Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 27: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:55, 4 October 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 26	September 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hindi films of 1962. if NFILMS needs updating to reflect the working consensus, please open that discussion. History is retained should this subsequently merit being spun back out. Star Mississippi 02:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Hostel

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would tend to think that a 1962 film with notable cast, notable director, notable musicians is notable for historical reasons but if the various results of GBooks (added ~~one~~ 2) search are not judged sufficient, please redirect to the director's filmography. VERY opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yank, I have seen you say this in different AFDs, could you please point out the part of WP:NFILM that says we should keep films because it has notable casts? Definitely not going to be the second criteria of WP:NFIC. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: pre-internet+ notable cast and director and musicians (not only because it has a notable cast) might be a case of Systemic Bias issue, if you really want a corresponding supplemental page to refer my !vote to. My point is: off-line sources probably exist and when I mention that, I generally suggest an ATD (a redirect to a list or to the director, as you do below; when it's verifiable of course.) Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary independent reliable sources with indepth coverage on the film. One source on the page that claims to be a review is just a Google snippet and is not review. Page fails WP:NFILM, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. I am not opposed to redirect to director's filmography. RangersRus (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank, notable cast , notable director, notable musicians.122.172.82.231 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— This IP has made few or no other edits outside this AfD. Lamona (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more opinions on whether or not this subject meets WP:NFILM. Also, since a Redirect was brought up, please supply a link to the suggested target article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's difficult to find sources for something that appeared in 1962 and didn't endure. There was a TV show with the same name which seems to be quite popular and that is what pops up in searches. I did find that a CD had be made of the music but that's all. Lamona (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1962: Although this film doesn't meet WP:NFILM, this coverage is small but showed that the film may be historical as well as added to the career of Nalini Jaywant, hence redirect to List of Hindi films of 1962 instead of deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying also to Liz. (I would prefer a Keep but) if a Redirect is chosen, the target suggested by SafariScribe clearly makes sense; however, I would tend to think that regarding a film a redirect to the director should always be favoured when it is possible, as it is closer to the subject than a more general list (in the present case, Ravindra_Dave#Hindi_cinema. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General note: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus seen here. I'm not sure that a few more days will resolve this, along with the competing suggestions for a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Many of the arguments here revolved around the WP:REFBOMB essay. We must keep in mind that the number or percentage of sources that don't provide SIGCOV does not affect notability. The number and quality of sources that do provide SIGCOV are what matters, even if they are drowned in a sea of routine, non-SIGCOV references. There is a rough consensus here that while most of the cited sources are useless, the few that do provide SIGCOV are enough to meet our notability guidelines. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfree

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

As a fan of the original 151 Pokemon and someone who enjoyed Bye Bye, Butterfree myself, I went over the sources carefully as I really want this to be notable. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem that way at all and it doesn't feel like the article's recreation was justified. Arguably its best source is from CBR, which is considered "unreliable" post 2016. Everything else is pretty trivial, about the episode rather than the Pokemon itself, or from large general lists of Pokemon which don't indicate that particular one is uniquely notable. Even with the paper comparing bug Pokemon to real-world insects, I am not convinced GNG is passed here. I realize I may get hit with the "you nominated it the day it was recreated" argument, but the article did not have an "under construction" banner so I must assume that the creator believes it is in a finished state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being about the episode does not mean that notability cannot be gleaned for Butterfree from the discussion of the episode and commentary on Butterfree's role in it. The Gamer discusses Ash's relationship with Butterfree and what its return could symbolize, and simply being a part of a greater article does not mean that the discussion of the urban legend surrounding it and Venonat is not a demonstration of notability (per WP:GNG). The fact that the episode is a large part of why people talk about Butterfree so much is immaterial to the fact that they do. There is also commentary on Butterfree's role in the game as an early evolver, as was it the subject of commentary as being Ash's first Pokémon caught. I also added this article, which discusses extensively Butterfree's relationship with Ash in the anime. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Butterfree per nom - Most of the sources are game guides, extremely trivial mentions, and content-farm style "Top Ten" lists. The few that look half-way decent are just reviews/summaries of a handful of specific episodes of the anime that featured Ash's Butterfree, with no real discussion about the actual fictional species, and even those are not from the most reliable of sources. I also have to mention that there looks to be quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBing going on here. I already mentioned the trivial nature of the coverage of Butterfree in a lot of the included references, but some of these are literally one sentence mentions of that Pokemon and some, such as the first and fourth ones currently listed, don't mention Butterfree at all. Overall, I am not seeing anything to justify this specific Pokemon being split out into an independent article, and should be Redirected to its section at the Gen I Pokemon list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make the point that the sources you're referring to as not mentioning Butterfree are only used to verify basic information about what a Pokémon is, how they work, and how the games work. Not mentioning Butterfree does not make them not useful for this article, and the same citations are used on Raichu, a featured article. As far as top 10 lists go, there is nothing to suggest that merely being in a top 10 list makes coverage less significant. The Gamer, Crunchyroll, and the entomologist all provide significant coverage on the subject, even if Butterfree is not the main subject of their respective works. In the latter's case, they may be analyzing the Bug type as a whole, but they do not give each Pokémon equal weight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sources not mentioning the subject can be useful for an article, but they also do nothing to help establish any notability for the subject, which is the issue at stake here. Its the sheer number of references being used here that either don't mention Buterfree or have a one-sentence namedrop that gives the impression of a WP:REFBOMB. As far as "Top Ten" style lists go, putting aside the fact that these are often from content farms that are generally not considered reliable sources, they also generally do not actually contain significant coverage. Take the IGN list included here, for example - its three sentences long, and its "coverage" of Butterfree is simply "Bye Bye Butterfree was sad", which is not significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? No one claimed those sources showed notability, they're there to verify facts, how is this refbombing in any capacity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the first two points of the WP:REFBOMB essay - an overkill of citations that briefly namecheck the subject without actually being about the subject, and citations that don't mention the subject and are presented to verify a fact that is not related to the subject's notability. Keep in mind that WP:REFBOMB is just an essay, not a policy - I am simply using it to demonstrate the larger issue - the fact that so many trivial citations are needed to be used to try to provide references for the article shows the lack of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow Buttefree to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Something I feel needs clarification, by the "first and fourth one", are you talking about the references in the article itself or the reception section? Because references 1 and 4 are part of the "copypasta" used in these articles to establish terminology and context to the reader.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man:Yeah, I'm talking about the "copypasta" part that just has the general overview of what a Pokémon is. Which, yeah, I understand is needed for context, but still means about 7 of the citations in this article are not about the subject of the article, which combined with the fact that another 8 are of the "single word mentions" variety means that the article has a lot of citations - but more than half are not actually on the subject of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: That doesn't constitute a refbomb in this case though, that's a section agreed upon after multiple discussions at WT:VGCHAR to help readers understand these articles, and survived the FAC process just fine. Holding them against an article like this is realistically pretty unfair, as refbombing revolves around unnecessary sources in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I apologize, as I did not mean it to be a slight against the editors of the article or to imply any intentional wrongdoing on their part. It was mainly just to preempt the argument I occasionally see pop up in AFDs where someone will cite the number of references in an article as evidence of notability, without examining the amount of coverage of the topic in those references. It was basically just me saying "despite the number of sources present, the coverage of the subject within a lot of them is not significant". I'll try to use better wording in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside, is there any reason why CBR is unreliable in a way that other Valnet sources are not? I believe that general consensus is that being owned by Valnet is not disqualifying, and the article used here was published prior to CBR's layoffs and use of AI. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 30#Comic Book Resources, it seems to be due to a significant degradation of content compared to their old self, and the fact they didn't cover video game subjects until after Valnet bought them, which, additionally, was when their old staff practically all left the moment Valnet bought them. Admittedly I do feel I disagree in its complete unreliability, since it's about equal in terms of quality to the usual Game Rant/Screen Rant, but that was the rationale provided during its initial discussion. I feel if its status should be debated, another discussion at the Sources page would be warranted, but that is likely outside the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a key thing being missed here is the wording "generally" vs strictly unreliable. We've had discussions regarding Valnet afterward that are visible in the archives on the subject of editorial pieces, where the concerns with CBR were strictly about churnalism and AI usage accusations (the latter of which Valnet confirmed they have no plans to use). The article cited here however is an editorial opinion piece, and should be fine for usage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep While I would appreciate stronger sourcing, I feel what's here shows some potential avenues of discussion that help illustrate the character's notability. In the anime's regard, its character arc and the impact it had on viewers is definitely commented on frequently even years after its exit from the show. There's a dissertation here, which while brief actually covers how reactions to the anime helped affect the games itself later on. There's also discussion here on how Butterfree leaving continues a theme of loss and acceptance for children to understand. Additionally there is some design commentary, and while I'd like that to be stronger (then again, let's be real it's a butterfly), the avenue of its evolution being inconsistent and how fans have attempted to rationalize such and the importance of such rationalization is talked about in a published paper here. Now this is just from a cursory glance online thus far, but with how quickly I found these in scholarly works I feel there's enough to this subject to warrant it as a stand alone, it's just a bit in the rough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't access one of them, the others you posted are only 1-2 sentences long when talking about Butterfree, so it kinda backs up the extremely trivial mention/REFBOMB idea here. This feels like it's going into a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument unless you can outright demonstrate several reliable, significant sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More I'm suggesting one could build a "death by 1000 cuts" approach of using the smaller sources providing unique thoughts on a matter observations to support bigger sources in the article, which we've seen in the past can work. It's a weaker argument I'll admit, but it's why I prefaced this with a weak keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the "Weak" part after the recent addition and work on the article and some contemplation. Additionally I feel the "refbomb" argument is a misnomer, as it's being used apparently against the references in the article as a whole instead of the reception section, and the sources cited there are providing some commentary as to why the character matters particularly due to its anime characterization which is still valid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added this source to the reception (and used it to reduce the number of citations by replacing a source for this in the Appearances section). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I wish there was more here on the species, I think the article does enough to help the subject pass GNG with the mentions of the anime. From the way I read it and see the sources in the reception, I believe the mentions of Bye Bye Butterfree justifies the importance of the Butterfree character in the anime, as well as states why the species is popular in the first place, not strictly about the episode itself. Captain Galaxy 10:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a WP:REFBOMB circumstance fuelled by mere mentions. This hasn't achieved WP:SIGCOV and can be written up in another more notable article. Jontesta (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple articles that go into detail on Butterfree, not merely the episode. Notably, the IGN source, Crunchyroll source, and Sports Illustrated source, on top of the entomological sigcov clearly passes WP:THREE. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Been on the fence about this one the past few days, but I believe this just squeaks past notability. If it were just the Bye Bye Butterfree refs I'd have considered shifting topic focus (And if this discussion does end in a merge/redirect, I would suggest seeing if using this content for that end is viable) but the refs on the urban legend are surprisingly good and do help show there is discussion among players about Butterfree in multiple aspects. While the refs could be stronger, I do believe that this article has just enough to justify a split-out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting is divided between editors arguing for a Keep and those advocating a Redirection. A source analysis might help resolve the difference of opinion whether or not they are sufficient to keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreeing with the source assessment as our next course of action—straightaway—after which I will make an official decision. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant fictional species in the multimedia franchise, a popular and well-remembered character from the animated adaptation, and the subject of cultural discourse through urban legends, and all verified by secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The anime reception for the two episodes seems like it is just enough to push Butterfree over the line. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's well developed and it's about a popular character overall afterall. Web-julio (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fasıl. ✗plicit 02:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şarkı

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

Hard to search for sources as I am not a native speaker and the word means “song”. Seems unlikely to be notable but instead of deleting could perhaps be merged? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are located discussing the specific song form, then a merge could be sensible. As is, however, I think either a redirect to fasıl or the definition on Wiktionary (via {{wiktred}}) would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a stub, the article is about a specific musical form, which is notable on its own. [1] A potential merge would be an editorial dicussion, not an AfD discussion.

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The current article is little more than a dictionary definition and it is not very encyclopedic. As a type of song, this article could be expanded into something similar to ballad or aria, but knowledgeable editors will have to do a lot of work. "Unencyclopedic" and "needs expansion" are not good criteria for a vote so I am merely commenting here, but I recommend that someone gather the forces at Project Cleanup, Article Rescue Squadron, and/or Project Turkey. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fasıl. As I wrote above, this is not keepable as is. I do not think the subject is inherently notable as Joyful seemingly suggested, and without anyone championing its expansion, why should we just let it sit? I agree with Doomsdayer that reaching out to those projects would probably help, but until such time where there is a response and work begins, I don't think it's right to leave this alone. And the article can always be restored and expanded. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fasıl: As stated above, this is a notable topic, type of song in Ottoman classical music. However, due to the lack of sources and no expansion in sight, it should stay as a redirect until its sourced recreation. Aintabli (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fasıl - I find this to be a good idea after the above discussion, though the fasıl article needs a lot of work in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto G. Carbone

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

Article about a person that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first source is a database result as well as unverifiable. The second sources was like that too. The third one, embt.org, is solely a tribute to another man called "Alberto", and has nothing to do with this article. Source 5 is undoubtedly unreliable, and source 6 is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (because it's written by him, I would call it a WP:SELFPUB. ORCID isn't needful especially when citing as a biographical information. I don't know much about it, but it does appear like a user generated site. I was thinking how we can structure a person's research as academics always write many publications. On this aspect, there are many primary sources; books written by him, and thy are from source 9 to 11. Primary sources may be useful and good, but at the same time doesn't tell us how notable was that research. WA it reviewed by critics, did it appear on TV sites, e.t.c.

The subject's co-authored work, and his first book according to the article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is applicable to the third (there was no mention of the second book). A Fellow of the American College of CHEST Physicians isn't notable per WP:NACADEMIC as the membership including non elected paid position is shown here. Same as the American Heart Association. Additionally, a letter of recommendation on someone doesn't show his notable that person is, and it isn't an award per WP:ANYBIO. This was accepted via AFC by me, for the sale of this AFD. The creator is likely a COI editor who has moved this page twice, and it has been draftified twice too. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Literature, Education, Science, and Italy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low GS citations in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment ORCID's mean nothing with regards to notability. I have one, you can register for one, for free. We were encouraged at one point to register for one with our Wikipedia credentials... Not sure how useful it is, but it doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the explanation above, doesn't seem to have gained recognition in the field yet due to the low citation index. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the changes I have reported and the previous scientific material collected, I completely disagree with your opinion that the Roberto G. Carbone page is not worthy of being published on Wikipedia English.

By reading your criticisms and opinions, you are asked to evaluate the page according to the scientific criteria already adopted with other biographical pages of more or less famous scientists that I have taken as a comparison to evaluate the validity of the page and the sources cited by me.

Please remember that there are many sources from English scientific societies that cannot be considered unreliable. I would also like to point out that many of the secondary sources cannot be cited as they do not exist on the web but only physically in paper format (for example scientific magazines, local newspapers, independent information). I therefore ask you to let me know how I can possibly insert this additional data.

It is recommended to use international scientific criteria to evaluate the quality and scientific impact of the research carried out by Dr. Roberto G. Carbone with those who have the appropriate scientific requirements.

Last revision:

The English Wikipedia version is much more accurate than the Italian one. In detail, in the introduction I have added more accurate information regarding the scientific studies and the collaboration of Roberto G. Carbone's closest colleagues.

I added in the "Research" section the close collaboration with the Nobel Prize winner Prof. Renato Dulbecco in the physiology of lung cancer.

I added a quote with the photograph of the current president of the Royal Society Medicine who recommended that I write as a courtesy that Roberto G. Carbone is honored to be a member of the Royal Society Medicine.

~~Finally I added the appointment of Roberto G. Carbone to the editorial board of the scientific journal The Lancet by the Editor. Rolando8891 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobel laureate is going to be notable, but collaborating with a Nobel laureate doesn't automatically make one notable too. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion above by Rolando8891. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Citation record does not look like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Editorial board membership is WP:MILL, and does not contribute to notability. The fellowships in the Royal College and in CHEST appear to be based in large part on ability to pay, to be open to early career researchers, and in general not to be the kind of thing discussed by NPROF C3. Fellowship in American Heart Association failed WP:V. Little sign of GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Russ Woodroofe's evaluation just above. In addition, the bit about the libraries that hold his 2009 book is just odd. So what if it's held "at MIT in Boston [sic]"? The MIT library system contains millions of books. That whole paragraph reads like trying to hype up a person without actually knowing what a successful academic career looks like. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify and move-protect.‎. I also blue-locked the mainspace deleted page for one year to prevent recreation by non-XC editors. Any admin is welcome to replace this with a page-block for the relevant editor, if they believe it to be a better solution. Owen× ☎ 13:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen-Craig Aristei

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom as AfD1 closer since, while not a G4, it does not seem the issues raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen-Craig Aristei have been addressed sufficiently. Should the consensus remain draftify recommend move protection. Star Mississippi 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Entertainment. Star Mississippi 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to all who participated: @SafariScribe @TarnishedPath @Spiderone @Timtrent @Rkg5514 @Bearian @Andy Dingley Star Mississippi 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors were accommodating because it was the Creator's first article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys -- added section regarding SCA's management of Survivor, from a primary source text (Jim Peterik's memoir). Being GM of WB Music, discovering a multi-platinum act, additional management of acts across the late-70s and 80s I think establish his notability. I've cited contemporaneous news stories (Billboard, Cash Box). He's not David Geffen, but so few of us are... Rkg5514 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added information and citation regarding SCA's role in placing a number one hit single with David Cassidy in '73. Trying to alleviate concerns SCA was not associated with any substantial hits... Rkg5514 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. What is your connection with Aristei? Star Mississippi 01:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to bludgeon, just wanted to keep this space apprised on changes. Relationship is, served as copy editor on a manuscript in which he was featured. Rkg5514 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move protect. I have been always fine with protecting articles, especially move protection. My record has been absolutely clear for 17 years. Thank you for the ping. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The edtior who moved this back to mainspace had their chance to demonstrate notability prior to moving it back to mainspace and they've failed.Draftify and Move Protect and guidance provided to the editor that they must utilise AFC on this subject. Only one source has anything more than passing mentions and that's a blog (hosted by WordPress). The rest of the references only mention the subject once or not at all. There's only one article I can't access which is reference 6. I was unable to find anything else through doing searches which demonstrates notability. TarnishedPath^talk 02:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and Move Protect: Nothing to verify notability has changed. As a key tenet of Wikipedia WP:V must be demonstrated. The creating editor's ambition in returning this to mainspace exceeds Aristel's claim to notability. While AFC is not compulsory I believe they should be given firm guidance to await a review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't much like this article. It's mostly a big list of notable bands with no obvious reason to connect them to the article subject. However I do think that basic BLPN is being met, so I'd keep it.

What I don't like are all the things that are mentioned, but not explained - like the Survivor litigation. That's no use in an encyclopedia. I don't even know what a 'song plugger' does? It seems to be someone who plugs songs (i.e. written sheet music) to generate cover versions by popular artists. But IMHE (in the UK), the term is more commonly someone who plugs recorded songs to generate airplay and sales. An article, even a short one like this, is far from complete until such loose ends are tied off. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has gotten a lot of attention from a series of Indian milhist sockpuppets that are particularly interested in embellishing histories of non-notable "battles" that are lost by Muslim forces. I find only two hits on google scholar at this title, and zero for its original title, "Battle of Anasagara". asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete according to [2], entirely written by a WP:LLM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
gptzero's false positive rate isn't great - but I agree, I believe this is an LLM creation. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus established to keep. There were two closures which were reverted as BADNAC and NACINV respectively. Consensus favours more towards keep than a speedy keep as a bad AfD nomination or a SNOW close. The nominator is advised to go through page history and do a source analysis before nominating the article for deletion. Furthermore, any idea of deletion of such an article can be discussed in the talk page before any nomination. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right pipeline

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

This article is sourced almost entirely to puff piece 'studies' with no real peer review and opinion articles, with a number of the quoted studies showing the exact opposite of the article's premise. To be blunt, this article is just as much of an opinion piece as the many, many crappy opinion pieces it cribs from. Because the purpose of the article is begging the question, it should either be shitcanned or, at best, heavily reworked to make it quite clear that it's a conspiracy theory. Jtrainor (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – this is a GA and the nomination doesn't actually provide a good reason for deletion. If there are issues with the article, I suggest suggesting changes on talk, instead of starting an AfD. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator, the nomination is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Something felt off about this, since an IP deleted a bunch of reliable sources just a little while before this, and apparently this user has already been warned for frivolous deletion nominations multiple times going back to 2011: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111#Jtrainor and XfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The promotion of this article to GA status already indicates that it meets the notability threshold. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0 This case aside this is very not true. We have deleted many GAs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0 Off the top of my head: The Master (Fallout), Klobb, I recall several others.

Hell, we have deleted Featured articles.
Lewis (baseball)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Lakitu

Spoo (food)

Torchic

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

All were once FAs. Means nothing (they all are redirects now) PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although a rare occurrence, this is interesting... Still, this topic has clearly been covered by several studies and was also analysed in journals and newspapers. Some references briefly mention the term and its definition, while some go into detail. The article meets the WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this AfD, I am just a pedant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 8 and 9 are strong sources about this concept, mostly using Youtube as an example. I suppose the article could be refocused more towards that site, but this isn't a clean-up effort. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: no valid deletion argument provided. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: If you don't like the provided sources, discuss them on the relevant talk page. I wish to emphasise Thebiguglyalien's comments. WP:SNOW applies. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(note that SNOW and WP:speedy keep are different things), though both apply here. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that is possible for a non-admin to close an AfD as keep. See WP:NAC if anyone that's not involved wishes to give it a try. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this AfD be closed pursuant to WP:SK unless further justification is provided. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clovermoss, this AFD was closed as a NAC but it wasn't done correctly so I reverted it. No problem if a more experienced editor who is familiar with AFDs and closures takes this on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sorucing presently in the article shows a clear pass of the WP:GNG. FWIW, personally, I do not see speedy keep criteria WP:CSK being met here (in this case, the main ones being: there is a deletion rationale - sourcing issues - there's no nominator withdrawl and it is not *unquestionably* vadalism or distruption). ~~That said, a WP:SNOW closure can be appropriate here.~~ Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gregory Wings

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

Promo UPE article. Refs are paid for PR, non-bylined content and promo articles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a little coverage in The Source [3] and quite a bit about his involvement in a failed Burna Boy concert in South Africa, although the latter could be viewed as WP:1E, plus the LA Weekly coverage. It seems marginal, and the article needs a lot of work. But one or two more sources could save it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, there is decent coverage and this can be improved not deleted. Gwatakwata (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwatakwata:@Colapeninsula: Can you give me two other sources that prove he is notable. The LA Weekly coverage is a good WP:SECONDARY but it is single reference and is likely only seen a WP:OR. WP:BLP which states "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" means must have good sources. Another two and I close this. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question It looks to me like the TimesLive and Sunday World articles are substantial. From what I can learn on the sites themselves, both seem to have suitable stature in their markets. User:scope_creep, do you have information that would lead us to conclude that these are not reliable sources? Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TimesLive one looks like an interview containing several quotes by him, copied verbatim, which make the majority of the article along with an image supplied by him. The Sundayworld is another similar type of thing. They have used an image of him from instagram. It may better but I don't know, hence this Afd. They dont seem particularly independent. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blatantly promotional text, full of advertorials, such as this, this, or this, pretending to be sources. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics since a simple incision seems not to be enough. We have & found:

Simple, typical, unexceptional announcements of a new hip hop release in a hip hop website, such as this in The Source, e.g. "new single and album are available on all digital streaming platforms. Check out latest single below," etc; the LA Weekly reproducing here a press release put together by our subject's PR; TshisAlive, the promotional branch of the South African Sunday Times putting out advertorials about every little thing concerning their artist, e.g. here about a beef with Ticketpro, here about philanthropy plans, etc; a lot of items about the one truly notable event in our subject's career, i.e. the "Burna Boy debacle," e.g. here, all doused by a strong sprinkle of promotion; assorted dead links; and that's it. Try as we graciously might, there is no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. asilvering (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ÇOMÜ Faculty of Theology

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ÇOMÜ Faculty of Theology

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

We already have page for the university, I don't think this faculty is notable on its own we don't need this page. Moreover the article is unsourced. Pedian4169 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has existed since 2012 with no sources whatsoever. — Maile (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist)

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

Entirely promo Amigao (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Behavioural science, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional autobiography. I blocked the creator for promotional username and promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite so, thank you Cullen328. Axad12 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. The article is a promotional bio of a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a different person than Diane Hamilton, a business professor at Rowan University and the author of some reasonably well-cited works that otherwise look like they might fit the subject of this AfD ("A decision model for integration across the business curriculum in the 21st century", "Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction", and "Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model"). The better-cited Diane Hamilton from Rowan was educated at Rowan, Drexel, and Temple [4] which doesn't match the education part of the nominated article. I also found several reviews of folklore music by our non-disambiguated Diane Hamilton. As for the Diane Hamilton whose article we are discussing, her books appear to be essentially self-published and I found no reviews. We do not have the citation record or other criteria needed for WP:PROF, none of the sources in the article are sufficiently reliable and independent to contribute to WP:GNG, and as discussed above the article is heavily promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ochicha

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

I couldn't find sources to verify that this meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPLACE based on [5] and [6]. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would have voted a ‘keep’ but the article contains no citation or reference. Needs to be developed and improved. Mevoelo (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : No reliable source about this village. Just fails WP:GEOLAND.--Gabriel (……?) 16:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Gabriel601: You might want to revisit the article (and your !vote) now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NPLACE. Best, Reading Beans 05:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPLACE and shouldn’t be deleted. However, article might just be further developed. B.Korlah (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus among participants here to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Atticus Parker

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

This article should be deleted. The article highlights his film career, but his career is WP:TOOSOON. He has had three uncredited TV roles, one credited TV role 3 years ago, one uncredited movie role, and two credited movie roles. It is premature to give this actor a Wikipedia article. The article does not demonstrate GNG with its sources and it is reasonable to assume someone with such a small filmography could not meet that standard (yet). While his parents are two very talented actors, but notability is not inherited. Mpen320 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of at least 2 notablle feature films, so that deletion is not necessary in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The criteria for WP:DIRECTOR to which I believe you are alluding is the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). Neither of his films has been covered in this way. The films do not show up on the Box Office Mojo grossing lists. Forty Winks is an 80 minute movie (barely a feature) and has four reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Atrabilious, which is at least a full length film, has a whopping five. For context, Paddington 2 has 251 reviews. Neither film's gross shows up on Box Office Mojo, so they were not widely released. Depending on what one can find about Atrabilious, it would be just one single thing and still not meet WP:GNG. --Mpen320 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his films have received coverage the way that is required. Yes, it is less than Paddington 2, which received less than Citizen Kane..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And 80 minutes is CLEARLY not barely the duration of a feature film (>40 or 58 min), btw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also Wp: Oneevent does NOT apply to artists and their work, whereas Wp:Director DOES apply even if one film is concerned (and here you have 2, anyway). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be able to demonstrate that coverage by providing links in your responses. Also, I assume at this point I am being trolled because Citizen Kane has 134 critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. That is such an unnecessary lie.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious??? I'm telling you Citizen Kane received more coverage than Paddington 2 , which everyone knows, and you feel compelled to check the number of comments on Rotten Tomatoes and call that "trolling" and a lie??? Just educate yourself. I will make no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now that I 1) got a little too wrapped up in this and 2) should have not read your thing so literally (i.e. more not equalling more reviews, but rather general SIGCOV). If you have any sources, as I said, please provide.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Leaving this here: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs)

I am not sure this comment is necessary, given the page history. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave this on all pages where I get pushback on deletions.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As creator of this article, I’m humble either way if it gets kept or deleted. I also want to say that I find it interesting about the WP:TOOSOON argument considering that the two films Parker directed were released while he was still a teenager. The Film Creator (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. An explicit call out to that in the article would help the case of anyone seeking to keep it and makes a much better argument than any of the above. Ultimately, it does not change my vote as I think neither films has gotten the coverage to warrant the director having an article nor do I think the director meeting GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No @Mpen320, if the two films meets our guidelines for films (WP:NFILM), then the director may be notable per WP:NDIRECTOR. It doesn't matter how short the article appears to be insofar as Wikipedian keeps WP:STUBS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources 4 and 6 are about the director, 4 is rather short though. 6 is good. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Also coverage of a film of his in Playbill, [7]. Critical notice is about all you can ask for to meet director notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NDIRECTOR as he has directed two notable films. I see this as a great stub article although more sources added to the article would be good. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see one film as POSSIBLY notable given its cast. The other one I'm struggling to see as notable. I make that point in my nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Writer & director of two notable films, this is a slam dunk for notability, and one of the weakest nominations for deletion I've ever seen, the motivation for which I could only guess at... StrodoDoggins (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.рус

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

No good sources, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article literally says, twice, that there is a lack of information for use in writing about it.. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many references exist in the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/.%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81 or ru:.рус That article also includes a detail chronology of the top-level domain. Once the information in the Russian article is added to this one, notability should be clear. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the russian article, a large majority of the sources are from icann, which is not what I would describe as independent third-party coverage congruent with WP:GNG Sohom (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd say it's a plurality. There's usable sources like CNews, RIA Novotsi, and Lenta.ru. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: yeah it's a new article and it needs time to develop. Just give it time. Robloxguest3 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll add the references from the russian one (i'll need help though.) Robloxguest3 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not recognized by ICANN. [8] There's a reference to another Wiki which says ICANN approved it, but that reference hasn't been updated for about 10 years (and is self-published, anyhow). -- mikeblas (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas As a punycode domain, it is recognized by ICANN as XN--P1ACF. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! The article doesn't mention that it's punycode, or give its local representation of "РУС". (Or, maybe my font set isn't good enough for a discernable lowercase У.) Anyway, Keep, then. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The response to the proposed sourcing that may meet NCORP is the most persuasive comment below, and is supported by Alpha3031 subsequently. I am happy to undelete and draftify this upon request if someone has new sources they want to add in the future. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parabellum Investments

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

Non-notable corporation. All sources are WP:CORPTRIV about the firm's acquisitions. Also created by a blocked user. — Dan Leonard • talk • contribs 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nb for participants that there is also a draft, with different text and references, here: Draft:Parabellum Investments. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the excessive references, keeping only those that could be considered substantial, 3rd party. There are multi-paragraph articles about each of the acquisitions that discuss the business aspects. I think this now meets NCORP. Lamona (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:

"Increasing market regulation a step in the wrong direction, says private equity leader". EconoTimes. 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not independent: written by or in close collaboration with Parabellum Investments' founder.
Bignell, Francis (2021-05-06). "ieDigital: Have UK Financial Institutions' Investments Into the Digital World Provided Returns?".
Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and not even in the article prose.
"TMX sells Razor Risk to Parabellum". Finadium. 2017-01-09. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: brief one-paragraph announcement of a corporate acquisition.
Taylor, Phil (2020-04-16). "Private equity firm buys anti-counterfeit firm Advanco". www.securingindustry.com. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and only in describing how Parabellum's CEO will become chairman of the company that is the actual subject of the article.
Stuart-Turner, Richard (2023-01-04). "Tall Group acquired by Parseq". Printweek. Retrieved 2024-09-23.}
Not in-depth: makes only a passing mention to Parabellum Investments, and is about an acquisition by a subsidiary of Parabellum. A full level removed.
"Advanco becomes the world's largest independent pharmaceutical serialization solutions provider following the acquisition of Vantage Consulting Group | Pharma Business International". 2023-06-15. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not independent: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
"Rami Cassis Acquires Connect FSS Through ieDigital – in Latest Step Towards Building World's Largest Fintech Targeting Mid-tier Financial Institutions". Financial IT. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not independent: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
Tullis, Mark (2023-10-11). "Connect FSS Acquired by Parabellum Investments". www.techbuzz.news. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: primarily about the company being acquired by Parabellum and not about Parabellum itself.
"ieDigital Acquires Abaka". FinSMEs. 2024-01-29. Retrieved 2024-09-23.
Not in-depth: primarily about the company being acquired by Parabellum and not about Parabellum itself.

I still see no evidence of Parabellum meeting WP:NCORP. None of these sources qualify. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a family office, and being realistic, it's going to be rare for any of those to receive NCORP-level coverage. Looking through the usually M&A dross, I see no reason to believe this one is an exception. Delete: Coverage needs to be of the company, and not inherited from sources describing the operations of their subsidiaries. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Foundation universe. I don't think this discussion needed to be relisted as the opinion of participants was just about unanimous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Empire (Asimov)

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable fork of Foundation universe. This one has an abundance of material without proper references making it unsuited for an article and appropriate for deletion. WP:BEFORE indicated that Foundation universe might be a broader topic with some WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe, mostly WP:ALLPLOT with lackluster context of why it is independently important from the universe itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe - Almost entirely made up of overly detailed, in-universe plot information on one part of the Foundation series' setting. There is no indication that a split article is necessary, and the topic would be best covered as part of the article on the Foundation universe's overall plot and setting per WP:NOPAGE. What little there is here that is non-plot summaries and sourced to material aside from the books themselves is not great, and I don't see anything worth merging, but Redirecting would preserve the history if anyone thinks something should be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Foundation universe. While I mostly agree with the comments above, I see a few bits of commentary which should be preserved, like the history of the Galactic Empire being a "repetition of the history of Western Civilization", criticism of descriptions of landscapes, Trantor being satizied in later works, ... Daranios (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selective merge per Rorshacma. It looks like it's redundant with Foundation universe. Editors can decide what's appropriate for the one article, but it doesn't need a split. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Freya. Any merging can be done editorially, the content is still available behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildisvíni

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Bare mentions are not enough to write an article, but these minuscule terms from mythology are verifiable and could be an ok redirect term. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the helmet part to Germanic boar helmet#Old Norse and redirect to Freya as the more immediate target. That part of the topic is already treated there. Interestingly there seems to exist a variation of the origin, being created by two dwarves for Freya, but I cannot figure out the details so I cannot say how much additional material there would be. Daranios (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. There's a tremendous amount of material and discussion from many secondary sources one can add to this article. Merging it will only discourage that. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: I am very much open to keeping this a separate article, but don't have a good graps of how much material there is. Could you perhaps point out some of those secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freyja. WP:BEFORE shows only trivial mentions but there is an WP:ATD. The article has been tagged for references since 2017 and the best course is to expand it at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as now there are two different Merge/Redirect suggested target articles and one definite "No merge" opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just in case that was unclear, Shooterwalker and me agree in Freya as the ultimate redirect target, as suitable parent topic. It's just that I see the helmet part at the bottom as worthy to WP:PRESERVE, and I believe this sub-topic of Hildisvíni only is better treated at Germanic boar helmet#Old Norse. Daranios (talk)

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. asilvering (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turing switch

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

No significant coverage besides the original author; I could only find trivial mentions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no recognizable notability. --Zac67 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Ramos (martial artist)

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

A google search turns up other people named "Pablo Ramos" even when I added the words "martial artist." I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Puerto Rico. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither GNG nor NSPORT, probably a vanity page. Nswix (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much PROMO for his business [9]. I don't think appearing in Stars and Stripes is quite the level of notability we're looking for. I don't see any sources we can use about this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And the image is a likely copyvio from the same website... another red flag here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI/PROMO, fails WP:GNG and fails martial arts notability. Having a black belt doesn't cut it. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional tone. There's no evidence of success as a competitor, except perhaps in some age group divisions. Coverage doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and he doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'DeleteVainglorious nonsense about total nudnik (lack of notability, and copyediting out the huge bubbles of guff would leave nothing)TheLongTone (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG miserably. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration (game)

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

A copy and paste move from AfC. I didn't PROD for two reasons. One reason, it'll inevitably be reversed by the draft/article creator. Another reason is that it's unreliably sourced, and unfortunately, it's difficult to find sources via a search engine. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: There was a terrible error with the swap tool. This article has been draftified. However in the process of deleting this as a redirect, I restored the contents inorder to move without leaving a redirect, but found myself swapping pages instead of moving. But since the editor bypassed AFC to create this drat, I am not opposed to delete. It doesn't meet WP:NGAME. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasoning includes the following points:

A) it is suggested that the article is unreliably sourced. Yet included are 10 citations from a variety of online sources, including the respected BBG (‘board game geek’) and ‘shut up & sit down’, which are themselves referenced in their own Wikipedia articles. Additionally, there is a citation from an original review in the 1970s physically published magazine ‘Games & Puzzles’ B) this compares favourably with other live articles describing other board games listed on the Waddington's Wikipedia entry, such as the one for ‘Formula One’ (which was used as a template to create this article), which only has 6 citations. C) it is also surmised that this subject is not ‘notable’, and yet it is listed on the Waddington’s Wikipedia entry in the list of notable games, along with other board games which have their own articles including ‘formula One’. By implication, if this well researched and cited article is not deemed suitable, it implies that many other articles on similar games need reviewing, along with the notable games list. I consider it a crime against knowledge sharing that such an extensive deletion of articles might be undertaken D) it is stated that few entries are found when googling this subject matter. That is hardly surprising given that the subject of the article is a game that was first published in 1967 and went out of print during the 1970s, way before the internet was created. Still, the game was very popular during its time, selling in the many thousands, as can be judged by observing the number of copies currently for sale on auction sites such as eBay and Amazon, indicating the continued interest. There is also a YouTube review of the game which is only 9 months old, showing the continued interest, implying a Wikipedia entry would be of assistance E) it is incorrectly assessed that this is a computer video game. This mistake leads to the belief that it is not notable, since no modern details exist. Whereas the reality is that this is a traditional board game, recognised by families of the 1970s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartiperson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will have to see what else can be found, but the review in Games & Puzzles [10] is a legit WP:RS. BOZ (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have weeded out the non-RS sources, and re-organized it to reflect the information given in the remaining RS sources. Currently those are a contemporaneous review in Games & Puzzles, a retrospective review on the editorially-independent review site Shut Up & Sit Down and a recent article about the game published by the Museum of Games and Gaming (Preston, UK). I believe this is enough to prove notability, and I am sure there are further reviews and articles about this game that have not come to light yet because of the age of the game (1970s). Guinness323 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323, and we might also consider this a brief Reich Der Spiele review. BOZ (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is also a good part of AFD, and I am satisfied with the two reliable sources presented above, hence my consideration. Courtesy pinging nominator, @I dream of horses.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Anderson (model)

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

All the sourcing on this fashion model is over-the-top promotional material, un-bylined, in sources of questionable independence and reliability (example: "Isaac isn’t just another fashion model; he’s a revolutionary force.") In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources and so I don't see a pass of WP:GNG (much less WP:NMODEL). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Ghana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Otero Lárez

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

BLP that fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mister Venezuela 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) (but he had some significant roles in notable telenovelas, so not opposed to Keep if other users suggest that outcome)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I initially found this lacking per NBIO, as per the nominator, and draftified this so other interested parties could improve it, but an editor deemed that incorrect per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. So just delete it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, if good sources are not found for all the content (which is not that much, it should not cost much...) then there is a risk that other sources (databases) will copy us and false information will be distributed thanks to Wikipedia. --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? He is in every series cited (and much more) (I checked and for all I know, he might even meet WP:NACTOR btw). It seems your are raising a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I favour a Keep: not only does he seem to meet WP:NACTOR, see SpWP please) but above all he meets WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Lárez was Mister Venezuela 1999, which seems significant enough.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, from long established consensus. Celebrity awards are generally non-notable, unless the internationally known like the oscars. scope_creep^Talk 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the guideline says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (which Mr Venezuela seems to be) and nothing about being internationally known (which Mr Venezuela is, being part of international pageants selections, btw) let alone about like the oscars (why not the Nobel prizes to put the bar even higher?), and that "long-established consensus", although it might indeed exist, should not prevail over the current guideline in my opinion. Thank you all the same. NB-You might want to change the guideline and indicate that limitation if such a consensus really exists and is indeed accepted by a majority of users. I certainly would oppose such a change myself, so please ping me if you start such a discussion about it, thanks. (I do not think, anyway, that Mr Universe nor Mr Venezuela can be called "celebrity awards", not in a derogative way at least.) I'll therefore stand by my !vote, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the guideline says but you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth, and what folk strive and crave for. Its not this. Its right down the list of significance and that is consensus. Indeed your !vote is your !vote, but this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago. If you have WP:THREE sources, please post them up. Also its worth noting an award isn't generally sufficient on its own, unless its a really good award, likely a decent medal for example. If was a good award, its a good indication the person is notable. If was a good award and there was no coverage, I wouldn't have sent to Afd. I would have spent time trying to update it and add sources. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth. Thank you, sure, maybe. But a link explaining how "Mr Venezuela" is neither well-known nor significant and is not a "decent medal' and maybe, one showing that this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago would be nice. I am not sure I understand the rest of your reply. Also please note he is generally simply referred to as Alejandro Otero Again, his roles in notable telenovelas could also be considered significant so that, on top of the award, a redirect, at least, should be discussed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NCREATIVE. Wikipedia is not the directory of all actors, nor is it some collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nightmare Theater

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

Fairly new article about a non-notable TV show; created by a new editor. No sources; no formatting. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Utah. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of Utah's longest running television shows and was very popular. I will be updating sources. As for formatting I will learn and improve the page. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't been able to dig up much. There is Television Horror Movie Hosts 68 Vampires, Mad Scientists and Other Denizens of the Late-Night Airwaves Examined and Interviewed that covers the show, but there is no preview available. There's also a whole self-published book The Complete Index to Salt Lake City's Nightmare Theatre which would probably be decent for information, but doesn't contribute to notability. There's this dramatic piece from the Utah Education Network that says someone hanged themselves after watching the program. Other than that, it's just passing mentions like one of my favorite things to do was to curl up with my dad on a Friday night and watch the famed horror movie show starring Sammy Terry (a play on the word cemetery), “Nightmare Theater.” The low-budget series was just scary enough to capture my interest, but not so scary that DCFS needed to be alerted. I'm leaning delete, but I'm willing to wait to see what sources come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to include this note. Fischer
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consider redirecting title to Sammy Terry If you want to write about a local TV program, you need the sourcing to back up your claim. You also need to show that it has some enduring notability to it. I do not think that the Salt Lake program has that, after doing a search that would have included Utah newspapers from the last 30 years (allowing me to avoid printed titles in TV listings). However, there is a redirect target for this title...out of Indiana, where a show titled Nightmare Theater seems to have enjoyed a 27-year run at WTTV. The SIGCOV is substantial, and we have an article related to it already. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Utah show ran from 1962-1982 continuously. Fairly enduring, twenty years. Documentation noted includes television columns noting its popularity. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn’t this drafted so that the creator can be helped, instead of having to defend the page at an Afd, which is pretty stressful? Draft, please, if the creator and other users agree, speedy-draft, if such a thing exists. I don’t think that nominating a new page 20 minutes after it was created was the best approach. ’Not ready for Main space”, sure but explain it and draftify is, if the creator is a newcomer/apparently not very experienced contributor, the most constructive path imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted the page roughly. The claim that it was the longest show in Utah and coverage might be enough to Keep this. If not, redirect and merge (in)to KTVX#History please. Very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the Utah TV show in this article is entirely distinct from the Indiana TV show of the same name starring Sammy Terry. The Sammy Terry character was on Indiana TV from 1962 to 1989, occasionally thereafter, continuously makes personal appearances, and still produces web content; Sammy Terry has plenty of reliable sources (print news and at least one book), far beyond what the article currently references. If this article survives, it should be moved to something like Nightmare Theater (Utah), with Nightmare Theater being a redirect to Sammy Terry or a disambiguation page. Vadder (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that, even if enough sourcing demonstrating notability could be found, the Utah show is not the primary topic. The Indiana show has much more material to work with. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I did the initial page, and I believe Nightmare Theater (Utah) would be the proper title. This would avoid confusion with all the other Nightmare Theater and Theatres out there. While the show was broadcast on a Salt Lake City station, it was received statewide. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added a hatnote to distinguish the two identically named shows. Moving to a better title, if applicable, can be done once the AfD is closed. Those who !voted to redirect to Sammy Terry, please consider amending your suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PensionBee

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

Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and this seem like independent, significant and reliable sources and there's even more coverage in the news search example. Article needs improvement. Orange sticker (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker, the mentioned sources are focused on announcing the planned expansion, with minimal independent analysis or critical evaluation of PensionBee's business model, market position, orwhatever. Therefore they lack the depth required for establishing the company's notability --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where those standards appear in WP:SIRS? Both the Guardian and FT articles are by staff writers/editors. Orange sticker (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: non-trivial coverage in the Guardian [11], [12]. Should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zhuhai International Circuit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Tan Seng Teong

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD outcome was redirect. I could find no sources for full name or just first and last names. Does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Motorsport, and China. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zhuhai International Circuit (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is mentioned at Zhuhai International Circuit#A1 Grand Prix. The only nontrivial source I could find was this interview^{Internet Archive} in the magazine Car and You (simplified Chinese: 汽车与你; traditional Chinese: 汽車與你). The subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Armenia. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Just because the French article was deleted, that does not automatically validate the others being deleted as well. There are around ~45 other "exonym" articles which still exist. They should all be nomed for deletion if we are going to use WP:NOTDICT as our justification. It is not fair to omit any of them based on this policy. If the policy isn't applied more fairly, I'd lean to a Keep and improve for this article. Archives908 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A mass deletion failed a few months ago because not all such lists are equally trivial. So they are being nominated separately. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki no evidence that WP:NLIST is met. Archives908, are you aware of significant RS coverage about Armenian exonyms as a group? (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As usual, nearly all the entries are trivial examples of the necessity of adapting borrowed words to a new phonology. —Tamfang (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can be significantly expanded and improved, I don't think WP:TNT is worth it. Archives908 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that expansion of trivia is a good thing. —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Romansh exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Switzerland. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Azuredivay (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this specific list wiki-notable? Which reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic of Romansch exonyms? I'm not aware of any policy that would presume automatic notability for lists of exonyms. There have been attempts to group exonym articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus (and some of the articles, such as Chinese exonyms, seem to be notable, due to having been discussed in sources). So, I couldn't have bundled many nominations together, and instead opted for an individual approach. Admittedly, I hadn't considered posting on Talk:Endonym and exonym, fair enough. And I also could've explained my approach, and the reasons for it, in the nominations. toweli (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Barrett (entrepreneur)

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

Coverage mostly about the company; likely fails WP BIO Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the company is notable but not imputed to the CEO or founder. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Massaquoi

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

There's no independent WP:SIGCOV of this athlete, and thus the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa, Moldova, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Searches do not reveal any WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friends' Schools League

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

Lack of notability. Single source is self-published; I could not find anything more solid. TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thibault Leroy Burki

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "Bilan" article is fine; the rest appear to be press releases. I can't find anything else about this person. Being a rich person under 40 isn't terribly notable for our standards. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to DFDS#The Nineties. Star Mississippi 18:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canal Tours

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

The article fails WP:NCOMPANY as written and my BEFORE was not helpful. References here are to the company itself, Dansk wiki article is unreferenced. This seems like a local water transportation company operating several small ferries which does not rise to the level of being encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can’t see any independent secondary sources. All those in the article are produced by the company itself, as advertising. Couldn’t spot any on google either, although there could, I suppose, be a language barrier preventing me from seeing them / knowing what to search for. If anyone finds any, that would help. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DFDS#The Nineties (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nic Barlage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BeFriendlyGoodSir is the creator of the contested article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete refbombs, not enough good in-depth links to illustrate the subject's notability. Promo 157.157.69.81 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Ratre

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

The majority of coverage from reliable sources pertains to Mount Everest, while the remaining sources appear unreliable and lack in-depth coverage of the subject. Apart from climbing Mount Everest, she has no notable achievements in mountaineering, and the references related to her Everest climb are in general media rather than WP:CLIMBER media, making this seem like a case of WP:BLP1E. GrabUp - Talk 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and India. GrabUp - Talk 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in climbing media so her climbs are not notable per WP:NCLIMBER; most coverage is in low-quality WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. This is technically WP:BIO1E and not WP:BLP1E as she is not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual; she documented her activities on Instagram and gave interviews. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Thanks for the correction. GrabUp - Talk 09:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Helpful Raccoon and GrabUp, this is a case of BLP1E and a person who has zero notability in the climbing world (nothing in WP:NCLIMBER sources). There was a time when climbing Everest was notable but not anymore. We have other non-notable WP:NEWSORGINDIA-driven cases (and pseudo-records) in Category:Indian mountain climbers. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Dorneanu

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

Created as a draft which was declined twice and then moved to mainspace by the draft creator, who restored it to mainspace after it had been draftified again. I have cleaned it up pretty extensively and looked for better sources, but I can't see how WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG are met – it looks like a case of an up-and-coming writer who is not yet notable. The single possibly independent source in the article (other than all the sources that don't mention Dorneanu) gives me a warning so I have not assessed that, but one source would not be sufficient in any case. A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing. bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Romania. bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:TOOSOON. Maybe in a few years he'll be notable. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Satish Davara#Filmography. ✗plicit 13:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bham (film)

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

The sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV, and according to WP:ICTFSOURCES, The Times of India is not a reliable source. It fails to meet WP:GNG as no multiple critical reviews were cited, and therefore, it also fails WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Gujarat. GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons in the well-justified nomination. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in the article or from BEFORE to substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No prejudice against redirecting to Satish Davara#Filmography, by the way. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Satish Davara#Filmography: a standard ATD when director is notable and informations are verifiable. Therefore opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Satish Davara#Filmography: , could also WP:DRAFTIFY the article (or actually both!). Not enough there to show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 AC Nagano Parceiro season

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

Fails WP:GNG. Severe lack of sources and content. The only reference is from a primary source. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Creator is globally locked. The page is not great, but is a part of a series of 2014 J3-League club seasons. Geschichte (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it’s part of an entire series of articles for the different Japanese football leagues which not only tracks the competitions year by year, but the teams too. Cutting out a single article in the series seems like it would break up the series for no good reason, when the information itself is super clearly presented, and threaded, in a way I haven’t been able to find anywhere else online.

In my opinion deleting it would take away something useful. For that reason, I have the page a solid edit tonight. I’ve still got to go ahead and add match report links to each individual game, but I think I at least covered the basics.

This is such a useful resource that I’m going to make it a mission to pick through all the rest of the articles in the series one by one, and expand / source each of those as well. So it would be really nice if you didn’t delete this one article as I’m doing that…

Vote to keep. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, new to this, didn’t realise I should have made a * and bolded my keep recommendation until I reread the guide again just now. Mea Culpa.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify - Significant sources have been added and an editor has expressed interest in expanding further. At minimum, move to draft to give editor time to continue to improve. Chris1834 Talk 20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I’m not voting again, having already voted, but I’ll further explain my reasoning having spent the duration of this deletion discussion attempting to edit the article into compliance.

As the article stood when nominated (by a user who has since quit, after having several of his articles similar to this one likewise nominated for deletion / draftified, but then kept - having made “why are mine deleted when there are articles like these” type arguments), it completely lacked sources and content. The nomination was a fair cop. Since the nomination though, I’ve found and cited several sources, reworked the article in ways which I believe both clearly lay out the season, and that prove there was significant coverage in Reliable, Independent, Secondary sources, with the likelihood of there being more sources out there which I have not yet found (searching in Japanese, my second language, slows things down, but this was the first full season in a newly formed professional competition in a major developed country - the chance of there not being more sources that I just haven’t found yet is basically zero.

I would like to just remind people voting that the criteria is that sources proving notability are likely to exist, not that they are cited in the article as currently written. The appropriate policy is

- “ Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.”

I am not accusing anyone of arguing for deletion in bad faith, I think we are all trying to do what is right here, but I would like to ask anyone leaning towards deletion to ask themselves whether it is in part because they are not interested in the topic of the article, and don’t really consider foreign language sources to count when judging reliability on an English Wikipedia page.

I’m going to keep poking away at the article, searching for more sources, and editing if I have time, and honestly I think that efforts to gradually improve the article is a better way to approach this rather than deletion, but I’ll leave that up to you guys now that I’ve said my piece. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article has been improved, although I only see one independent/secondary source (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't really have a P&G-based view on this, but in general an article on a season of a sports team that's more than a stub and meets WP:V generally satisfies the criteria for a WP:SPLIT and has a valid navigational/informational purpose, even if there isn't WP:SIGCOV of the season itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting. Just re sources, some of them are press releases from the league, but apart from the one you mentioned, we have a report on the need for the stadium development / licensing requirements from an independent community development organisation, a historical overview of the stadium redevelopment from the government of another prefecture who is looking to build stadiums there, an article in an online soccer magazine explaining the promotion / relegation games system (it was the inaugural season, so the system was new) giving dates and teams for the matches, and finally an overview of the full season, and of individual matches (one so far, but I’ll add them all eventually if this article is kept) by an independent sports data collection and visualisation company which doesn’t just get the data from the official sources, but also watches the games to collect their own extra data, which it then synthesises into proprietary secondary statistic (Chance Building Points being the main one), and visual game timelines. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ with no prejudice to an immediate renomination. There is both numerical and strength-of-argument disagreement below regarding whether the sources are good enough or not. If anyone wishes to renominate this at AfD, I'd encourage providing a source assessment table for each source, assessing it versus our standards. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela Solidarity Campaign

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

WP:SIRS requires that sources establishing notability need to be "completely independent of the article subject" and reliable. I could only find pro-Venezuelan-government sources about this organization. I find it dubious whether these sources establish notability, therefore I am nominating this for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does seem to be some decent coverage in books. I'll have a more thorough look later. I'm unsure how and on what basis you can characterise particular media sources as "pro-Venezuelan-government". What media sources which are "anti-Venezuelan-government" and are they acceptable to establish notability? AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Google Books results, it seems most are either citations of VSC, or trivial mentions. That was my first glance on the search results, but I do not deny there may be books that provide substantial coverage.

By "pro-Venezuelan-government", I meant, for example, Venezuelanalysis and the Liberation News of Party for Socialism and Liberation or other party-affiliated sites. I do not mean that all "pro-Venezuelan-government" do not establish notability – I expressed myself poorly. I doubt that specific sources establish notability because of their partisanness, with SIRS mandating absolute independence from the subject. I am no expert on notability, I could be mistaken. Janhrach (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the second glance, these mentioned sources do not seem to indicate notability for other, more sound reasons, so my remark about them is kind-of moot. Janhrach (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the breadth of trade union endorsements gives a good indication of the organisation's widespread support within the labour movement (including the largest UK unions). A small sample of reporting over time: Morning Star, Sydney Morning Herald (mention), Vice. WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being significantly supported by the labor movement does not imply notablity; coverage is required. As for the sources you provided, respectively:
1. Some coverage, independence from the subject unclear, reliability unclear.
2. The source is not accessible for me because of a paywall.
3. Very little coverage on VSC.
—Janhrach (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent and reliable sources that establish its notability. Most sources referenced, such as Venezuelanalysis or Liberation News, are clearly partisan and closely tied to political ideologies that align with the subject, which undermines their neutrality. IMHO, organizations that engage in propaganda should be approached with circumspection, as their primary function is to distort reality to serve specific interests. Wilfredor (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree politically with the group but describing them as engaging in propaganda is rather misleading. Irrespective of that, the motives of an organisation do not negate otherwise credible claims to notability. You have also failed to acknowledge the other sources, including books, providing coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unconvinced by the policy-based defences so far. If we put political opinions aside, this group has only trivial mentions in reliable sources, which does not satisfy WP:RS. There are many groups worldwide that support the Bolivarian Revolution and the current government of Venezuela. What makes this particular group notable? Perhaps a reliable source that significantly covers the group would be able to answer this question, but so far nobody has provided such a source. Yue🌙 21:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been provided multiple times, including newspapers and books. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where they have been provided? Janhrach (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sources that have been provided, but if the coverage in those sources were enough, then almost every political organisation in the world with more than a hundred supporters would have an article on Wikipedia. Where is the significant coverage by reliable sources establishing notability? Where are the sources outside of unreliable ones that themselves are part of the campaign or reliable ones that mention the campaign beyond criticisms and to establish the background of subjects who are the actual focus of the articles? Yue🌙 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ziauddin University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ziauddin Hospitals

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

Fails WP:NCORP - in my before I found articles like this which is clearly marked as "PR" or this which is marked as "press release". This hospital chain is a for-profit business so it has to receive non-routine direct and in-depth coverage per WP:CORPTRIV. The corruption scandal is already on Asim Hussain's article, so I'm okay with a redirect to Asim Hussain or the parent organization, Ziauddin University. Gheus (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This hospital is a notable institution in Karachi with sufficient coverage. Rather than being deleted outright, it should be merged with Ziauddin University. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed as per nom. Article clears feels like it has promotional tone and lacks depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ziauddin University as suggested by Saqib above...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Niven

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

Being the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1906 appears to be his only claim to notability. Independent reliable sources are wholly lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added multiple newspaper sources. Beyond being Moderator, he authored a volume of historical writing and was given an honorary degree "in recognition of his eminence as a preacher and of his leterary work". I think he meets WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of content referenced to a number of articles in a reliable newspaper The Glasgow Herald, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The Moderator is equivalent to a bishop in the Anglican or Roman Catholic Churches or chief rabbi. The Church of Scotland was the ”established” religion of Scotland when he was moderator. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderators are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grizel Niven

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

One Telegraph interview doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more appropriate tag would have been {{more citations needed}}. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: creator of the award for a major prize, work in a significant regional gallery (Harris), one-woman exhibition albeit in shortlived gallery, assorted other coverage, adds up to a worthwhile article. PamD 19:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. There was sufficient in-depth coverage of sculptor Grizel Niven over the course of her 100 years of life, and there continue to be WP:SUSTAINED references to the artist and her most famous work well after her death in 2007, thanks to her donation of the figurine awarded each year as a trophy for the prestigious Women's Prize for Fiction, known as "The Bessie". Sources have been added including a 1991 feature article about Grizel Niven in the Evening Standard by Alexander Studholme; the many pages about her in Niv, Graham Lord's 2004 biography of her brother David Niven; an article about her solo retrospective at the Edith Grove Gallery in Chelsea, London, which started in the late 1980s and continued for several years, including details about her education at RADA and at Chelsea Polytechnic as a student of sculptor Henry Moore and her earlier career in theatre; her profile in The Dictionary of Artists in Britain Since 1945; and various newspaper clippings covering her recognition in 1959 as one of six finalists in an international competition to design a memorial at Dachau concentration camp in The Daily Telegraph, her 1993 charity exhibition to raise money for the Motor Neuron Association, and several more articles about her creation and donation of the cast for the Women's Prize for Fiction trophy (in addition to the original Telegraph article referenced above). Last but not least, the article itself reads as a more complete biography now. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY based on the improvements made by Cielquiparle. She is historically important as a woman artist, and meets WP:ANYBIO, criteria #3, based on her entry in The Dictionary of Artists in Britain Since 1945. Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Comeaux

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd agree that simply doing the job alone does not indicate significance, I'd contend that the area of impact and subject matter constitute significance. Comeaux oversees/implements the DEA's policies for over 16 million people throughout Texas. This is particularly significant considering the hot button topic of the opioid epidemic--especially so as fentanyl coming through Texas is a large focus of nationwide policy and debate. For notoriety, the Houston Chronicle (one of the largest newspapers in the nation) did a piece solely focused on him and CBS and NBC affiliates in Houston (KHOU and KPRC respectively) have also featured him for interviews. BucketSky10 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BucketSky10: Interviews don't count toward establishing notability. If you have sources, now is the time to post them here. WP:THREE is the formal standard for establishing. Post three WP:SECONDARY sources to prove its notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my three: 1, 2, 3 . I appreciate your time throughout this process. BucketSky10 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks at these references:

Ref 1 [13] This is all taken from an interview.

Ref 2 [14] This is a passing mention.

Ref 3 [15] This is another interview style article.

The problem with these is that the conversation detail comes from Comeaux himself. There is no WP:SECONDARY sources, people talking to other people about Comeaux (secondary) in detail (in-depth) who don't know Comeaux(independence) that prove he is notable. All the currrent reference come from Comeaux himself. He is essentially non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The newly found references are also passing mentions with no SIGCOV, failing GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United Nations Security Council election

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

Deleted in August via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, South America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too soon, and I couldn't find anything notable about the upcoming elections that would warrant a separate article this far out. Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is indeed too soon. Far too soon. (The page could be recreated once the elections are in the offing, however.) TH1980 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 United Nations Security Council election

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

Deleted in July via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, South America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too soon, and I couldn't find anything notable about the upcoming elections that would warrant a separate article this far out. Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed too soon for this. Far too soon. (However, this too could perhaps be recreated once these elections draw nigh.)TH1980 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sassa Gurl

AfDs for this article:

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

References are lots and lots of clickbait, non-bylined PR articles, social media driven sites and other PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but you're just being biased by saying that the article is clickbait. Did you check the references? I think you didn’t, because as you can see, all the sources cited are based on facts, and their content supports the statements in the article. Besides, those references come from reputable news media outlets, specifically in the Philippines, and you can search and verify them yourself. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rc ramz: Where did I say the article is clickbait? I never said the article is clickbait. If you mention it again I'm going to have you up WP:ANI for barefaced lying. The references are clickbait. I checked the first block and about 6 in the second block. They are all PR. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reference rather... 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seems to be enough coverage about her, including https://preen.ph/131124/sassa-gurl-will-not-let-you-define-her ; https://republicasiamedia.com/whats-happening/sassa-gurl-dazzles-with-new-single-maria-hiwaga/ https://entertainment.inquirer.net/534754/eugene-domingo-believes-in-sassa-gurls-potential-to-be-the-next-kimmy-dora and so on; https://tribune.net.ph/2023/11/06/smokey-manaloto-eugene-domingo-sassa-gurl-headline-takeshis-castle-reboot, https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2024/07/12/2369452/working-fantasy-icon-marian-rivera-dream-come-true-sassa-gurl https://pop.inquirer.net/355283/on-misdirected-hate-and-missing-the-point-the-discourse-on-sassa-gurl-and-loonies-feud etc, it sometimes includes interviews, but it certainly indicates some notability, I would say. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Out of over 30 references in the article, less than half are either probably clickbait articles and/or are dribble from PR or social media driven sites. Such issues can be fixed by adding or changing relevant details to references (adding direct quotations, author fields if any and so on). Some references will eventually be changed (https://www.philstar.com/tags/sassa-gurl can be changed to a particular article in the PhilStar website like https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2022/05/05/2178259/sassa-gurl-reacts-bashing-white-castle-calendar-girl for example) or dropped altogether. As for significant coverage, I'd say that Sassa Gurl has received some coverage in mainstream outlets while in terms of notability, I'd put article's subject in the same tier or class as Mimiyuuuh. -Ian Lopez @ 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has significant coverage. -Object404 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Yan Chuah

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are interviews, profiles and PR. Promo. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nomination. I am not finding any RS to bring this artist up to notable. The article as written is full of artsy malarkey.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binondo (disambiguation)

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

All terms are WP:PARTIAL. In other words, none of these would be confused with "Binondo". HueMan1 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why nominated for deletion? I did this disambiguation page to list all articles with the name "Binondo" CryingSulfur (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently dab pages don't work thar way; see also the rationale above. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Binondo" isn't ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Insurance

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

Non-notable business, promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find WP:SIGCOV beyond regurgitated press releases. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created based on its notability and the accessible news articles that support its notability. I found few references which are reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. BFS Stand (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently liveMint does branded content, but I can't tell what is branded content and what isn't

second, sixth source is passing mention.

third source is paid promotion.

can't even find mention of ditto on 7th or 8th.

Benzinga 9th is paid promotion.

Delete Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is s smell of advertisement but not the wholly article is promotional. Advert tone can be implemented. I thought the topic significant as it has references from credible sources mentioned on WP:RSP. Regemoso (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. I"m withdrawing this on the grounds that there has been sustained coverage of the individual after they were sentenced. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bouyeri

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

This is a WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Islam, Judaism, Morocco, and Europe. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We would either have to merge all of this to Van Gogh's article, where it would be massively undue weight, or create an article on the murder. We do not have this article on the murder; personally I think it makes more sense to structure this as an article on Bouyeri given what the sources focus on (Islamist radicalization). He's of much of a BLP1E as Mark David Chapman (also a killer of a famous person). BLP1E only applies when these three factors all apply:

Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (applies)
The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. (does not apply)
The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented (does not apply)

Only 1 of the three BLP1E factors apply. His role in the murder is very well documented, with virtually all content on it giving extensive focus to his role and his background and what lead him to the role. He has also been sentenced in the murder of a high profile famous person for quite a while so he he is not quite "low profile". The murder was one of the most notorious acts of terrorism in the country. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't complain if the outcome was a article rename and refactor. See Brenton Tarrant for for an individual who has a stronger case to have their own article but who the community decided to merge into an event article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case,

1) an event article already existed

2) the crime was more recent, which has different concerns

3) that was a new article someone had just made, not the status quo, it only briefly existed

4) the victims were not individually famous as Van Gogh was

5) the article was very bad and contained nothing the main page didn't it was just a content fork

I think the case for him having an article was actually much worse. None of the content in that article was merged (because it was a bad content fork) it was just wholesale deleted. I'm not 100% opposed to it being converted into an event article, but it would be writing a whole new article and that is an editorial decision that should not have gone to AfD because as is we have nowhere to put this information; I am entirely opposed to deleting this or merging it into Van Gogh's article. I also think, given what the sources choose to focus on, it makes more sense for now to keep it how it is, so an event article would not be my preference. To make it an event article someone would have to do the work to do that, or it will end up getting backdoor deleted and redirected to Van Gogh (as regularly happens) which will make the encyclopedia worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, here are the WP:CRIMINAL criteria:

"For perpetrators,

The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

Both of these are true in Bouyeri's case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw this as a Speedy Keep as it is clear there has been sustained coverage after his sentencing. I'll start a discussion on the article talk to gauge if there is any appetite for an article move. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to WWE Studios#Film. Star Mississippi 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bending the Rules

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

Reviews from reliable sources appear to be nonexistent for this movie, showing it fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Wrestling. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE_Studios#Film: notable cast, verifiable content (see Deadline, or https://www.tvguide.com/movies/bending-the-rules/review/2030357475/ ) Opposed to deletion but not to Keep if other users think it is acceptable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Canada–Kenya relations. Star Mississippi 18:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Kenya, Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG, only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kenya, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canada–Kenya relations. Dl2000 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I do see the request for a relist, but I don't think that's needed here. Since an outcome of delete is not going to result from this discussion, I'd suggest continuing the school age/source depth discussion on the Talk as it does not need to be limited to ~ 7 days at AfD. If those involved in the discussion don't feel a consensus is possible, it can be renominated. Star Mississippi 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield High School (Massachusetts)

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG, run of the mill high school, a search for sources turned up a mix of primary sources, database entries or mentions. Since the deprecation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not automatically notable. I am not seeing evidence of notability here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Massachusetts. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reviewing the article history the original prod was back in 2007 and the page was deleted. As the prod was back in 2007, I don't think it should count against a soft deletion outcome. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly everything I have found is WP:ROUTINE, but this source [16] mentions a Greenfield High School for young ladies. See page 256. Is this the same establishment? If so it appears to have a considerable history that bears further searching. If this school is much more modern, though, I doubt it is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greenfield, Massachusetts#Education. It is usual to redirect non notable schools to their school district, which is Greenfield school district in this case, but the district has no page either. But, Greenfield is the only city in Franklin County, and is co-extensive with the school district. Not only is that a suitable location, it is also the best place for a reader to find contextualised information about this school. It is already mentioned in the education section and this page has nothing notable beyond that. I did carry out searches. There is a PhD thesis that did some research here (a primary source) and the usual slew of news reporting, mostly about former students who have passed away, but also a teacher who took the school to court for not giving him Good Friday off and other such. But these are all WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY. I was unable to locate any history or in depth information about the school beyond what the school rankings sites carry. Nothing from which the page could be expanded. Does not pass WP:NORG nor WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. The Republican articles
  1. Kinney, Jim (2014-03-02). "First phase of new $53 million Greenfield High School is under construction". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "The first phase of a four-phase, $53-million reconstruction of Greenfield High School is scheduled to be completed in August. The project, being done by Boston-based Shawmut Design and Construction, will result in nearly all of the high school being torn down and replaced in stages from now until December 2015, said Michael Kearns a project manager with Shawmut."
  2. Contrada, Fred (2012-05-02). "Greenfield votes overwhelmingly to fund new high school". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "At a little less than 160,000 square feet, the new building will be about 6,000 square feet smaller than the present high school. It is designed to accommodate 585 students. There are 477 students at the Lennox Avenue school at present."
  3. Serreze, Mary C. (2015-09-02). "Brand-new Greenfield High School opens its doors (Photos)". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "The building features new science labs, 20 new classrooms, a modern cafeteria, and 1000-seat auditorium. Indoor athletic facilities are completed, while some outdoor sports facilities are still under construction. The 160,000 square foot building is designed to accommodate 585 students."
  4. Contrada, Fred (2014-08-20). "New Greenfield High School to open Sept. 2". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "The doors to the first completed phase of the Greenfield High School reconstruction will open Sept. 2, when students return to the new facility for the 2014-2015 school year. The new building on Lenox Avenue features mostly classroom space. It is part of a $66 million project to replace the 50-year-old high school, which was located on the same site. The next phase will involve the demolition of the older part of the complex to make way for a new auditorium, gymnasium and science labs."
2. The Recorder articles
  1. Curtis, Chris (2015-09-01). "First day of (new) school: Shiny new Greenfield High School opens its doors". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2015-10-06. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "After two years of construction and millions of dollars, the new Greenfield High School opens in its entirety today for the first day of school in a building that looks nothing like the old. ... The four new science labs include hooded chemical stations, windows, counters and a lab with a sealed floor and drains, where glass tanks were already filling up with reptiles, a hedgehog, two bearded dragons, and other empty tanks stood ready for poison dart frogs and aquatic life including crabs and a 100-year-old box turtle."
  2. Johnston, Thomas (2024-09-20). "Ceremony held to rename athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to "Donna Woodcock Field"". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "The athletic fields behind Greenfield High School officially have a new name. The Greenfield City Council voted on August 21 to rename the athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to “Donna Woodcock Field” and on Friday, the dedication ceremony took place. ... Woodcock coached the Greenfield High School field hockey program from 1982-2005 and the softball team from 1989-2004. She later spent time as the Green Wave athletic director and was also the school’s principal."
  3. Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-13). "Four Corners principal to take helm at Greenfield High School". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "Effective July 1, Discovery School at Four Corners Principal Michael Browning will take the helm at Greenfield High School following Principal Derek Morrison’s June 1 departure. ... Morrison has served as principal since January 2022. Although Morrison declined to comment on the reasoning behind his exit from Greenfield High School, he said he is proud of the school’s growth over the course of two years."
  4. Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-08). "Greenfield High School revives Drama Club with production of 'Myth Adventures'". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "After a four-year hiatus, the Greenfield High School Drama Club will return to the stage for its production of “Myth Adventures: Five Greek Classics.” ... Faced with a limited budget, the club found creative ways to ensure the show went on as planned, recruiting the help of the school’s life skills program workers to sew curtains from the Salvation Army into robes and togas."
  5. Poli, Domenic (2024-01-25). "Greenfield High School students appeal to policymakers for help on local issues". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
    The article notes: "Roughly 40 Greenfield High School students convened in the building’s library Thursday to talk with policymakers about the issues important to them.The YELO (Youth Engage with Legislators and Officials) forum fostered roundtable discussions on substance abuse, homelessness, school supports and Greenfield’s economic development. Teachers coordinated with the DIAL/SELF AmeriCorps program to facilitate the event, complete with pizza, drinks and snacks."
3. Kincade, Katrina (2020-05-06). "Greenfield High School to hold graduation at Franklin County Fairgrounds, followed by parade". WWLP. Archived from the original on 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
  The article notes: "Greenfield High School has found a way to have their senior graduation while adhering to social distancing protocols. The new ceremony for the 69 graduating seniors will take place at the Franklin County Fairgrounds on May 30th. ... The principal of the school, Karin Patenaude, has been with the class since 6th grade."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Greenfield High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, how are any of these more than WP:ROUTINE? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage. The lead of Wikipedia:Notability (events) says:

This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed.

Greenfield High School is not an event so Wikipedia:Notability (events) is not the applicable notability guideline.

The applicable notability guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which this school passes through having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The school is not an event, but what you have are non notable events that constitute routine coverage and do not provide WP:SIGCOV, which in this case is a school, subject to WP:NORG per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I am all for treating public schools a little less stringently than WP:ORGCRITE, as they are not commercial companies trying to game the rules, but WP:ORGDEPTH is still clear that

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or 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.

So SIGCOV is not achieved by ROUTINE events that are neither notable in themselves, nor give anything from which an article may be written. So to put my question another way, which of these sources provide us with suitable ORGDEPTH coverage? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the coverage provided above is beyond sufficient for establishing notability. As evidenced by the quotes, the sources include detailed significant coverage on a wide range of encyclopedic topics to be expected in a high school article:
- Campus design and construction
- Student population
- Science program
- Athletic history and facilities
- Principals
- Drama club
- Library activities
- Graduation ceremonies

Left guide (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to clear the air, WP:NSCHOOL stipulates that public schools are only required to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG but not necessarily both. Only private for-profit schools are required to pass both GNG and NORG. So if anyone wants to argue against notability, GNG is the yardstick; we're not raising the bar higher than the guidelines demand. I'll quote NSCHOOL below:

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.

On another note, as Cunard says, WP:ROUTINE is wholly irrelevant to this discussion because it's on a guideline page that refers to notability for event articles, and this article is not about an event. Left guide (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ORGDEPTH describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting GNG. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. It never is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ORGDEPTH describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting GNG. Wrong, ORGDEPTH describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting NORG; it's directly in the NORG page. And WP:SIGCOV describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting GNG; it's directly in the GNG section:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The source quotes furnished by Cunard above meet that standard, and hence the GNG is satisfied. Left guide (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is rules lawyering. To meet GNG you need SIGCOV. You cannot ignore what NORG says about SIGCOV for an organisation and rely on a lack of clarity in GNG to pass something on a string of trivial mentions. The question is always what encyclopaedic article can be written from the sources. Cunard gives us 3 sources. Yes, it looks like more, but Cunard knows, and carefully numbered them 1-3, that multiple articles from a single source count as one source when considering notability against GNG. Now if we look at the three sources we see that:

The Republican is a Springfield local newspaper. All the coverage is on the school building programme. We do get the acreage of the site and knowledge that this school opened in 2015. Newspaper coverage of the opening and things like residents voting to borrow money to pay for it etc. are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, local interest and provide no depth about the school. It fills a set of facts but I do not see any of those meeting GNG.
The Recorder covers Greenfield and the whole of the county, but is again a local paper. The coverage looks routine to me, but there is a little more here. This is in depth about a principal [17] but says almost nothing about the school. This one is about the drama club [18] which is relevant to school life, and I would be interested in a discussion as to how that could meet SIGCOV. To me, it looks routine that a local paper talks abaout a school drama, but there is, at least, something to discuss there. This covereage of an appeal to policy makers [19] doesn't look due to me and contains no SIGCOV of the school. So again, I do not see how any of this meets GNG.
WWLP is a local TV news channel. A short piece saying they will hold a graduation with social distancing. [20] That is routine/trivial coverage. Also, again, note that this is very much a primary source, so does not count towards GNG. A report about how a local school will be conducting graduation is unequivocally a primary source.

Now to meet GNG, you need multiple sources with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is not that. GNG is not met based on these three local news sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and wait and see what others have to say. Left guide (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Left guide's analysis about how WP:SIGCOV—not WP:ORGDEPTH—is the applicable guideline for a non-profit educational institution like Greenfield High School. These sources provide significant coverage about the subject. This is demonstrated through both the quotes I've shared and Left guide's excellent summary of the different aspects of the school covered by the sources. These are secondary sources as they contain a "synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (WP:SECONDARY). Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require the sources to be non-local. It does not require the sources to be non-routine. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree that SIGCOV is applicable. And SIGCOV is, by definition, not trivial coverage. And no, WWLP telling its viewers that the local school will be holding a social distanced graduation is a primary source for the school. There is no synthesis, it is reporting. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and, indeed WP:PRIMARY especially note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the size and volume of the quotes provided by Cunard, it's far above and beyond trivial coverage. Trivial coverage would be if the main story is about something fundamentally different and the school is mentioned incidentally. For example, if there was coverage of a bank robbery that said Officer Smith sped past Greenfield High School on the way to the bank. That's trivial coverage. The sources provided here are clearly focused on the school in a direct, in-depth manner, and thus SIGCOV is satisfied. (Hint: the name "Greenfield High School" is in virtually all of the titles, usually a strong indicator of SIGCOV) Left guide (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the sources, and I discussed them above. But apparently we want to talk about meta issues and not the sources. I specifically indicated one I would be happy to discuss as to how it meets SIGCOV. I cannot see that any of them meet GNG though, let alone multiple. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment:

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Kinney, Jim (2014-03-02). "First phase of new $53 million Greenfield High School is under construction". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	The first phase of a four-phase, $53-million reconstruction of Greenfield High School is scheduled to be completed in August. The project, being done by Boston-based Shawmut Design and Construction, will result in nearly all of the high school being torn down and replaced in stages from now until December 2015, said Michael Kearns a project manager with Shawmut. The Massachusetts School Building Authority has estimated a maximum state funding for the project at $43.1 million and has approved of the design, according to the authority. The school is designed for an enrollment of 585 students in grades 8 through 12. The first phase includes 85,000 square feet of classroom space that will be ready for the next school year. The school will not close; rather, students will shift from space to space as parts of the building are torn down and rebuilt. The next phase, to begin in July, will involve taking down the existing 8th-grade wing and building classrooms and an auditorium in its place. Kearns said there are about 60 to 80 tradespeople on the work site at any given time, with many of them being local residents. Greenfield citizens voted in 2012 to borrow up to $24 million for the project.	✔ Yes
Contrada, Fred (2012-05-02). "Greenfield votes overwhelmingly to fund new high school". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	Residents voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to borrow money for a new $66 million high school. The 2,392-557 vote means the town will borrow $24 million for its share of the project, the rest of which is being financed by the state. The local money will come in the form of a debt exclusion, which differs from a straight override of Proposition 2 ½ in that the money will stop being deducted from the tax base once the project is paid for. Straight overrides permanently raise the tax base. In March, the Town Council voted in favor of the borrowing but put the matter before the voters for final approval. The project calls for the existing high school to be razed except for the auditorium. The new building will be constructed around that. At a little less than 160,000 square feet, the new building will be about 6,000 square feet smaller than the present high school. It is designed to accommodate 585 students. There are 477 students at the Lennox Avenue school at present. The new school will also include an all-weather track and turf field, a renovated 1,000 seat auditorium, 20 classrooms, five science labs, computer labs and art studios. Officials hope to break ground next spring and complete the project by 2015.	✔ Yes
Serreze, Mary C. (2015-09-02). "Brand-new Greenfield High School opens its doors (Photos)". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	Local teenagers begin classes this week in a brand-new Greenfield High School. The school building gained a certificate of occupancy Monday, just in time for an evening open house, where members of the community toured the facility. Greenfield voters in 2012 overwhelmingly approved a debt exclusion to borrow $24 million for the town's share of the $66 million project. The building has been two years in construction. Over that time, classes were taught in sections of both buildings as the old school was torn down to make way for the new, reports the Greenfield Recorder. The building features new science labs, 20 new classrooms, a modern cafeteria, and 1000-seat auditorium. Indoor athletic facilities are completed, while some outdoor sports facilities are still under construction. The 160,000 square foot building is designed to accommodate 585 students. The project was designed and managed by the architectural firm of Dore & Whittier.	✔ Yes
Contrada, Fred (2014-08-20). "New Greenfield High School to open Sept. 2". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	The doors to the first completed phase of the Greenfield High School reconstruction will open Sept. 2, when students return to the new facility for the 2014-2015 school year. The new building on Lenox Avenue features mostly classroom space. It is part of a $66 million project to replace the 50-year-old high school, which was located on the same site. The next phase will involve the demolition of the older part of the complex to make way for a new auditorium, gymnasium and science labs. The project is being done by Boston-based Shawmut Design and Construction. The state has contributed $43.1, about 80 percent of the cost. Principal Donna Woodcock said Sept. 2 would be a special day for students. "They'll get to know the building better," she said. The school has yet to decide whether or not to hold an open house for the public. The new facility includes interactive "white boards," which enable teachers and students to interact electronically, and natural lighting. Staff will have access to the new building on Aug. 25 so they can organize their teaching materials. The school is designed for an enrollment of 585 students in grades 8 through 12. The first phase includes 85,000 square feet of classroom space that will be ready for the next school year. The school will not close; rather, students will shift from space to space as parts of the building are torn down and rebuilt. The next phase, to begin in July, will involve taking down the existing 8th-grade wing and building classrooms and an auditorium in its place. Kearns said there are about 60 to 80 tradespeople on the work site at any given time, with many of them being local residents. Greenfield residents voted in 2012 to borrow up to $24 million for the project.	✔ Yes
Curtis, Chris (2015-09-01). "First day of (new) school: Shiny new Greenfield High School opens its doors". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2015-10-06. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	After two years of construction and millions of dollars, the new Greenfield High School opens in its entirety today for the first day of school in a building that looks nothing like the old. Classes have been taught in portions of the old and new school as one was demolished to make way for the other, but the final veil was lifted this week with an open house Monday night for students and parents. The rear athletic fields and other outdoor elements of the $66 million project remain to be completed. On the empty roof garden overlooking the back athletic field with the new track still under construction, incoming junior Alyssa Garvin was looking forward to the new science rooms and apprehensive about the sod athletic field. As a field hockey player, she had hoped for artificial turf and worries the new fields will degenerate as the old did. Overall, however, she saw improvement. “Oh it’s a lot better, the old building was falling apart over us. Walk in and there’d be a new leak every day in the old building. At least this year hopefully that won’t happen,” Garvin said. Garvin, who is taking advanced placement chemistry among a slate of advanced courses, is excited to get into the new science rooms. Taking chemistry last year in a temporary room was frustrating, she said, with no facilities for hands-on work. The year before that, in the old lab, the sinks didn’t work. The four new science labs include hooded chemical stations, windows, counters and a lab with a sealed floor and drains, where glass tanks were already filling up with reptiles, a hedgehog, two bearded dragons, and other empty tanks stood ready for poison dart frogs and aquatic life including crabs and a 100-year-old box turtle. Biology and permaculture teacher Cathy Wilkins was still at work on the lab Monday with a student teacher. She also plans to build planters on the roof outside the lab windows, originally intended to be a “green roof” covered with plant life before a change of plans in the budget. “Unbelievable. Last year we didn’t even really have running water. This is amazing,” Wilkins said of the new teaching space, before embarking on a tour of the numerous organisms on display in the room. Many, like the hedgehog, were abandoned and she sees an additional lesson that wild animals aren’t pets. Wilkins and her husband began building the educational menagerie in the old school, but she never had a purpose-built space. Benefits include a floor that directs spilled water to central drains, instead of the hallway. In the science hall, parents Rosemarie Freeland and Phillip Smith, with ninth grader Zahri Smith, were pleased with what they had seen of the school. “As a GHS alumna I’m very impressed, and grateful. Go Greenfield! Because the citizens of Greenfield agreed to override Proposition 21/2 , we have this building,” said Freeland of the GHS class of 1983. Freeland wasn’t the only alumna impressed with the changes. “I went here, so it’s fabulous,” said Nickie Rice, after son Cameron Rice called the building “pretty nice.” Nickie Rice said she won’t miss the leaking roof. Cameron Rice, new to the school as an eighth grader, was looking forward to math class. Kerri and Jeremy Damon, who also attended the school, were pleased to find the new building on their return from Louisiana. “It’s a whole different building,” Jeremy Damon said. Their son is going into eighth grade. “Believe me, coming from Louisiana schools, where he’s gone for the last 10 years, this is going to be like ‘wow!’” Kerri Damon said, adding she was a little worried to find the eighth grade had been added to high school, but she figured her son would be fine as the youngest of five siblings. The Damons were not alone in thinking the new building was bigger than the old, an impression the red brick interior and brightly-lit halls give despite a smaller overall area. The cafeteria, auditorium, audio-visual lab, gymnasium, locker rooms, training room, weight room and science labs are among the newest elements of the school, turned over to the town days before the start of school. Clerk of the Works Jeffrey Dome of Construction Monitoring Services, the firm hired to oversee the GHS reconstruction project, said the town building department issued a certificate of occupancy for the building Monday. “It now is the town’s property except the Phase 4 area, which is ongoing,” Dome said. Phase 4 includes the track, some parking and paving, all of which Dome said will be done before Thanksgiving. In the meantime, he said students can expect to see finishing touches being applied to the building. Architects will walk through and create a list of minor blemishes to be rectified in that time.	✔ Yes
Johnston, Thomas (2024-09-20). "Ceremony held to rename athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to "Donna Woodcock Field"". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	The athletic fields behind Greenfield High School officially have a new name. The Greenfield City Council voted on August 21 to rename the athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to “Donna Woodcock Field” and on Friday, the dedication ceremony took place. After words from Greenfield athletic director Mike Kuchieski and Greenfield superintendent Karin Patenaude, Donna Woodcock’s mother, Barbara Woodcock, pulled down the ribbon to unveil the sign officially designating the fields as “Donna Woodcock Field” prior to the Greenfield field hockey teams game against West Springfield. “I’d like to thank everyone for being here today,” Kuchieski said. “It was a sad day the day we lost our Donna. This is a great dedication to her. I can’t say enough about everything she has done for me and everything she’s done for this school, community and student athletes. I think about her everyday and what Donna would do and that’s what I try to do.” Woodcock coached the Greenfield High School field hockey program from 1982-2005 and the softball team from 1989-2004. She later spent time as the Green Wave athletic director and was also the school’s principal. With the Greenfield field hockey team, she compiled a 265-83-53 record, won five western Massachusetts titles and made it to four state championship games. Woodcock won two state titles, the first coming in 1989, the second in 1999. She tragically passed away in a in a car crash in 2023 at the age of 65. Mother Barbara Woodcock, sister Karen Woodcock and brother Dana Woodcock, along with former players and coaches, were in attendance for the field dedication ceremony on Friday. “No matter how much all of us here today miss Donna’s presence, we know that your loss is greater than any we could comprehend,” Patenaude said to the family. “We hope that today’s recognition of Donna helps ease some of the pain and show how loved and respected she was, especially in the athletic community. We’re gathered today to celebrate and remember the life of Donna Woodcock. As you know, she loved Greenfield High School, she loved the city of Greenfield but she really loved Greenfield High School field hockey. “Looking around at all the people and former players here today, it is a true testament to her dedication to the sport, to creating collaborative teams, to showing students the meaning of sportsmanship and team spirit that you have all found the time to join us here today,” Patenaude added.	✔ Yes
Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-13). "Four Corners principal to take helm at Greenfield High School". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	Effective July 1, Discovery School at Four Corners Principal Michael Browning will take the helm at Greenfield High School following Principal Derek Morrison’s June 1 departure. The superintendent’s office publicized Browning’s acceptance of the role in this month’s parent’s update newsletter, which also stated the school district is now searching for the best candidate to assume Browning’s position at Four Corners. Browning, who spent the last three years leading Four Corners following his prior three years as associate principal at Greenfield Middle School, said he is looking forward to reconnecting with some of the same students he oversaw at the middle school, now at the high school level. “I was over there the other day and saw a number of them. It was just so neat to see them as they’re growing in their experience and in life in general,” Browning said. “I have those relationships with them already, so I’m excited about reuniting and building off of those relationships so we can grow that school’s culture in a way that it continues to be a place where they want to be and want to learn.” In his new position, Browning said he aims to focus on the goals and priorities identified in the district’s five-year strategic plan, which was approved by the School Committee in June. The plan sets milestones for the district to work toward “quality instructional programs,” building and maintaining relationships through communication and outreach, and fostering a “welcoming environment” in which all students can learn. Additionally, Browning said he hopes to educate students on the array of wraparound services and programs that the district offers, such as the high school’s dual enrollment program with Greenfield Community College, and potentially expand programs and learning to better prepare students for the modern world. In the last 10 years, Browning said opportunities for graduating high school students to learn trades or attend college virtually have grown significantly. “We want to make sure we have students who are prepared to be team players and understand how to work collaboratively. Those weren’t things that we were really prepared with in the past when we went out and stepped into that workforce,” Browning said. “We’re in a neat, neat time in history. Because there are so many different opportunities, schooling looks so different. Now, when you step out of high school and head on to that next career, there’s a lot of different ways that can look. It’s really about opening their eyes and seeing how we’re best preparing them for those many opportunities out there that aren’t necessarily so traditional.” Morrison has served as principal since January 2022. Although Morrison declined to comment on the reasoning behind his exit from Greenfield High School, he said he is proud of the school’s growth over the course of two years. “We have shown academic improvement, we’ve shown attendance improvement, we’ve shown, overall, school culture improvement as well. Those three areas are really just helping us move forward,” Morrison said. “It’s tangible to anybody that comes in — they can see and feel it. I’m definitely proud of the work we’ve done and I’m going to miss the students here for sure.”	✔ Yes
Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-08). "Greenfield High School revives Drama Club with production of 'Myth Adventures'". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	After a four-year hiatus, the Greenfield High School Drama Club will return to the stage for its production of “Myth Adventures: Five Greek Classics.” Sporting laurel wreaths, crowns and togas, the young actors maneuvered the stage performing comedic renditions of five Greek myths at rehearsals this week, two weeks before the March 22 and 23 productions at the Greenfield High School Auditorium. Written by American playwright and screenwriter Eric Coble, “Myth Adventures” is a five-act dramatic comedy spotlighting classic Greek tales such as that of Icarus, King Midas and Orpheus. The production will serve as the Drama Club’s revival show, bringing it back from its dissolution at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Greenfield High School French teacher Anna Hartmann and adjustment counselor Deborah Potee decided to bring the program back in the fall after results from a survey sent to students last spring showed significant interest in the club’s revival. Meeting weekly at the auditorium, the club, Hartmann said, has grown to become a tight-knit community of talented teen performers. “This fall, we ran some meetings before we selected a play or held auditions or anything, just to get the kids used to each other and used to inhabiting the space. Now it kind of feels like we own this space. This is Drama Club space,” Hartmann said. “We played games, we did improv, we were goofy and we got to know each other really well. We got really comfortable together and soon it started to feel a little bit more like a theater family.” Hartmann said since the show is fragmented into five 15-minute acts — each portraying a separate plot — it serves as a less intimidating alternative to having one actor play a lead in a feature-length play. Nonetheless, Hartmann said the students have been “killing it” on stage. “These kids have blown me away with how excited they are to show up every day and the amount of emotion and dedication that they bring to their characters. They really, really care about getting into character, conveying what they want to convey and feeling the things that their character is feeling in the moment. Even though it’s just a little 15-to-20-minute story for each of the actors,” Hartmann said. Faced with a limited budget, the club found creative ways to ensure the show went on as planned, recruiting the help of the school’s life skills program workers to sew curtains from the Salvation Army into robes and togas. Potee, holding up one of the hand-sewn robes being used as a prop, said co-directing the play has helped her build relationships with new students and give students an outlet to express themselves.“I’ve encouraged some of my students that I see regularly to participate because I think theater is good for everybody. It’s an opportunity to be something you are not normally able to be. Being a teenager is all about trying to figure out your identity and trying on different hats. For a lot of kids the theater is a chance to do that,” Potee said. “The best part is just seeing them play and be brave. It takes a lot of courage to get up in front of your peers as a teenager. … I’m very impressed by their willingness to go up there, especially when I think that culture at GHS has not been really focused on drama for a long time.” Greenfield High School senior Alice Menko, who will play Orpheus’ mother Calliope, said she wanted to join the club as a freshman, but was not able to because of the pandemic. She said since the club includes students in grades eight through 12, it helps underclassmen and upperclassmen bond through art. “Theater is a great way for people to meet more people, especially the younger grades. I feel like this show is going to be a stepping stone to bigger things in the future,” Menko said. “Now that it’s back, I think that Drama Club is going to continue to grow.” “Myth Adventures” premieres Friday, March 22, at 7 p.m. and will also be performed Saturday, March 23, at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. Tickets cost $5 for students and $10 for adults. Children under the age of 5 will be admitted for free.	✔ Yes
Poli, Domenic (2024-01-25). "Greenfield High School students appeal to policymakers for help on local issues". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	~ This source doesn't discuss the school as much as the others, seems borderline or ambiguous as far as SIGCOV Roughly 40 Greenfield High School students convened in the building’s library Thursday to talk with policymakers about the issues important to them. The YELO (Youth Engage with Legislators and Officials) forum fostered roundtable discussions on substance abuse, homelessness, school supports and Greenfield’s economic development. Teachers coordinated with the DIAL/SELF AmeriCorps program to facilitate the event, complete with pizza, drinks and snacks. “It’s mainly to get people listening to student voices, you know? Teenagers have opinions, believe it or not,” history teacher Luke Martin said with a laugh, “and we think that politicians and officials should listen to teenagers and know what they think about the communities they’ll be inheriting. And … for my purposes as a teacher, I like that students get to see and meet these officials who are just normal people and they have stepped up to sort of serve a role and help their community. “And I think it’s good for the students to see that that’s a … real possibility, for them to step up and do such a thing,” Martin continued. Guests included state Reps. Natalie Blais, D-Deerfield, and Susannah Whipps, I-Athol; Greenfield School Committee members Stacey Sexton and Elizabeth Deneeve; Rachel Stoler of the Franklin Regional Council of Governments; Elena Cohen and Mike Fiscella of state Sen. Jo Comerford’s office; and Quinn Mass, a 16-year-old Greenfield High School student who is part of the city’s Human Rights Commission. Students Izzy Semonelli, Kanza Boot and April Rooney-Adams emceed the event. During the rotating introductory sessions, Blais and Whipps explained to students how their legislative districts are drawn and how much time they spend in Boston. Because representation is based on population, Whipps said, she and Blais belong to districts that span dozens of communities, whereas some officials representing parts of eastern Massachusetts “can walk the perimeter of their districts.” Both local representatives said they prefer to spend most of their time in their district, closer to their constituents, and go to the state capital if the Legislature is in session or if there is a committee hearing. Blais said state lawmakers don’t find out until Friday afternoon what the following week’s schedule looks like. During the roundtable discussions, Rooney-Adams told Whipps and Cohen that she is concerned about road maintenance in Greenfield. She said a two-hour school delay is often not enough during heavy snowfall, and she and her mother were nearly involved in a crash earlier that day. “It’s so unsafe,” Rooney-Adams said, telling Whipps more needs to be done to pre-treat roadways. Whipps said she shares Rooney-Adams’ frustration, but that road maintenance is often the responsibility of a local municipality, not the state. She recommended Rooney-Adams write a letter to new Greenfield Mayor Ginny Desorgher to express her concerns. Whipps said she is hesitant to tell mayors how to handle their departments of public works because “I like to stay in my own lane.” But, she said, she fights vigorously for Chapter 90 money, which municipalities use for improvements to and investments in local transportation networks. In another discussion related to transportation, students spoke with Sexton and Deneeve about the critical need for new or repaired buses. They also expressed the feeling that the school’s sports teams seem to take priority over School Council or other clubs and organizations. Blais spoke with students about substance abuse and homelessness. The students told her that their peers regularly go to the school’s restrooms to vape and smoke, and they see their classmates getting addicted. They also said the abundance of dispensaries in the area is likely not helping the situation. Before the event ended, all participants formed a circle to mention something they had learned in the past two hours. Many students said they were surprised to find out how easy it is to contact their state representatives. Rebecca Zimmerman, an eighth grade civics teacher, told everyone that events like this are important because change is impossible without communication. Student Malachi Gray said the conversations restored his faith that there might be “a kernel of truth left in the American dream.”	~ Partial
Kincade, Katrina (2020-05-06). "Greenfield High School to hold graduation at Franklin County Fairgrounds, followed by parade". WWLP. Archived from the original on 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	Greenfield High School has found a way to have their senior graduation while adhering to social distancing protocols. The new ceremony for the 69 graduating seniors will take place at the Franklin County Fairgrounds on May 30th. The administration says a lot of their families have transportation difficulties so the fairgrounds were a great close-by location to host the ceremony. The seniors get one car per family and remain in their cars until each senior gets out to walk across a stage individually. The principal of the school, Karin Patenaude, has been with the class since 6th grade. She told 22News how glad she was to be able to hold a ceremony, “A lot of tears of joy but I’m just really proud we can give them that ‘graduation moment’ even if it’s not the traditional one that they were expecting. I feel like this will at least make them proud.” After the ceremony at the fairgrounds, the Greenfield police and fire department are going to lead a parade through the city down Main Street, up Federal Street and then around the school for the seniors to say their final goodbyes. This upcoming Saturday the school administration will be going to every graduating senior’s household to give their families signs so they can display them outside. A rain date has also been schedule for May 31st.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Left guide (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources are routine coverage in the local newspaper. If that coverage counted towards NORG or GNG every local business would meet NORG or GNG.Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source assessment is clearly problematic as I had already reminded you that, per WP:SIGCOV

Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

There are three sources there, not 10. The three sources are the Recorder, The Republican and WWLP news. All of these are local news. Also, sources should be secondary sources, and you have not considered that point at all. Why didn't you consider these points? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Cunard says, there's no requirement in GNG for sources to be non-routine or non-local, so not sure why that argument continues to re-appear. Also, most local businesses have to meet both NORG and GNG, which is a significantly higher threshold, but WP:NSCHOOL allows public schools to be exempt from NORG if they pass GNG, and this is a public school. I split up the table into ten sections for ease of table construction and readability. The "significant coverage" section in particular would be incomprehensible if source text from multiple publications was lumped together. Primary sources in terms of news mainly refers to breaking news, as in events that happened live or just yesterday or the past few days per WP:PRIMARY:

For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.

I don't have the time right now do a sentence-by-sentence analysis of all of the sources, but if I did, it would show there is very little primary news reporting. For some of the sources, it's only in the first one or two sentences, and for others it's none. Left guide (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources and analysis provided above by Cunard and Left guide show that this subject meets WP:GNG.Jacona (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage that meets WP:GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is my source analysis. As I note, there are three sources here. To meet GNG, we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. We are not there yet, which is presumably why we cannot WP:HEY the article yet. We don't have anything to build an article from. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by Sirfurboy

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?
Kinney, Jim (2014-03-02). "First phase of new $53 million Greenfield High School is under construction". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. Contrada, Fred (2012-05-02). "Greenfield votes overwhelmingly to fund new high school". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. Serreze, Mary C. (2015-09-02). "Brand-new Greenfield High School opens its doors (Photos)". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. Contrada, Fred (2014-08-20). "New Greenfield High School to open Sept. 2". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	Sources 3 nd 4 could be off press releases, but they seem to be more than that and are bylined. In any case the first two appear independent.	I believe that this local paper is reliable for this information	This is routine reporting. It does supply some facts about when the school was built, but there is nothing here that speaks to the school's significance beyond the fact of its existence. The building of the school was not a significantly notable event, and it is clear that the existing consensus for schools is that they are not notable just for existing. The ebent of the building is WP:ROUTINE and these sources do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH.	This is reporting of the building of the school, including reporting a decision to raise debt for its funding. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS - all primary.
Curtis, Chris (2015-09-01). "First day of (new) school: Shiny new Greenfield High School opens its doors". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2015-10-06. Retrieved 2024-10-01. Johnston, Thomas (2024-09-20). "Ceremony held to rename athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to "Donna Woodcock Field"". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-13). "Four Corners principal to take helm at Greenfield High School". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-08). "Greenfield High School revives Drama Club with production of 'Myth Adventures'". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. Poli, Domenic (2024-01-25). "Greenfield High School students appeal to policymakers for help on local issues". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	Every one of these could be off a press release or occasioned by requests from the school. However, I looked up the bylines and noted that these are the names of reporters at this local paper. It suggests there is more than just a press release here. Giving it a pass.	It is likely that this is reliable for the information given. Local press.	(1) is a no, for the reasons above. The event of the opening of a school cannot make it significant, because all schools are opened. This is a WP:ROUTINE evenet and coverage. (2) news that the council renamed the field for a teacher who coached the hockey team. Minimal information on the school. Not SIGCOV. (3) New principal. Nothing on the school. (4) Local news account of a school production. The event is routine and this is not significant coverage at ORGDEPTH. It is one of the fuller articles, but how would this be due on an encyclopaedic article? What could we say? describing this school production would be very WP:UNDUE (5) It is very common for schools to run civic engagement events as described here, and it gets in the local press. But again, there is nothing here to write an article about a school from. What is the significance? Nothing. It is routine coverage.	(1) is primary - news of the opening. (2) Reporting the renaming of the field - primary news reporting (3) Primary news - new principal for the school (4) Primary news. It is telling us the school did a school production. Reporting. (5) Primary news about stidents meeting policymakers
Kincade, Katrina (2020-05-06). "Greenfield High School to hold graduation at Franklin County Fairgrounds, followed by parade". WWLP. Archived from the original on 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2024-10-01.	It is likely that this piece was carriedby the news channel at the request of the school who wanted information put out about the socially distanced graduation. If not, then it is all but certain it was off a press release.	The source is reliable but local.	There is not significant information about the school at WP:ORGDEPTH in this piece.	This is a local news article telling us that the school will be holding a social distanced graduation. It is informative to the communuty, but the very essence of a primary source.

Why are we artificially raising the notability bar by using the NORG source table rather than the GNG table? It has already been established in WP:NSCHOOL that public schools only have to meet GNG. Note how the two keep !votes from folks largely uninvolved have affirmed notability via the topic's compliance with GNG. Left guide (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an NORG table, because a school is an organisation and those are the relevant subject notability guidelines. It does not matter though, because NORG says these criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline. The only difference in the table is there is a specific column for primary/secondary sources, rather than including that consideration in SIGCOV. But GNG is quite clear on that point, saying: "Sources" should be secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: Greenfield Gazette (page 41, published in 1892), quoted as follows:

THE GREENFIELD HIGH SCHOOL.
In March, 1852, an article was inserted in the warrant for the annual town meeting to see if the town would raise a sum of money for the support of a High school, as required by the revised statutes, and to build or purchase a school house. The matter was referred to a committee, Geo. Grinnell, W. T. Davis, Daniel W. Alvord, H.C. Newton and John J. Graves, who reported the following year. The law required that every town containing 500 families should maintain a school in which, in addition to the branches of learning usually taught in the common district schools, "instruction should be given in the history of the United States, book-keeping, surveying, geometry and algebra," and that such school should be kept for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the town, ten months at least, exclusive of vacations, at such convenient places in the town as the inhabitants shall at their convenience determine. The committee reported that no time should be lost in acting upon the matter, and recommended that an arrangement, if practicable, be made by the town with the village school district, for a lease of one or more rooms in the schoolhouse to be used for the High school for the larger part of the year, and that a like arrangement be made with the proprietors of the house for a select school near the North Brick meetinghouse, for the other portion of the year-this arrangement to continue for such time as the town should decide.
This plan, however, was not carried out until 1855, when a High school was organized. A small room was obtained, capapable of containing, said the school committee in their report, but not accommodating forty scholars. The schoolroom was fitted up in what was known as Davis' hall, in as cheap a manner as possible, as a temporary arrangement. Mr. Lather B. Lincoln of Deerfield was employed as the first teacher, at a salary of $50 a month. The school in this location was successful. In the autumn months it was removed to the hall in the schoolhouse at Nash's mill, "from a desire," said the committee, "of accommodating a larger number of our fellow citizens." "Here," continue the committee, "the terms of admission were modified, and a class of youth gained admittance whose objects and aims were in many respects foreign to the business of a schoolroom, and as a consequence much precious time was wasted, and the hopes of many were disappointed."
At the close of that term, the school was resumed at its old location in District No. 1. But the principal having been chosen to a seat in the Legislature, resigned, and Charles F. Vent was selected to succeed him. The expenses of the school for the first year were $696.14. In the school year of '56-7, the school was moved from Davis' ball to a room in the house of the Misses Stone. It opened with fifty scholars, all that could be accommodated, and a number were refused admission, for want of room. The town appropriated 8000 for the High school, and at the end of thirty-two weeks it was closed for want of less than $200, which was required to complete the term of forty weeks prescribed by law.
March 2, 1857, action was taken by the town relative to the selection of a location and the building of a house for a High school. Henry W. Clapp, H. C. Newton and Albert Smead were the committee previously appointed and they reported in favor of a location on Chapman street, and submitted a plan for a schoolhouse, 36 by 40 feet, built of wood, two stories high, which should have room for 140 scholars-70 in each of the two rooms– with "large entries for each sex." The cost was not to exceed $4000. A vote was passed in accordance with the recommendation. Rufus Howland was the chairman of the committee who had the construction in charge, and the entire cost of building and furnishing was $5240.
The Chapman street building was used for the High school until the new building was erected on Pleasant street, in 1872. The building committee having in charge the erection of the latter were C. C. Conant, A. C. Deane and D. H. Newton. The cost was $21,327.16.

Left guide (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, because every source provided to date has suggested the school opened in 2015. If the school has been there for 150 years it is much more likely to be notable. You will note my comment of 27 September regarding a Greenfield High School for young ladies that was mentioned. But what we have not established yet is that these are the same establishment. Has the same school existed for all this time and been rebuilt in 2015? Or was there an earlier high school that existed and ceased to exist? The above source itself is primary, but I would expect there would be much more on the school if it did have such a long history. Note to closer - Request a relist so that we can pursue this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually no, the school didn't open brand new in 2015, and the previous sources don't seem to explicitly suggest that either. At least a few mention an "existing" or "present" school. If you read this source initially furnished by Cunard above, it says The project calls for the existing high school to be razed except for the auditorium. The new building will be constructed around that. It also goes on to say At a little less than 160,000 square feet, the new building will be about 6,000 square feet smaller than the present high school. So there is evidence that this big construction project about a decade ago involved the near-total demolition of the original school while preserving its auditorium, and the new one was built on the same site. For our purposes, it's the same school. Left guide (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does not say that the replacement school is the same entity. But again, all that is required is to discover sources that show otherwise. I would be particularly interested to see if there were a centenary celebration. Such events usually attract histories, and the history would be both secondary and extremely useful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does not say that the replacement school is the same entity. This is bordering on pedantry. The sources say that the same exact project involved the demolition of the old version and the construction of the new version which was built on the same exact site, with the same auditorium being part of both versions. At some point, we have to exercise some common sense and editorial discretion. We can't expect sources to satisfy us 100% over the most mundane qualms someone can create, or they would be unreadably long; this seems like "sky is blue" territory. Left guide (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the joy of working with primary sources. Your proposed synthesis is probably right, although there are examples where it could be wrong. I started typing one such example out but I don't see the point of deflecting discussion on a meta argument about what constitutes the entity. The point remains that the sources we have are not up to scratch, but if the school is the same school that has been in existence since 1852 (and we still do not know this) then I believe we will find sources with some more digging. We could keep arguing, or we could search for the sources with some hope now that this will be fruitful. Which would you like me to do? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the claim that it's a primary source. That source was published in 1892, and chronicles history between 1852 and 1872, so between 20 and 40 years prior. That would be like if something published today chronicled the history of a school between 1984 and 2004, certainly far enough removed to be a secondary source. On another note, newspapers.com shows 97,401 results for "Greenfield High School" in the state of Massachusetts (out of 175,662 total results for the term worldwide), but I don't have a subscription, might be helpful if someone who does can examine the coverage available there. Left guide (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library in my WP:BEFORE, most of the results were the local newspaper with wedding announcements of former alumni. Lavalizard101 (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can access newspapers.com through the Wikipedia library. However there is a service issue affecting access. I have discovered that some browsers can work despite the service issue. For instance, I just accessed it using Brave, having explicitly chosen "shields down" for the site (www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org). I could not get it to work in Safari and I have limited success with Chrome. See if you can access this. You should be redirected to Wikipedia library login: [21] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 18:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOLFRAM

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

Non-notable, promotional page about Australian DJ. Page created by paid editor (WP:COI has been appropriately declared), so page needs to well meet notability criteria, but in my view falls well short of WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO. Claim to fame was a decade ago so if notability was supposedly achieved, WP:RSs should have been visible by now. Cabrils (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thank you for your feedback. I have updated the page to reflect his current status as a pivotal figure in the fashion and electronic music space, citing the most prestigious outlets having published recent pieces on him in the last 2 years- including Vogue Magazine, INDIE Mag, and Sleek Magazine, and included his collaboration with renowned brand ZALANDO on their campaign last year. These are all cited and included in the most recent edits. In the sources I have added, it is adequate that WP:RSs is visible and the requirements are satisfied. Please let me know if you have any additional feedback Natlaur (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read about WP:COIRESPONSE. – The Grid (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little to no coverage in RS for this person. I don't find any as well. German Vogue is probably the best one, rest are interviews or primary sourcing. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, many of this artist’s coverage is in German. As I mentioned above, I respectfully believe the sources do in fact meet the criteria for RS. Monocle, Vogue, INDIE magazine, and Interview are all highly reputable and reliable sources that establish noteworthiness, especially within the artist’s existing niche- as well as extremely high profile campaigns for ZALANDO. I would kindly request that you reconsider the delete vote, or perhaps share any requirements that in your eyes satisfy the criteria so that I can amend the article to meet your standards for this not to be deleted. 93.40.185.121 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wolfram has a feature article covering pages 28 to 33 on the July 2020 issue of DJ Mag: [22]. This is firmly in WP:RSMUSIC territory; with the journalist likening Wolfram to an electronic version of Mozart ("El Amadeus electronico"). Therefore, coupled with the Vogue coverage alone, I rather suspect the subject is very likely notable. The article itself, however, appears to be a prime candidate for WP:TNT as it is largely WP:PUFFERY. ResonantDis_tortion 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Draftify~~ - perhaps the best option here is to incubate in draftspace. ResonantDis_tortion 09:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Further comment: According to this citation [23], Wolfram was nominated for a notable award (Amadeus Austrian Music Awards) in 2012 - which meets WP:MUSICBIO#8. There is also further coverage about his album, Amadeus, available: The Ransom Note and Der Standard. Review of album Wolfram in Die Tageszeitung on Proquest: [24]. Also a profile here on Music Austria. ResonantDis_tortion 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the proper steps for an editor with a COI is to create an article in Draft space and submit it to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that an article for this subject did exist at Wolfram Eckert but it was deleted through a PROD years ago. It in no way resembled this referenced article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I hope more music-oriented editors will help assess this article. Keep, Delete or Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Keep. I have updated the article - adding RS sourcing with significant coverage of his albums, added the notable award nomination, and significantly edited to remove most of the Puffery to be more WP:NPOV. ResonantDis_tortion 14:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the added sources such as a 5 page article in DJ Mag which is a reliable source, coverage in newspapers such as Der Standard, winning a notable award. Also found a staff written AllMusic album review here, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Kudos to Prince of Erebor for updating the article and adding the additional sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gunawan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NBAD. Stvbastian (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Hong Kong. Stvbastian (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have read the 1st nomination, but no one cares about this article. Better this article move to draft.Stvbastian (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Ho, Kelly (2020-01-06). "Diocesan Boys' School student and badminton star Jason Gunawan follows in his father's footsteps". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "At some point, every athlete dreams of making it to the Olympics, but local badminton prodigy Jason Gunawan has had his heart set on competing at the sporting event since he was four years old. Jason, who celebrated his second consecutive win in the boys’ singles event at the All Hong Kong Schools Jing Ying Tournament last Monday, says he has been dreaming of Olympic glory ever since he watched Chinese player Lin Dan take gold at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. ... A love of badminton runs in Jason’s family. His father, a Chinese Indonesian, used to play for the Jakarta province team. As a child, Jason would head to the local sports centre with his father every Sunday to practise, eventually earning a spot on the Hong Kong junior team. He now trains 30 hours a week at the Hong Kong Sports Institute, but still finds time to practise with his dad, his biggest supporter."
2. Cheung, Ka-Wa 徐嘉華 (2024-05-25). "羽毛球｜由外圍賽打至8強止步吳英倫下月生日願望：今年闖入世界排名頭30" [Badminton｜ From qualifying to the top 8, Jason Gunawan's birthday wish next month: to break into the top 30 in the world this year]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "父母是印尼華僑的Jason，曾於2020年以最年輕球手（當時16歲）奪全港錦標賽男單冠軍，可惜一場疫情斷送足足3年的青少年比賽，直到2022年5月才開始由低（國際挑戰賽級別）打起，... Jason今年初繼續參加「國際挑戰賽」，亦遇到一些「超級300」的比賽，世界排名由年初105位到本月泰國公開賽（超級500）時是96位，他在該賽的16強，遇上世界排名第5的日本球星奈良岡功大，雙方拉鋸3局，港將只在決勝局輸「刁時」（21:11、 15:21、20:22)，世界排名升至本周的83位。"
  From Google Translate: "Jason, whose parents are Indonesian overseas Chinese, won the men's singles championship in the Hong Kong Championships in 2020 as the youngest golfer (16 years old at the time). Unfortunately, a pandemic ruined the youth competition for three full years, and it was not until May 2022 that it started. Starting from a low (International Challenge level),... Jason continued to participate in the "International Challenge" at the beginning of this year, and also encountered some "Super 300" competitions. His world ranking increased from 105th at the beginning of the year to this month's Thailand Open (Super 500). ) was ranked 96th at the time. In the top 16 of the tournament, he met Japanese star Kodai Naraoka, who was ranked fifth in the world. The two sides went back and forth for 3 games. The Hong Kong player only lost to "Diao Shi" in the decisive game (21:11, 15 :21, 20:22), the world ranking rose to 83rd this week."
3. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-11-15). "Jason Gunawan crowned youngest-ever Hong Kong men's badminton champion at 16". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "Jason Gunawan became the youngest-ever men’s singles champion at the annual Hong Kong badminton championships at Kowloon Park Sports Centre on Sunday, thanks partly to his decision to turn to full-time training amid the pandemic. Just three months after cutting short his secondary school studies to pursue a full-time sporting career at the Sports Institute, the 16-year-old teenager reigned supreme in the three-game final against Chan Yin-chak, winning 21-19, 17-21, 21-13 to put himself in the record books."
4. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-12-01). "Young gun Jason Gunawan sets sights on winning Olympic gold for Hong Kong". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "Outside of Hong Kong there is badminton legend Tony Gunawan, the 2000 Sydney Olympic men’s doubles champion of Indonesia. Here in Hong Kong there is 16-year-old Jason Gunawan, a fast-rising talent now setting his sights on becoming another Olympic gold-medal winner like his namesake. ... Gunawan will not be present in Tokyo either as he is still competing in junior events, but the 2024 Paris Games will be his first attempt at making the step up to Olympic level, with the Los Angeles Games four years later his major target for a medal. ... Born in Hong Kong with an Indonesian-Chinese father, Gunawan was destined to make a name in badminton before he was even born, he said."
5. Ng, Chia Yin (2024-05-24). "Jason: I thank coach Wong for helping me grow". The Star. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "Hong Kong’s rising star Jason Gunawan appreciated coach Wong Choong Hann’s role in the growth of his career after checking into the men’s singles quarter-finals in the Malaysian Masters. ... Jason, who will be turning 20 next month, is expecting a tougher job against world No. 19 Lu Guangzu of China next but looking forward to gaining invaluable experience."
6. Chiu, Tsz-chun 趙子晉 (2023-09-14). "羽毛球．香港賽｜李卓耀不敵基斯迪衛冕失敗　吳英倫力追世界距離" [Badminton: Hong Kong Open｜ Lee Cheuk Yiu Fails to Defend Title Against Kistkidis, Jason Gunawan Closes the Gap to World Rankings] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "吳英倫決勝局初段把握對方情緒不穩，多次放高波予甘克起板，Jason曾經領先5：2，甘克一度滑倒倒地。惟Jason體力有所下降，... 年僅19歲的吳英倫，以往主力出戰青年賽為主，就算越級挑戰成年組也是大多是國際挑戰賽級別，主場的香港賽是他生涯首個BWF 500分的賽事。"
  From Google Translate: "Jason Gunawan took advantage of his opponent's emotional instability in the early stage of the decisive game and sent high waves to Gan Ke several times. Jason once led 5:2, but Gan Ke once slipped and fell to the ground. But Jason's physical strength has declined... Jason Gunawan, who is only 19 years old, has mainly competed in youth competitions in the past. Even if he jumps to the adult group, most of them are international challenge competitions. The Hong Kong competition at home is his first BWF 500 in his career. points competition."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Gunawan (traditional Chinese: 吳英倫; simplified Chinese: 吴英伦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources—the South China Morning Post and Sing Tao Daily articles—provide substantial coverage about the subject, which enable him to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The other sources also provide significant to less significant coverage about him (they discuss him in their headlines and cover biographical details about him in the article). The sources all contribute to notability because Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1b. There is no new deletion rationale presented in this nomination compared to the previous one which was closed as keep. The sources cited by Cunard are literally identical to those listed in the previous nomination, and multiple Wikipedians have already reviewed and affirmed that these sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Deletion is not cleanup. I do not see a point to delete/drafity an article when numerous usable sources are already presented. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article should be keep, the statements and the sources should be move to Jason Gunawan wikipedia article. It is very uncomfortable to see the article with that statement: "Jason Gunawan is a Hong Kong badminton player." In other words, if i just look at the statement, there is nothing special about the subject. But, i still in my opinion to draft this article. Because it is too soon for a badminton player that did not meet NBAD. Stvbastian (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stvbastian: User:Cherryonbottom and I have expanded the article using the sources above, and I have added an additional source from HK01. I believe it is very obvious now that the article meets GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate. Thank you Stvbastian (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, he has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources which is enough for WP:NBASIC.

On my reading of WP:NBAD, since this article was nominated he now meets that as well. He reached the semi-finals at the BWF HK Open, but I couldn't find coverage. But this[25] documents that plus his semi-final appearance at the BWF Macau Open. Oblivy (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Oblivy fyi, finished as semi-finalists in the BWF World Tour (example: Hong Kong Open or Macau Open) still did not satisfied NBAD. Only finalists (the winner and runner-up) who step on the podium in the BWF World Tour. Stvbastian (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, That's why I gave two independent reasons to keep the article. Oblivy (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ as disruption Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Bangladesh Army

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MILUNIT. In the Bangladesh Army, women are notable at all, the references do not prove that female members are notable in the army, the references have just cut a dash in outside. Katunonot (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel obligated to point out that as with the prior two nominations, this nomination marks the first edits by the nominator. I don't have much comment beyond that at this time, but coming so soon after the last nomination… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it is obviously WP:DUCK case. There is no reason to remove it and does not fail WP:MILUNIT. Mehedi Abedin 06:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – nomination has no merit, the topic is notable and the article shows that, and is supported by reliable sources. Nomination appears to be in bad faith, and the sock vibes are very strong. --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic. No valid deletion rationale. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly notable also I remember this article being vandalized recently. Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep Nicely done article. I added a section on their now being allowed to wear their hijab head covering as an expression of their faith. Edit as seems fit, but I think that info should be kept in the article. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 diplomatic missions of the Maldives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Maldives, Brussels

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

3 of the 4 sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Maldives, and Belgium. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there a possible Redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of the Maldives: Not notable per nom; unable to find secondary sources. There are a quite a few other diplomatic missions of the Maldives that should probably be redirected to this article or merged into an article about bilateral relations between the two countries. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Competition. ✗plicit 02:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-upmanship

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with its content essentially just being an explanation of its origin that could easily be included in the Wiktionary page. I don't see evidence of the term having standalone notability or passing WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking merge to competition. Section on “competitiveness" could use it. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hyperbolick without prejudice against recreation if it can be expanded beyond a DICDEF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. While this looks like an NC on its face, the nomination is as problematic as some of the !votes and NFitz' is based in policy which edges this toward keep. Star Mississippi 18:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Forster

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

This is a vanity article for a little-known freelance writer. His only claim to fame is drawing widespread mockery and condemnation for his book about wearing blackface across the United States. Much more notable Canadian journalists do not have Wikipedia pages, and the achievements listed are negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Canada. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person who nominated this article for deletion clearly has a personal issue with the subject, Sam Forster, who is obviously a notable public figure. Just because an author is controversial, like Sam Forster is, that doesn't mean a well-sourced article about him should be removed. Sam Forster seems like a fairly normal, likable journalist, who happened to create an avant-garde book, and it seems like he is being maliciously attacked here. Violetpennington (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The critique overlooks the broader context of Sam Forster's contributions to the public discourse. While it's true that not every writer or journalist gains widespread recognition overnight, dismissing someone's work solely based on their level of fame or controversial moments is short-sighted. Forster’s book, which has indeed sparked debate, addresses sensitive and complex issues, and the ensuing reactions—both positive and negative—demonstrate that his work has provoked meaningful conversations.

It's essential to recognize that public figures who challenge societal norms often face harsh criticism, but that doesn't diminish the value of their contributions. Many notable figures throughout history were initially met with ridicule before their work was acknowledged as significant. Forster's willingness to tackle uncomfortable topics is an important part of his role as a writer. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a platform that reflects public interest, and Forster's coverage there simply mirrors the fact that his work, controversial or not, has sparked significant public attention.

Additionally, comparing Forster to other Canadian journalists based on fame is a false equivalence. The presence or absence of a Wikipedia page is not a measure of a person’s accomplishments, nor does it negate the relevance of their work. It's important to focus on the substance of what a writer has contributed to discussions, rather than focusing on how well-known they are or how their work has been received in certain circles.

---

This approach emphasizes the importance of intellectual discourse, the value of confronting complex societal issues, and challenges the assumptions about fame equating to worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves598 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor is now blocked. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The keep vote above by the blocked editor was entirely AI generated (according to gptzero.me), and on that basis should surely be entirely disregarded. Axad12 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need some experienced editors to weigh in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no legitimate argument for deleting this article. Sam Forster is clearly a notable figure who has been featured in many prominent media outlets. The fact that some people have criticized his work is not a reason to delete his page. Violetpennington (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like it or not, a quick Proquest search for "Sam Forster" find no end of coverage for his ... for lack of a better word, “mochaface”. Nfitz (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 17:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Los Alamitos

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that could be found with a further in-depth search. Conyo14 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a WP:BEFORE. Aside from press releases, I couldn't find anything. However, I don't doubt the hospital had other names. Thus, if sigcov is proven, then it can remain. However, the sources there right now are better for a merge between the three articles.

Also, WP:AGF. Conyo14 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not enough to say "Keep", you should rebut the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 17:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Lakewood

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that I wouldn't want to mix with the others. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the Lakewood hospital in particular, there doesn't seem to be extensive non-trivial coverage. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if we had a review of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a private hospital, this needs to meet WP:NCORP per the nom. "Did not do a Google search" will not cut it here. We need multiple independent reliable secondary sources (per WP:SIRS) that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. There are some articles about the hospital, but what we don't have is anything that significantly discusses the hospital itself, and allows an article to be written. There is some stuff about Lakewood joining UCI that I see, but at this stage I haven't seen anything that meets CORPDEPTH. Leaning delete but leaving this as a comment for now, in the hope something can be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hospitals are not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, they are not recognized by that WikiProject. They are only recognized by Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. Catfurball (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a delsort is not a Wikiproject. Delsorts are there to flag a case so that editors with an interest will be aware of the AfD and can come to comment. This hospital is a private business venture and very much falls within NCORP guidelines. If editors are not interested in hospitals, they'll ignore it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nnamdi Nwizu

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

BLP of a person with a successful career, supported by primary sources and PR profiling. There is no claim to notability here and Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person is not notable in terms of WP BIO and GNG. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, all I could find on him was ROTM coverage, and a few softball interviews mostly aimed at promoting his company. Paid editing is obvious from article creator's edit history and user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 17:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Fountain Valley

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources speak of the majority of hospitals within the network but give no significant coverage of the Fountain Valley location Conyo14 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator should have did a Google Search before nominating. Catfurball (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelo Strano

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

I'm not finding this professor and art critic notable per WP:Nacademic nor WP:NAUTHOR. The current sourcing consists of two press releases and a listing that is a simple name check. Part of a group of articles created to promote the "Empathic Movement". Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Philosophy, and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Axad12 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS citations are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Marvel Super Hero Adventures#Franchise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Super Hero Adventures (comic books)

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

Comic series fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Marvel Super Hero Adventures#Franchise. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's part of a preschool franchise, so it's unlikely to have been discussed in encyclopedia-worthy sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kutch Gurjar Kshatriyas contributions to the Indian railways

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

POVCRUFT dedicated to the glorification of a particular caste largely based on WP:SYNTH and relies on unreliable WP:RAJ sources. There is no academic source that has given significant coverage to this subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be mainly OR, stitched together from snippets of material that are not about the topic in hand. Also from the language used it’s pretty clear that the creator had copied some material verbatim and not used their own words. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much WP:OR to deal with. Dympies (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more of a personal essay than an article, and very much full of OR. No evidence that secondary sources have covered this as a specific topic. Even if they had, this would still merit WP:TNT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously unsuitable for an encyclopedia ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As it is not a BLP, there is no pressing need to move to draft for improvement or otherwise remove it from mainspace to allow time for improvement and research for sources unless Joy wishes to work in draft space rather than worry about the timing of another AfD. Star Mississippi 17:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Sloboda Čačak

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

Serbian football club fails WP:GNG. This article was deleted under WP:A7 almost 10 years ago, and it has only recently been undeleted. GTrang (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was undeleted for a reason, did you bother to find out why and see if that person who request can improve the article? Govvy (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being a third-tier club it seems reasonably well established and integrated in Serbian football. Geschichte (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Geschichte. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable due to its existence for over 70 years. Karol739 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. The points above are valid, but without sources they are meaningless. Giant Snowman 13:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The Giant Snowman is correct, are there sources that provide SIGCOV and help establish GNG? That is what is demanded now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The arguments to keep this article all have merit, but in it's present state, it fails WP:GNG. I recommend draftifying it to give the person who requested undeletion (or anyone else for that matter) the chance to add sources improve it so that it meets Wikipedia's standards.DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources presented for WP:V, and there is not even a related article in Serbian for comparison. The keep votes did not bring in any new sources. Svartner (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft Valid nomination, but some of the processes here, why the article was revived and not improve seems to be a red flag. Because the article hasn't been improved and it's been nine days since my last comment and I can't see any validity why this should be kept. I have no qualms for it going to draft space, but that feels like it would die there. The keep arguments above haven't provided any source material for this to be kept either. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is very difficult to search for sources because of the shared name with Sloboda Čačak, the factory. Do you have any tips for terms that would aid the search? Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. But also wanted to correct an apparent misunderstanding. Yes notable topics can get deleted under A7.. A7 requires a claim of notability to be declined and for the subject to head to PROD or AfD. They are different processes and A7 is not relevant at AFD, GNG and its sub-guidelines are. Deletion is not based on what is in the article text, but whether an article can be improved. That said, there is no strong consensus here. Suggest efforts be made to improve the article before re-nominating it. Star Mississippi 17:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Fagan

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

Article makes no claim to encyclopedic importance. It should have been speedy deleted per WP:A7 but it was oddly declined. Being a student and in a program that trains opera singers does not make one encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, 4meter4, but as a long-term editor, one would expect you to at least follow WP:BEFORE before an AfD nom. Fagan was a student in 2016, some eight years ago. She is now a successful soprano. For example, she sang Musetta in La bohème at Covent Garden earlier this year. A simple search of Google News turns up plenty of results. AfD is not clean-up. Edwardx (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx WP:SPEEDY is different than a WP:GNG deletion rationale. The article still fails to make a credible encyclopedic claim in its current state and should be deleted under A7. SPEEDY is cleanup for articles that don’t meet a basic level of stub competency. Please read A7 which specifically excludes notability as a relevant issue. Yes notable topics can get deleted under A7.4meter4 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 Your CSD nom was declined. AfD is not for relitigating declined CSDs. Different criteria apply at AfD. You need to make a different argument. Edwardx (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. That argument is WP:WIKILAWYERING and a subversion of both deletion policy and WP:CONSENSUS. It was the wrong call to not delete this article under A7 which doesn't make a credible encyclopedic claim. It's perfectly valid to seek community consensus to overturn a bad decision made by an editor who ignored A7 policy. If you want the encyclopedia to keep this article than I suggest you edit the article to meet a basic level of encyclopedic competence so A7 isn't valid. Otherwise, we don't keep articles on WP:BLPs that don't make a credible claim of encyclopedic importance no matter how many sources we find because WP:Notability is not relevant under A7 which is policy.4meter4 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it "was the wrong call to not delete this article under A7", then why have you not raised this at User talk:asilvering? It was their call, not mine. Edwardx (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be obvious. It's better to use the WP:CONSENSUS process when there is a difference of opinions. That's wikipedia community policy, and WP:AFD is the community forum to discuss deletions. FYI WP:SPEEDY policy gets used at AFD with some frequency. It's not like this is an out of the norm conversation. Not all AFDs involve just WP:N. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the tone of the comments here is overly terse and accusatory. You might want to try WP:AGF and actually look at A7 policy objectively. You can't seriously be telling me that an article telling us someone went to a music school and got into a training program for opera singers is encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems more than just a student. There are roles in major notable productions, as well as sources like these [26] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker WP:A7 has to do with in article text. Not what is outside the article. Please engage with WP:A7 policy language.4meter4 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems like none of the keep voters are engaging with WP:A7 as policy. If the current in article text remains unaltered and we close this as keep, this will be a prime candidate fro WP:DELETIONREVIEW. We either follow deletion policy or we don't. It's that simple. If editors are finding encyclopedic achievements not currently in the article text please add a sentence or two to the article so that A7 is no longer an issue. 4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think these are about this person [27], [28], but I'm unsure. European opera isn't in my wheelhouse. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I would greatly prefer that someone add the sources found and explain in context - per WP:HEY. I am an opera queen, but I’m not familiar with the subject. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get a review of the sources. A reminder, AFD isn't CSD so we needn't be focused on a previous tagging and stick with standard notability assessment of creative professionals that occurs in AFD deletion discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.rbo.org.uk/people/lauren-fagan	From a website which seems to have an vested interest in promoting Fagan		✘ No
https://www.rbo.org.uk/news/young-artist-profile-lauren-fagan-being-an-opera-singer-isnt-a-normal-job-its-a-vocation-that-influences-your-whole-life	From a website which seems to have an vested interest in promoting Fagan		✘ No
https://www.harrisonparrott.com/artists/lauren-fagan	Talent management agency		✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/30/la-traviata-opera-holland-park-review-verdi			✔ Yes
https://musicalamerica.com/news/newsstory.cfm?storyID=50995&categoryID=2			✔ Yes
https://www.thetimes.com/article/la-boheme-opera-review-royal-opera-house-london-rk3khdt9h		? Paywall	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GMH Melbourne: Thanks for the analysis! But Musical America seems to be reliable, right? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have amended the table. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies NACTOR for significant roles in notable stagings of operas as noted below. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musetta in La bohème at the Royal Opera House 2024. Reviewed in i: The Paper For Today by Jessica Duchen "but any chemistry between these two was a tad outshone by that of Marcello and Musetta - baritone Mikhail Timoshenko and soprano Lauren Fagan (replacing Danielle de Niese) - who blended seriously impressive singing with uninhibited sensuality to magnificent effect." and in The Times by Neil Fisher "In a hairpin turn from having just sung Gretel in Hansel and Gretel at this address, Lauren Fagan’s take-no-prisoners Musetta is irresistible, having great fun with the physical comedy (watch out for the flying knickers) but also giving this good-time girl a stature she often lacks." and in The Observer by Fiona Maddox "As the quarrelsome Musetta and Marcello, the Australian soprano Lauren Fagan and the Russian baritone Mikhail Timoshenko revelled in disputation, as well as attracting sympathy." and in the Express by William Hartston "Covent Garden audiences last saw Fagan as Gretel in the Christmas production Hansel and Gretel, but Musetta's knickers-removing antics at the Cafe Momus are gloriously accomplished and strikingly more adult." "All of the leading parts are well sung, with Ruzan Mantashyan and Lauren Fagan particularly excellent."

Margarita in Ainadamar at Theatre Royal then Edinburgh Festival Theatre 2022 reviewed in the Times by Simon Thompson "Soprano Lauren Fagan is the actress Margarita, singing the opening scenes with a deep chest voice but scaling gleaming heights for Margarita’s final apotheosis." and in The National by Stewart Ward "Thus is the scene set for an opera comprised of totemic episodes from the artistic life of Lorca (played with wonderful sympathy by the American mezzo-soprano Samantha Hankey) and Margarita Xirgu, the actor-director who was Lorca’s great collaborator and champion (performed with a truly Spanish passion by the Australian soprano Lauren Fagan)." and in The Herald (Glasgow) by Keith Bruce "But others will surely single out Lauren Fagan's equally commanding Margarita or the beautiful voice of Colombian soprano Julieth Lozano as Nuria, and it would be foolish to argue." and in The Daily Telegraph by Nicholas Kenyon "As Margarita (a role conceived for Dawn Upshaw), Lauren Fagan is superbly forceful in a part that reaches high both in range and in passion." and more

Helena in A Midsummer Night's Dream Glyndebourne 2023 reviewed in The Times by Richard Morrison "When anger erupts among the drugged lovers (an excellent quartet of Caspar Singh, Rachael Wilson, Samuel Dale Johnson and Lauren Fagan), there is an alarming degree of vitriol in their voices and body language." and Financial Times by Richard Fairman "The four mortals — Lauren Fagan, Rachael Wilson, Caspar Singh and Samuel Dale Johnson, all good — are fired up when Wilson's Hermia lets fly in their quarrel." (Also Daily Mail * 2 but that's not liked by Wikipedia, excessively I think for some things like this but that's not for here)

Violetta in La Traviata'm at Her Majesty’s Theatre (Adelaide). Article in Iannella, Antimo (2022-02-27). "Prodigal's return for star role". Sunday Mail (Adelaide). and article in "Prodigal's return for star role". The Advertiser (Adelaide). 2022-07-22. and review in Shaw, Ewart (2022-08-29). "Something to sing about". The Advertiser (Adelaide). "Lauren Fagan, as Violetta, is beautiful, and the range of her music and emotion is fearless. At every moment, in triumph and despair, she holds the audience's attention like a star."

also worth noting Gretel in Hansel And Gretel Royal Opera House 2023. Reviewed in Mail on Sunday by David Mellor "It has been much commented on that, at last, it's being done here in English. But some of the singers have poor diction, like Australian Lauren Fagan's Gretel. She might as well have been singing in Serbo-Croat."

More at [29].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Esfandiary

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

Fails notability and that's why this is an orphan article. there are just lots of not-really-related sources in Persian to make it look like a well-sourced article. while in fact this person is just a coach in a non-Olympic sport without much media coverage. Sports2021 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable athlete. Looks like vanity/COI. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erfan Hossein Yazdi

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

Fails notability, he never achieved anything in senior level. the Asian bronze medal mentioned in this article is in the junior level. Sports2021 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahin Naghipour Jafari

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

Fails notability, almost everything in this article is not correct. he probably won some medals in some random tournaments but he never even participated in World or Asian Championships, let alone winning medals. this is more like a fake article trying to promote someone with no major achievement. Sports2021 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable athlete completely fails WP:GNG. Vanity page. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an adult he never competed at a continental or world championship. In fact, he wasn't ranked in the top 100 as an adult. In addition, none of the coverage meets the standard required by WP:GNG to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Närkes Kils SK

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

I tried my best in Swedish language sources but could not find significant, independent coverage about this sports club, only brief mentions in listings. Not enough to pass WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep: List or not. Bolletinen has one of the strongest sports online databases in Swedish. J 1982 (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It will be great if you can help add some references in Swedish to improve the article and prove the club's notability! Lâm (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been done with the Bolletinen source. "Maratontabell för högsta damserien 1978–2003" means "all-time table for the women's top division 1978–2003". J 1982 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the publisher is reliable (which I think it most likely is) is not the only criterion for notability, though. That the club appears in a table doesn't make it notable per WP:NTEAM. I do find a bit of coverage of the table tennis section, e.g. [30] and [31] – though I wonder whether those newspapers might be a bit too local to really work towards showing notability. In any case, a) the spelling "Nerikes Kils SK" is more frequent than the spelling with "ä", and b) if the article is kept, it needs a lot of work, and it ought to include more than just a brief mention of the football team in the 1970s. I don't really have an opinion at the moment about its notability. --bonadea contributions talk 14:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage in reliable sources does not seem to be sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 google news hit says it all. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barra Head (band)

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

No credible claim of notability. Too underground to pass NMUSIC, and doesn't pass GNG either. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Europe, Denmark, and Germany. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are reviews and coverage from Gaffa ([32], [33], [34] + other coverage), Undertoner [da] ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) Visions [de] ([40], [41] + some information in [42], [43]) and Ox-Fanzine ([44], [45], interview) toweli (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the new sources brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reviews provided by toweli are enough to demonstrate notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klara Grön

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Search does not produce any WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Finland. Demt1298 (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG for certain. The editor has otherwise been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete there only appears to be a single source, the biography which is cited but appears to be behind a paywall. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source might be accessible via https://biografiasampo.fi/henkilo/p1599 The bio is quite extensive, and some additional sources are cited, but most of them are by the same author who wrote the National Biography entry so I don't think those contribute much to notability (and we don't know the contents). I searched some Finnish sources and did not find any mentions of her (except a one-sentence mention in a newspaper column commenting on the National Biography). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan Alijani Monfared

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

Fails notability, not a famous person. never did anything special. for example the article says he won a silver in speed skating!? a silver in what competition ? the rest of his achievements look a bit fake or exaggerated. it feels like he just paid someone to create an article here for him. Sports2021 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for what it's worth, this article and several others were created by a paid source. For a list of the other paid articles, please see User:Omid ahmadyani. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ice hockey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ÇOMÜ Faculty of Theology}}
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Half-Life}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tendai Ruben Mbofana}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tendai Ruben Mbofana}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ochicha}}<!--Relisted-->