someone is not notable on the basis of a relationship is only relevant if WP:GNG is not met. Consider Jamie Spears or any member of a royal family, they either are or are not notable on the basis of their independent notability. Should we delete Madonna because she is only notable for one thing (singing) or Diego Maradona because he was only notable or one thing (football)? Of course not, they both meet WP:GNG, just as this one does. I am happy that WP:INVALIDBIO is quoted, because what is actually says is that relatives are not notable...unless significant coverage can be found, which is exactly why this article should be kept. CT55555(talk) 03:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, there is 'significant' coverage, because of how 'significant' Novak Djokovic is. One of the greatest tennis players of all time. You are interpreting guidelines in order to fit your own narrative, for an article which you created with poor reasoning. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 03:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nom complains of "inherited notability". I am unaware of a policy, guideline or essay concerning "inherited notability". I AM aware of an essay concerning "arguments to avoid during AfD". However nobody is this AfD has made the argument for inherited notability. Further, that essay contains a great big warning at the top to not conflate content in an article with arguments made in an AfD. As such one of the main points made by the nom is based on a rules misunderstanding. -- GreenC 03:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Concerning BLP1E .. that's hard to square with this source: Mathew, Melvin (2022-07-11). "How Novak Djokovic's Parents Shaped His Legendary Tennis Career?". Sportsmanor. .. note the date (2022) versus other sources from 2023. This source is about his parents, and also their son, you can never get away from the shadow of a famous parent (children and grandchildren of JFK) or famous children (mother of Elon Musk). "Independent" doesn't mean "exclusive" notability. -- GreenC 03:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm just going to copy over the comment I made from the previous talk page and list a few reasons. First of all, this article definitely does not meet notability guidelines. Just because he is the father of a notable person, therefore may appear in news stories (very sporadically, almost never) through affiliation, does not mean he meets those guidelines. Secondly, this article uses poor, unreliable sources to represent unfactual information (example, the source for his birthplace). Thirdly, this article was created on the day that he was mentioned in the news, and should be reviewed for slander, and possible implications of libel. This can easily be checked by comparing the date of creation, to one of the events referenced in the article. Lastly, he was never notable as a skier(not even regionally), which was used to implicate notability in a previous conversation with the article creator. There are no references to notable accolades that could warrant that distinction given. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1: "Just because he is the father of a notable person". Whoever said that is a reason to Keep? Your arguing a strawman. Sometimes fathers and sons are both notable. Point 2: according to you the following are unreliable sources: BBC, The Telegraph, CNN, ABC, CBC .. do we take that seriously? Point 3: The article doesn't contain "slander" and if it does you need to say what it is instead of making unsourced and vague accusations. Point 4: He's notable due to sources per GNG. -- GreenC 04:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • False, he's notable due to affiliation, therefore in sources. Exclusively, there would never even be a consideration. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Who said he's notable due to affiliation except for you, and that violates WP:INHERITED in "Arguments to Avoid during AfD" .. please avoid making that argument. -- GreenC 14:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CT55555. Sources in the article are reliable, in-depth, and have significant coverage about the subject, and passes WP:GNG. Tails Wx 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin, please consider if this diff represents canvassing. Tagging the editor for their awareness that I said this. Spirit Fox99 CT55555(talk) 04:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin, please consider if adding this discussion to Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration by CT5555 represents canvassing. Thank you Spirit Fox99 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the proposer that this level of notability could apply to many parents of famous personalities. This is more a plug for Red Bull Pizza than it is for a reliably notable person. What is here is pretty much already covered completely in the Novak Djokovic article and a stand-alone article seems trivial for Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll try researching if there are more reliable sources or even book sources out there. Tails Wx 05:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah - Srdjan is spoken about in many books. The majority of them are biographies of Novak with a handful on other tennis topics but the content is still intrinsically linked to his son. This same is also true for tennis dads Robert Federer, Sebastián Nadal, Sam Sampras, John McEnroe Sr and even Roy Laver. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your research is moot. There is nothing that could possibly validate him being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of his own. The only reason we are even having this conversation is due to his affiliation with someone notable. You and the creator are just clutching at straws at this point. Sad really. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spirit Fox99: There is nothing that could possibly validate him being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of his own... Are you stating that there aren't any sources out there and can't be improved while the AfD discussion is ongoing? Tails Wx 13:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Novak Djokovic. All of his notability claims are linked back to his famous son. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Merge That is not an option being considered. What notability claims? He has no notability claims to begin with. He was already mentioned in his famous son's article as the father, which is all he is according to an encyclopedia, and rightly so. No more information is needed for him or the rest of the Djokovic family other than their affiliation. The events which transpired the same day this article was created (coincidence?) all say 'Oh my, Novak Djokovic's father took a picture with these fans carrying these items'. When looked at critically it is just an overblown, sideshow circus. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict guidelines, not a media rag or political platform. If it has become so, then it has lost all credibility. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's notable for being that "center-of-attention person that shows up when a certain other person plays tennis" I suppose. It is what it is. He's a character. You almost expect him to be there when his son plays now, it's part of the ambiance at the match. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Spirit Fox99 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

  • Hello Spirit Fox99. 1) You are not allow to vote twice. 2) Merging should be considered as an WP:ATD, when a suitable target exists. 3) Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:BLUDGEON. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please help me understand this correctly. I voted between the process of keep or delete, for which I voted delete. Now you have introduced a completely separate process (Merge or Oppose Merge) for which I am not entitled to a separate vote or opinion. This enforcement of manipulated guidelines is unjust to say the least. Oppression by irrational suppression. Got it. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Spirit Fox99. If you are willing to drop the hostile attitude, I would be pleased to help you understand this correctly. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also oppose a merge. Pretty much everything is already in the Novak Djokovic article plus merges are more for articles that have been here awhile. This was just created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2023/01/26/who-novak-djokovics-father-srdjan-what-pro-putin-night-wolves/ and https://nz.news.yahoo.com/novak-djokovic-father-responds-after-australian-open-warning-220814341.html proves he does get coverage on his own. Dream Focus 09:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG. It's not as if he received coverage only because of the yesterday's incident – there's sustained coverage dating back to 2010:
    • Trošelj, Slavko (December 25, 2010). "Đorđe je Novak na kvadrat". Politika Online (in Serbian).
    • "Srđan Đoković: Nisam kandidat za predsednika TSS". Politika Online (in Serbian). December 10, 2010.
    • "Srđan Đoković za B92: Novak će postati najbolji u istoriji". B92 (in Serbian). May 21, 2016. Retrieved January 27, 2023.
    • "Kašika, viljuška, reket". Nedeljnik Vreme (in Serbian). February 2, 2011. Retrieved January 27, 2023.
    • (a lot more can be found)
Granted, a lot of that coverage is because of his statements related to Novak, and several faux pas he committed in the way. Quote from my ref 4 Behavior and public statements of Đoković the elder did not bring him much sympathy with the Serbian public, as can be seen through numerous comments surrounding the news about elections in the national tennis organization. Now, how to sympathetically paint a picture about a man whose main source of coverage is being a loudmouth, is another question. No such user (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For a far more egregious case of a tennis player's father, see Damir Dokić. No such user (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting pov. If 90% of his "press coverage" is of the notorious variety, and that is the reason his is notable enough for a solo article, then the article's weight should be geared towards 90% negative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to be fair, PT Barnum was also a loud-mouth. Some people are just good at getting the media to notice them; I'm still uncertain why the Kardashians are famous, or Paris Hilton. They have that "something" that makes people write about them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's always tricky with "breaking news" articles, but I think the additional coverage means that WP:NBIO is now met. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seven people have argued for keep. Two to delete. Meanwhile an editor is insisting on not linking to this article from Novak Djokovic (see [[67]] while this AFD is ongoing. Considering WP:SNOW can we please wrap this up, I can't see this being deleted CT55555(talk) 01:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's 3 for delete including the initiator... hardly WP:SNOW but certainly very likely to keep. But we aren't in any hurry at Wikipedia and these things usually go at least a week. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Given the online references cited alone, the article seems fails WP:NOTINHERIT and WP:BLP1E. However, I will take WP:AGF to assume this article have passed WP:GNG, Iff the cited offline sources contain well-documented contents regarding Srdjan, though the book souces really have to WP:IC. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough significant and relavant sources to pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 13:32, 1 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 delete. CSD G5: Created by an editor who has persistently evaded blocks in order to post self-promotional vanity pages over a considerable time, currently evading at least one block, namely 2405:201:600f:e053::/64 JBW (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Talib filmography

Mohd Talib filmography (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 notability. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Talib Shah and related comments for more information. Silikonz💬 02:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Vegalta Sendai season

2008 Vegalta Sendai season (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, have no citations, and all the fields are empty. Only names of players are filled from a primary source. There are no reliable sources in this article.  Previously, similar article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Vegalta Sendai season. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Vegalta Sendai season

2007 Vegalta Sendai season (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, have no citations, and all the fields are empty. Only names of players are filled from a primary source. There are no reliable sources in this article. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:51, 27 January 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 to delete and none appears likely to emerge, coupled with sock disruption. A merger discussion can take place on the talk page, and if necessary an established editor can bring this to AfD. Star Mississippi 15:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Virginia's 7th Senate district special election

2023 Virginia's 7th Senate district special election (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 should be deleted because per precedent articles about state legislative elections are not Notable enough to justify an article. Most of this information should be moved to Virginia's 7th Senate district DHSchool2003Student (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • You should also put your response to deletion on this page, optionally along with, in bold, your recommendation on what to do with the page. (e.g. keep, delete, merge, redirect, move, etc.) DHSchool2003Student (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First of all, I must say that I am a little disappointed that this was nominated for deletion. I understand that this article may not meet certain notability qualifications that would usually justify such an article. This is, as you said, merely a special election. However, I am using the highly detailed and exceptionally well-written work done by User:Daniel Case in his article about a 2017 Delaware State Senate special election as a precedent for what I am doing here. So much so that I copied the ordering of his table of contents as the framework for my own article. My article is obviously incomplete, but I am going to put in the work to make this a well-researched and informative article. On the topic of notability, again, I understand that special elections don't often get their own pages, but I would like you to consider the opening words of the Washington Post article, which I cite at the beginning of my own article. "What could have been a sleepy special election for a single legislative seat in Virginia Beach has instead drawn heaps of money and national attention — in large part because of abortion.[3]" I would argue that the implications of this election on both the state and national merit notability far outside the confines of the results themselves. If this election merited national press coverage, donations from across the state, the involvement of various state and local politicians, including the governor himself, and extensive discourse online, I would suggest that this article does, in fact, meet the general notability guidelines. More so than other pages that I have read. I am a local of the Hampton Roads area, and I'm well invested in the political developments here. I'm writing this article to provide insight into local politics that you would otherwise miss. I include reliable sources, and I have thus far avoided original research.Talleyrand6 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "বাংলা টেলিভিশনে প্রথমবার ' বোধ বুদ্ধি ' নিয়ে আসতে চলেছে নতুন ধারাবাহিক ' বোধিসত্ত্বের বোধ বুদ্ধি '". Bangla Asianet News.
  2. ^ "TRP: রেটিং চার্টে অবস্থা শোচনীয় 'মিঠাই'-র! জয়জয়কার গৌরী, খড়িদের". Aaj Tak বাংলা.
  3. ^ Vozzella, Laura (January 6, 2023). "Abortion at the forefront in special election for Virginia Senate seat". The Washington Post. Retrieved 11 January 2023.
  • My issue with the reference to the Delaware article is that in that case, there was signifigant media coverage, while there was little to no such coverage here. DHSchool2003Student (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WDYM by 'media coverage'? Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, per WP:Notability (events) the event is likely notable if it "has enduring historical significance and meets the general notability guideline or if they have a lasting effect" both of which are extremely questionable for this article. The policy also states that, and this is the key bit, the event is "very likely to be notable if it has widespread (national or international)", which this article does not satisfy. In addition, the policy states, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." All of these things together seem to state that this article is not notable. Per precedent, unless a state legislative election is huge and widely reported by national news, it is not notable. I am not proposing the deletion of this content, I am simply proposing it for moving to 2023 Virginia elections and Virginia's 7th Senate district because that is the general precedent for minor special elections. The map can also be moved to 2023 Virginia elections. DHSchool2003Student (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. DHSchool2003Student (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Move/Redirect/Merge to 2023 Virginia elections and Virginia's 7th Senate district for reasons that I listed before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHSchool2003Student (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Linguist111 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move/Redirect/Merge to 2023 Virginia elections and Virginia's 7th Senate district non notable election with campaign that only lasted for a few months. Putitonamap98 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023_Virginia_elections in the section already there. I found only one national article that mentions the race winner: Washington Post. Much of what is in the article here seems to be original research, such as the voting demographic information. To be included, that info would need not only to be sourced but presumably sourced in relation to this race. The article is a good piece of research, but I'm afraid it doesn't follow WP policies for includable content. Lamona (talk) 18:25, 17 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! 19:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Talleyrand6. —- Politicsfan4 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Talleyrand6, as seconded by Politicsfan4. This special election received considerable attention in the media, as evidenced by the 17 inline cites appended to the article. The article contains elaborate background detail as well as charts, maps and voting analysis supported by those citations, all of which sheds light on the politics of abortion which were so prominent here. Also, this article is extremely useful for those researching American campaigning. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Talleyrand6's original comment currently sits in a position where it's been somewhat refuted by the subsequent discussion, and therefore the keep !votes that tag onto it are not as strong as they may otherwise be. Relisting for further input regarding Notability (events).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that the nominator is a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit rude Talleyrand6 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OOOOOOH I'm dumb, sorry. I thought you were calling me a sockpuppet. Talleyrand6 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SOCKPUPPET for what that means on Wikipedia. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:24, 1 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 to Keep this article after recent improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Jing (composer)

Yang Jing (composer) (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)

Seemingly NN composer, failing all 6 elements of WP:COMPOSER. The article has been largely written by 2 WP:SPA editors focused on this individual, one now indefinitely blocked for copyright violations and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, China, and Switzerland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google search with her Chinese name found [68] and [69]. I'm not super sure about the two sources' reliability though. I will also note that the article on Chinese Wikipedia got deleted for being an advertisement. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mucube, the Swissinfo is a reliable source but not sure for another one. Taung Tan (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In English there is also the China Daily Asia article, "Plucking new heart strings", which quotes her but also includes a few facts about her life. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of additional sources found. I was ready to dismiss the article completely because it was in such terrible shape; obviously WP:PROMOTION does not belong on Wikipedia. But having now looked a bit deeper, there is quite a bit of meaningful coverage of Yang Jing as a pipa soloist and as a composer – in fact, it feels like the previous version of the article really wasn't doing her justice (and I doubt anyone got paid for that since it was full of factual errors, and/or if they were, one would hope someone got their money back). I've deleted some of the most problematic sections, and incorporated some facts from the most in-depth article so far in English (from China Daily Asia), which it overrelies on at the moment, but Wikipedia Library also returns several reviews of her recordings in English, and then there are many other articles to go through in German and Chinese (and possibly French). This is going to take some time to fix, so it's very much still a work in progress, but most definitely a "keep". Cielquiparle (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Primary sources on the article that does not advance notability, two sources mentioned are a concert promotion, and the other about the Pipa. This site has some content that blurs the line between originsl research and puffery, "Yang Jing is obsessed with the joy of improvisation, which is not only a challenge of superb skills, but also a unique creation." It is not written as a quote so appears to be the author's wording as if the mind of the subject is an open book. At any rate, the source has a warning "This content is original by China Business News, and the copyright belongs to China Business News. Without the written authorization of China Business News, it may not be used in any way, including reprinting, excerpting, duplicating or mirroring.", so care should be observed." There is only one source (China Daily Asia in the article) that has in-depth coverage so I wonder if this is enough? -- Otr500 (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is more from Wikipedia Library. It will take some time to add, but the good news is that some of it is reviews, so it is independent. (And no, not puffery by any means.) Cielquiparle (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (I usually like to wait until I've gone through all the sources to choose the strongest two or three, but I have added a couple of others to the article itself in the meantime.) Cielquiparle (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, Natg 19 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A willingness to improve the sources is great, There is enough evidence towards notability. Also, for the record, the subject's Nine Jade Chains is pretty spectacular. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: because the article has greatly improved. So There is enough meet WP:GNG. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 10:40, 30 January 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! 08:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear husband

Dear husband (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 don't really think that this bit of internet slang is really particularly notable. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I wrote this article) Referencing WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, specifically the section WP:WORDISSUBJECT, this article does go beyond a dictionary definition. The first paragraph is a definition and etymology, yes. But the second and third paragraphs directly discuss the social significance of the phrase, citing four academic sources. These paragraphs are enough to satisfy the guideline, and the sources themselves are enough for WP:GNG. I agree that the phrase itself, a priori, doesn't seem like it would be notable, but for our purposes, and as demonstrated by the article as written, it is. Melchoir (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <strikethrough>and now I'm quietly but aggressively plotting a whole series on internet language specific to female dominated Internet forums. Do we already have baby dust and sticky vibes? What about FIAR? HWOT? So many options.</strikethrough> [Sorry this was out of order. jengod (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)]jengod (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I added material about how DH is used rhetorically/psychologically, some lexicographic analysis, some sources about its age, and several examples of sociological research centering on communities where DH is an impt element of intragroup communication. jengod (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT, and even if the article were sourced better it still wouldn’t satisfy GNG. Serratra (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by this? An article on any topic if sourced sufficiently can meet GNG. matt91486 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I can see the NOTDICT argument, but this is very well sourced and offers additional context, so I think does go beyond this. matt91486 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD motivation is invalid, this is clearly not just a dictionary entry.★Trekker (talk) 11:21, 30 January 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! 07:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La venta inn

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or NGEO.  // Timothy :: talk  00:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Significant coverage is found in:
Megowan, Bruce; Megowan, Maureen (2014-07-01). Historic Tales from Palos Verdes and the South Bay. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62585-144-4.
Phillips, John (2010). Palos Verdes Estates. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7385-8144-6.
Kelley, Daryl (1989-02-23). "La Venta Inn Nominated as Historic Site by County". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-01-20.
Rasmussen, Cecilia (2004-07-25). "Luxury Inn Began as Con Man's Vision". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-01-20.
Jfire (talk) 06:07, 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) 00:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, because nomination doesn't make sense. Perhaps article was improved after nomination, i have not checjed. It is recognized in some historic landmark program is one clue that documentation exists so GNG will be met. Edit summaries in article history indicate intent for article to be moved to properly capitalized title. Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is badly written, to the point that I got frustrated at finding another article that only provides the state abbreviation - and no mention of the nation - as a location in a project that has a world wide readership, that I made a less than civil comment here previously... however, it does reach the standard of notability required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:44, 1 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ushna Suhail

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as this [70] are routine and not indicant of notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SIGCOV found and added to page. There are further results in google if you search name variations such as "Sohail". She's notable as Pakistan's first player to earn a WTA Tour ranking and is the country's most capped Fed Cup player.[71]. Jevansen (talk) 09:11, 27 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maichel J. Marchese

Maichel J. Marchese (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 is a biography of an assistant director, sourced only to IMDb. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add. I do not think this person meets WP:GNG or any point of WP:FILMMAKER. Tacyarg (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_27&oldid=1137447003"