Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:33, 15 January 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 14	January 16 >

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 no consensus. After 3 relists still minor participation and no apparent consensus. No prejudice to a re-nomination in 1 or 2 months time if no improvement is forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irpin Declaration

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

Sources don't establish notability for this organization, nor for it even being an organization. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it's a Political Union not an organization TheVoltigeur (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a reference from the Kyiv Post, which is considered RS. What's with "claimed" in small text? Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it’s not that either. It’s a declaration, as noted in the text. It might be notable to include in the individual articles of the groups, but it’s not notable alone, and doesn’t meet notability guidelines for an article. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure draftifying this would help, almost looks TOOSOON. If not, Delete is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what we can find a single news source by Kyiv Post and nothing at all suitable English Wikipedia. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a notable thing if you search for it in using the local language "Ірпінська декларація" CT55555(talk) 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any sort of notability it seems to have is as a news event, though. Not every news event is worthy of an article, and it seems like this information would be much better suited as a sentence or two as a part of the history section on the articles about the individual groups which either signed or were alleged to have signed the declaration. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Hamilton

AfDs for this article:

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

sources consist of 45cat (unreliable), discogs (unreliable), a whole bunch of primary sources, and unrelated sources. lettherebedarklight 晚安 13:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. lettherebedarklight 晚安 13:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Whom it May Concern

If the embarrassing, ridiculous deletion notice is not immediately removed permanently remove my Wikipedia page. Judd Hamilton 2601:601:D02:2120:F9AB:D435:CBF4:D7E1 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

As I recently had cause to share my appreciated Wikipedia page I was a bit shocked to see said page is being considered for deletion? Having previously created a Wikipedia article in the early 2000's not knowing doing so may have violated Wikipedia practices said version was deleted. Subsequently I was made aware that a new Judd Hamilton Wikipedia page had been created by whom I'm not aware that to my surprise reasonably accurately chronicled my showbiz career. Having not created the existing page I did manage to edit some areas into a more accurate recollection, simply to keep the information 100% factual. Thus, I can confirm everything currently being stated is absolutely truthful and accurate to the multiple included references.

Accordingly, in respecting the great work Wikipedia contributes to providing uniquely useful information I'm wondering why the current Judd Hamilton page, created by a knowledgeable unknown author, is now being considered for deletion. In this regard, about 1-year ago I realized one of the volunteer Wikipedia editors had taken exception to a Current Activities section I had added to bring the article up to date and a rather contentious written debate ensued. After which said editor arbitrarily removed the Current Activities section as the only section that I personal contributed. I tried to report this contentious debate to the Wikipedia management people but received no reply.

So with this latest possible deletion notice being unexpectedly attached at the top of the page I'm hoping that you may be able to investigate the erroneous contentions once again being made by a volunteer editor. And in doing so help me resolve any misunderstandings relative the article portraying the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As it currently does with extensive references already included. Simply because my reputation is once again at stake. Also, while at one time I was able to log in to make any needed factual adjustments, I have since lost the log in information.

Thanking you in advance for any help you can provide, Judd Hamilton 2601:601:D02:2120:F9AB:D435:CBF4:D7E1 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, the previous contentious volunteer Wikipedia editor was Mako001. Again seriously hoping you can resolve this latest worrying page deletion threat. Best Regards, Judd Hamilton 2601:601:D02:2120:F9AB:D435:CBF4:D7E1 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notable subject. Hamilton played an important role in the surf music genre. He worked as an arranger on some surf records that were hits in California and became classics. With regard to the above, the assessment is incorrect. The sources for the discography are from 45cat and discogs. Yes, but that doesn't make the subject non-notable. Those sections just need to improve. The music-trade magazine sources are reliable. The article has also been changed an edited by some people over a period of time and these other edits weren't referenced properly. Karl Twist (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources? They don't come up in a casual news source. Even in the book search its incidental coverage (Judd's wife might be notable as she was a Bond Girl according to one, and the horror articles are the IMBD of the day saying "yes Judd was in this low budget movie" an effective stubb without context. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC) striking sock lettherebedarklight 晚安 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Hi, if by some small chance this item is leaning towards deletion, is it possible that we could have this re-directed to the The T-Bones or Dan Hamilton page please? There's a lot of work done between the two of them. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Karl, I appreciate your comments regarding the ridiculous, embarrassing, unwarranted deletion notice that has appeared on my Wikipedia page. As everything stated is factual and true, i.e. I have made sure the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is stated I am stunned that a deletion notice would appear. Therefore, I have notified one of the volunteer editors if this reputation destroying notice is not immediately removed I want the Judd Hamilton page permanently removed. Having until recently seriously appreciated the I thought good work Wikipedia appears to do in providing useful information, having previously found a so-called editor was removing information I began to seriously question Wikipedias arbitrarily enacted editing process and accordingly my opinion of Wikipedia is fast dwindling into disrespect for the systems arbitrary, anyone can alter and/or have truthfully enacted articles removed. So again thanks for your opinion, hoping this embarrassing deletion notice can be immediately removed to protect my reputation and if not as stated and however it can be done I need the Judd Hamilton page removed. Thanks for any help in this regard, Judd Hamilton 2601:601:D02:2120:F9AB:D435:CBF4:D7E1 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Hamilton, I hope that the page will be saved. I don't think that it should have been nominated for deletion. I'll talk more later. Karl Twist (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Thank you Karl. I'm still trying to figure out what the person who installed this deletion notice based their complaint on? Inclusive of the factual information recorded by whomever initially created the page that has always been been appreciated solely relates to the 60's, 70's, into the 80's music, film work I did.

As previously stated, when last year I tried to personally update to the current material science, radiation shielding invention work that occupies my full time efforts that I expressed in a couple of sentences, a volunteer editor Mako001 suddenly appeared forbidding said inclusion as nothing more than self-promotion, removed the Current Activities info, and somehow personally placed a 6-month prohibition for me being able to access Wikipedia should there have needed to be a factual correction or update. A basically anonymous person can make those decisions?

And now as I hit my 81st lap my inventions activities are speeding into increasing attention and as of the past few days whenever anyone places my name in a search engine the first or one of the first articles that appears is the Wikipedia page. With several people thinking, "Judd, is all of this Wikipedia information phony, a lie?" Thus, from a character demeaning point of view I'm still flabbergasted this type of embarrassing situation could even remotely happen when an article is provably and evidentially referenced?

Anyway, I won't go on, again thanks for your hopeful intercession and onward to see what happens or doesn't happen next. Especially as over the years Wikipedia has been one of my main, seriously appreciated raw material research references to which I will always be grateful as said science based info helped me achieve multiple world patents. Which of course according to Mako001's authority said current activity info is forbidden as self-serving, self-promotional nonsense. While most of the records and films I was long ago involved with are still being sold on the Internet? And even though I don't receive anything from whomever sells said material I'm pleasantly amazed projects and records I long ago forgot about have been preserved on the Internet? Hmmm, Judd 2601:601:D02:2120:2D85:C84E:EE00:4AF0 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up comment to my Note to closing admin post, 09:15, 3 January 2023. With a re-direct, the unique history is preserved. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note to participants: whether or not we have a Wikipedia article is determined based on notability, usually demonstrated by substantive coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of what is currently on the page. As things stand very little of the commentary directly impinges on whether we should keep the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
The source is cited and mentioned but not for the whole

Source assessment table: prepared by User:WngLdr34

Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jan/05/music-still-keeps-late-rock-stars-memory-alive/ The source is an essay The source discusses the subject in part ✘ No

https://www.historylink.org/File/7490 This is a state archive of Washington State ~ ~ Partial

https://www.historylink.org/File/7636 This is a state archive of Washington State ~ The article mentions the subject briefly ~ Partial

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}}.

Originally I was bound to keep but after reading the wikipedia notability standards and information, AND searching google, its like this man does not exist! minimal SCOV. I can't even extract information and had to pull teeth to get this table. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC) striking sock lettherebedarklight 晚安 01:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Ventures, most stuff about him seems to associate him with the Ventures band [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Mr. Hamilton. Hello again. I have recorded some of the Wikipedia page in its early stages here - Revision as of 10:48, 16 June 2018 before any other editors had contributed. I'll explain more later about that. Anyway, I stand by my assertion that you are a notable figure as I know a bit about Surf music as well as having an interest in it. In the process of research, I learnt about the contribution both you and your brother Dan had made to the genre. I do believe some editors are a bit heavy-handed and sometimes overlook some things that show an article to be notable in favor of a technicality. Sometimes they view it in a robotic way.
Now I know that just having been married to Caroline Munro, a Hammer girl, Bond girl in the past doesn't make you notable. We know that! But you have made a notable contribution to the music of California and your work in film adds to that!
What could help this along is if you have kept any newspaper or magazine articles that are not accessible via google. I can't recall what it was but some time back a film or actor was said by some Wikipedia editors to be non-notable. Well, digging up some film magazines proved it the case to be otherwise. Then article wasn't deleted.
The alternative to deletion is a redirect and in many cases articles should have been redirected rather than deleted. Sadly, with some the short term and easy solution is all they think of. And sometimes it can be understandable with some when they spend a lot of time editing and are fatigued. Again, I say that your page should be a KEEP but if not, then a redirect to the Dan Hamilton or the T-Bones page would be a solution for now as it would preserve the edit history and then at a later date a discussion can be started to re-open it up with additional info on you to support that. So, magazine clippings with dates and news articles with dates would help. I don't need any convincing that you are notable! Now someone said that " its like this man does not exist!" Well, I can see that you exist (Google), (Bing), and the article in its raw stage here, - Revision as of 10:48, 16 June 2018 shows that. Also this recent article below
* Superstar in a Masquerade, by William Sargent · 2021, ISBN:9781646288960, 1646288963 - Judd Hamilton ... shows that! It shows that you were / are a part of the Californian music history. Without your contribution, the classic "Wax 'em Down".*, * wouldn't have been what it was. Anyway, see what you can dig up. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this book is published by a vanity press, Page Publishing, and therefore is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. However, I do see that it has been added to the collections of a few libraries, so that's a bit of a plus. Still, self-published materials do not go far in establishing notability. Lamona (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't thank you enough Karl, as I remain flabbergasted in having to defend the factual truth about what I have and haven't done in my bygone 60's, 70's 80's music / film career. Including co-starring in (whatever that means?) and co-producing as couple of the films and the 1980 Sci-Fi Film Awards TV special. All to my continuing amazement appearing and reappearing on the Internet simply by placing Judd Hamilton in a Google search engine. To which one of the depletion commentators insists is not the case to the point he wonders if I actually exist? Hmmmm, okay 'nuff said on that level of negatively motivated critique.

As far as published articles I recently had reason to recheck a 2008 Pipeline magazine article (a London published mag) to which the cover can be viewed by Internet-ing the English Pipeline magazine and in the search section putting in Judd & Danny Hamilton. Quite an extensive interview was published confirming pretty much everything the Wikipedia page relays. An article I just learned I can't share as I'm not logged in and don't know and/or remember how to log in.

On that note, having in the early 2000's been encouraged to create a Wikipedia page and then learning if the principle is also the author that is seriously looked down upon and indeed my personally created page was deleted. And I left it at that until a few years ago I stumbled onto the present, appreciatively authored by whom (?) page. To this day I don't know who provided the present and rather in-depth Wikipedia info. And yes, as is also being critiqued, as the principle with my reputation at stake I have subsequently corrected a few things here and there within the present page simply to make sure everything was factual.

Including as the present page is 40-year old stuff, about a year ago wanting to update with my 21st Century invention based activities and bam once again what I expressed in a couple of sentences as Current Activities was perceived by one of the Wiki editors to be self-promoting BS and deleted. And...., once again I bluntly learned that personal albeit provably factual present day career insertions are seriously frowned on. Even though all the so-called critic had to do was google search Judd Hamilton Inventions to factually confirm what I tried to update. https://patents.justia.com/inventor/judd-hamilton

So again Karl, thank you for bringing a ray of light into this otherwise rather depressing and even more disappointing reputation polluting debate, predicated on 'this guy is so undocumented and unworthy he doesn't even exist'. Sure, maybe I haven't done anything that special while helping more than a few to do so including my beloved brother Dan. And yeah, one day I will no longer exist but as we move into 2023 and given all the stuff that comes up on a Judd Hamilton google search (again to my amazement) not a rational assumption, much less a fair and reasonable conclusion? Okay, Onward to what will be will be.... 2601:601:D02:2120:91FE:4C93:AE86:3738 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need proof! I know you are happy with your celebrity crush Karl, but for me all I see are LastFM, and I tried! I did! (also again, 1 page in a long book is pushing notability! So again, you are not helping this. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC) striking sock lettherebedarklight 晚安 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you Cryogenic Air? Your seriously defaming comments have moved beyond insulting and in fact damaging enough to elicit a defamation action! All you have to do is Google Judd Hamilton to view multiple pages of info. All pretty much reporting the same truth about my 60's, 70's 80's music / film endeavors. With the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth BEING THE FACTUAL TRUTH! So what is your argument meant to accomplish other than insultingly distorting the truth? And within your anonymously disguised attacks why are you being so uninformative and negative?

Bottom-line: Wikipedia management officials please understand; when my name is searched for the most part the first reference that appears is the Wikipedia page. Accordingly, the only reason I'm entering into this insulting deletion debate is to protect my reputation from the embarrassing 'this page is being considered for deletion' notice instigated by anonymous naysayers. While I seriously appreciate the intercession of Karl Twist and those who have actually and factually bothered to investigate what this Cryogenic Air misfit and other anonymous complainers are blatantly and purposefully misrepresenting. Accordingly, please interceded and dismiss this cruel distortion of the easily accessed truth about my 60's, 70's, into the 80's music / film work. 2601:601:D02:2120:A586:BBFD:9F2B:439F (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I earlier referred to - the British 2008 Pipeline magazine link: http://www.pipelinemag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/77big.jpg 2601:601:D02:2120:A586:BBFD:9F2B:439F (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:601:D02:2120:A586:BBFD:9F2B:439F please understand that having a Wikipedia article nominated for deletion is in no way an insult towards your work or creations--it is simply a discussion as to whether a page is notable for Wikipedia. Please don't take this personally, nobody here has anything against you, nobody is complaining about you. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:Legal and that is my only warning for that. Defamation is a legal term.~~

~~Also WP:COI please read up on these policies. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)~~ striking sock lettherebedarklight 晚安 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update Karl, in looking at the early link - Revision as of 10:48, 16 June 2018 - there is a glaring mistake stating I attended Amherst University and became an engineer. Not even remotely true so not sure how that untrue assertion was included in 2018 page, while remaining info seems accurate to the times and present page.

With that update, thanks again for your objectively determined observations and Onward to what will hopefully re: the embarrassing deletion notice be determined honestly and factually. However long ago said factual information has been collaborated via amongst other sources the numerous references at the bottom of the page. With Del Halderman's "The Ventures, Walk Don't Run" book being one of the factually recorded references to The ventures and particularly Bob Bogle mentoring me as a recording artist, record producer.

Leading to bringing Dan down to LA in '63, introducing him to The Ventures and my younger brother composing an instrumental, "Diamond Head", that became Japan's first million-selling single. With The Ventures going on to become the biggest selling instrumental group in recorded history. Just for starters. With the book documenting, again to my amazement, a continuing Hamilton Brothers analog of those early 60's times. Producing The Avantis' "Wax 'Em Down" single and numerous other recording with friends such as Dave Gates, Leon Russell, Danny Whitten, Glen Campbell, and the Wrecking Crew influenced list goes on.

Inclusive, as the Halderman book unfolds, moving The Hamilton into the mid-late 60's The-Bones gig and on into the early 70's and reforming as Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds (later Dennison), leading to the multi-million selling singles "Don't Pull Your Love Out" & "Fallin' in Love". During those times having completed filming "A Talent For Loving" in Spain and road weary, I was living in London and helping Dan and the guys from behind the scenes. Thus, I would Venture to guess not exactly trivial stuff? But who knows as in this chaotic world what's trivial to one human being can also be interesting to another.

Ah, but according to the naysayers that suddenly appeared on New Year's Day out of nowhere, I'm not, nor is anyone featured on Wikipedia, allowed to autobiographically share what we have personally lived and witnessed 'for real'. Thus, the fact that anyone's honor can be anonymously subjected to provably unwarranted, demeaning, public witnessed accusations that seriously dishonor the witnessed truth continues to amaze actually stun me. So...., once again Onward to what will or will not be fairly decided in resolving this attempted reputation destroying matter! 2601:601:D02:2120:A586:BBFD:9F2B:439F (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but according to the naysayers that suddenly appeared on New Year's Day out of nowhere, I'm not, nor is anyone featured on Wikipedia, allowed to autobiographically share what we have personally lived and witnessed 'for real'.

This is correct, and there's a very good reason: we cannot verify any of that independently. Further, we cannot even verify if you are who you claim to be. While that seems likely in this instance, we don't just add things because someone claims they are true: we rely on third-party, reliable sources, so that our readers can check for their accuracy on their own.

If we did not do that, anyone could use Wikipedia to declare anything, and the site would not be reputable at all. Or they could even pretend to be you, and insert actual defamatory material into the article! So we need to see this information in other sources with a reputation for fact-checking, in order to include that material here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the article is kept, if you are interested in providing a WP:LEADIMAGE for this article, tell me on my talk page and I'll try to guide you for the process. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~Keep I can find only nominal sources. First, the Discogs, IMDB, and 45Cat are not wp:rs, but in any case those only list the records and films and do not provide any biographical information. The three books listed here are all self-published, so those do not support notability. Billboard is a reliable source but I can't tell if any of the recordings charted, which is what we would need. There are mentions, such as the Billboard mention "... has finished his first American International Picture..." but nothing more extensive. If we were to remove the unreliable sources we would be left with very little. I'll swing back by to see if anyone has had more success. Lamona (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to weak keep because of the large number of sources that Karl Twist has found. I think that due to the age of these events/products and the time that has passed, the plethora of mentions could be considered sufficient for GNG. Lamona (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: - Reply to above, Hi I have gotten rid of most of the 45cat and Discogs references. Replaced them with more acceptable refs. In doing so I realized that Judd Hamilton had been a member of three notable surf bands, 2 of which were big. The T-Bones and The Marketts. I should have brought this up earlier, but it slipped my mind I'm ashamed to say. Anyway, I put in a good amount of work to clean up the refs. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like the other Delete voters, I'm only seeing casual mentions out of any reliable source, and the "substantial coverage" of the subject required by the GNG out of none. Nor do I support a redirect, per WP:XY -- there's no one target that makes any more sense than any other (his brother's? The T-Bones? Munro's?). Nor am I at all concerned with issues concerning the "honor" of the IP who claims to be the subject -- last I checked, dueling was still illegal in the United States, and "defending" or "protecting" someone's "honor" forms no part of any Wikipedia policy or notability guideline. Perhaps the IP could reflect upon the fact that one of the reasons he's found Wikipedia to be such a useful resource over the years is that we just don't accept hearsay in articles, but rely upon documented facts from reliable, independent, third-party sources. Ravenswing 16:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are 2 [2][3] better-than-passing-mention refs that may indicate more can be found. You need WP-library access for the second one. Considering the span of his career, sources may require digging, even going WP:OFFLINE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more [4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, I disagree, after reading them: they are exactly casual mentions, or consist of quotes from Hamilton, rather than indepth coverage of him. I congratulate you for your effort in turning these obscure sources up, but there's just not enough there there. Ravenswing 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on that, IMO these clearly counts towards WP:N. They may not be enough, but they add to the case for inclusion. "Casual" is not a word I would use. There are indeed a lot of quotes in the Twilight Zone article, but it's a long text and significant other stuff there too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Ventures (or TNT if not). GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any "keep" or "delete" opinion, but I would ask Mr Hamilton to consider that his posts here do more to damage his reputation than a simple temporary notice in the article that this discussion is taking place. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think with the latest screed -- at the bottom of the page -- a rangeblock on the IP for persistent legal threats is appropriate. Ravenswing 02:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The coverage I am finding is mostly passing mentions or comes from sources that are not considered reliable. I don't see them as being notable enough to have their own standalone article at this point in time. As mentioned by Ravenswing, there's no one target that makes any more sense than any other, so deletion is my vote over redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual, per others' arguments here. ValarianB (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Whom It May Concern,

I have tolerated all of the insulting, dishonorable comments I will ever again accept. Either 'immediately' remove the defamation laced deletion notice, or remove the page. Failing to not 'immediately' removing the deletion notice or removing the now seriously embarrassing page I will turn this matter over to my legal counsel for consideration to institute a defamation law suit. Judd Hamilton 2601:601:D02:2120:AD85:6790:8A90:22A5 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeaaaaa, there's the legal threat. lettherebedarklight 晚安 03:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a block on the IP range from editing the article so I contacted the admin who imposed the block to see if it should be extended to a total block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I fail to find any sourcing that would help towards WP:ANYBIO. --bonadea contributions talk 06:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,. further info to prove notability. Hamilton was a member of two notable groups which prove notability, The Marketts and The T-Bones. (a thank you to User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång for posting the link (at 17:09, 11 January 2023) and taking the time to do research) Also by technicality, Hamilton was an ad-hoch member of Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. He was certainly responsible for the early founding of the group. The roots if you like! Also thanks to his post here, I looked at the magazine, Pipeline #77, The Avantis – The T-Bones – The Ventures – all part of the Judd & Danny Hamilton Story. That further proves his contribution to the Surf Music Genre. Karl Twist (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO as "a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (T-Bones, Avantis). There's also his time as a record company A&R man, screenwriting credit and a couple of acting stints documented in WP:RS to establish independent notability beyond the groups he has been associated with. Also agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång above – you can't expect sources about someone who started his career more than fifty years ago, thirty years before the invention of the WWW, to fall into your lap with a quick Google News search. --Andreas JN 466 11:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had a hit at JSTOR, but it doesn't really help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure more could be found. For example, checking the Newspaper Archive, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, October 25, 1968, has a little article in its Hollywood column on "Pop Singer Judd Hamilton, making his movie debut in Walter Shenson's 'A Talent for Loving', adding that people would hear him "warble three tunes in the sex comedy". This is an RS for a passage currently just sourced to FilmAffinity. Finding those old sources takes time, but I reckon they exist and notability doesn't mind if a source is sixty years old. Andreas JN 466 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Mr. Hamilton. I have posted a message on your User talk:2601:601:D02:2120:A586:BBFD:9F2B:439F page. Best to post any future remarks there or on my talk (User talk:Karl Twist) page. Karl Twist (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD, there are often excuses for why proper sourcing cannot be found. It's an ongoing fallacy an unfortunate number of people have that such excuses mean that the provisions of WP:V and WP:N should be waived in the subjects' favor. The real answer is "Then an article on the subject cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG--not by much, but it's possible to write a policy-compliant biography of the subject based on these sources posted by GGS above: Twilight Zone 1982, Spokesman-Review 1995, Song Hits Magazine 1966, and the little bit from music historian Peter Blecha's 2005 essay. Aside from that, he's had multiple hits that charted (a No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4), and been a member of multiple notable groups, plus he's made notable films, so he's hitting multiple WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCREATIVE criteria--which, alone, wouldn't be enough for me to !vote 'keep', but here we have someone who has demonstrated, verifiable accomplishments in the relevant field that meet multiple WP:SNG criteria, plus enough WP:GNG coverage to be able to write at least a short biography article, plus there is no obvious redirect target because he's been part of multiple notable groups/works. So, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the best place for the verifiable information about him is in a stand-alone article. A final 'plus': I am confident that a thorough search of historical newspaper archives would turn up more, based on what's already been digitized and posted on the internet. Also, everyone should ignore the now-blocked IP address that claims to be the subject, as we have no way to verify who that really is. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's also WP:BLPKINDNESS to consider (and I don't mean stop the afd on the IP:s say-so). Sure, we don't know, but it's not implausible, and the reaction, though not helpful, is understandable and not unique.[5]. But this is probably moot by now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, perhaps ignore is not the best response, but I just mean we shouldn't assume an IP editor is who they say they are simply because they say they are that person. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wasn't that IP rude!!. -Roxy the dog 18:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Levivich. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the new sources found by Levivich, it seems like it can barely pass GNG. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some sources have been put forward in the last few comments that would a priori appear to count toward notability; relisting to allow discussion of these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again? TBH, I was hoping for at least a "no consensus" keep closure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I was thinking the same thing. Possibly that person who has been making mischief has distorted or helped to distort the view of things. Maybe? Anyway, I see they've been crossed off. Karl Twist (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Andreas and Levivich. The article is now supported by just enough reliable secondary sources to qualify as a borderline GNG pass. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

École Française Internationale de Riyad

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. French article only has 1 source too. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Saudi Arabia, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources cited except directory listing, which does not count toward significant coverage per WP:GNG. Coverage not found in ProQuest or Wikipedia Library general search. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piri (singer)

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

Does not appear to demonstrate individual notability. The group piri & tommy is notable and receives lots of coverage, but piri herself does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. The band seems to have "broken up" ~1wk ago, but again, there appears to be no evidence of independent notability. AviationFreak💬 22:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. AviationFreak💬 22:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Launchballer per the request in their talk page header AviationFreak💬 22:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question I currently have no opinion about the subject of the discussion here, but would a redirect to Piri & Tommy's article be an acceptable alternative to a full deletion? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I had assumed this would likely be the outcome if the subject is found to be non-notable, per WP:BANDMEMBER. Is there a better avenue for pursuing that outcome? AviationFreak💬 05:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to find much sourcing for her alone, the redirect seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been expanding this article since it was listed here and I am satisfied that I have demonstrated notability. It is now more than twice the size it was when it was nominated - hell, it's almost twice as big as piri & tommy, which would mean it would need to be split per WP:ARTICLESIZE. AviationFreak, Narutolovehinata5, Oaktree b - please reconsider your votes.--Laun chba ller 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there has been a lot of effort put into the page, but unfortunately I still don't see anything that talks about piri as an individual rather than in association with her former group. There may be future sources that show her notability as a standalone act, but at the moment I just don't think the coverage is there. AviationFreak💬 21:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was edit conflicted adding a bit to my comment; I've inserted it in italics.--Laun chba ller 21:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already voted, but I've just noticed that she passes WP:MUSICBIO#C7.--Laun chba ller 21:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of changes to the article since AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems notable for more than one event, noting her group music career, single music career and only fans work. Seems to be more then enough coverage to make a useful encyclopaedia article. It's not the strongest claim of notability, hence the "weak" but it's enough CT55555(talk) 03:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as there is now enough reliably sourced coverage of her solo career to justify a standalone article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to piri & tommy. I'm sure this will lead to even less chance of consensus, but I'm just not seeing evidence of the singer's independent notability outside of the group. Her official releases have been through the group, and outside of them she is a social media influencer just like a billion other people. WP:MUSICBIO#C7 was mentioned above, but her supposed status as a leader of a local scene is via an indirect reference in an article about someone else (Venbee) and who that person gigs with. (Off-topic, for those musicians who think they're making a point with all-lowercase names and song titles, e.e. cummings was doing that a hundred years before it was cool.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as there is a lot of coverage of her solo career to justify a standalone article in my view-Widget-policyq‬229 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think this outcome is partially due to the fact that the deletion rationale doesn't make much sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

João Gonzalez

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

I think it does not meet Wikipedia criteria to comment for you friends Opps Noor (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Sources like Publico, 7 Margens, and Central Comics devote at least a few paragraphs each to Gonzalez and more to his works. I stopped looking after those three, but I know there are more search results to sift through, including multiple pieces in Publico. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Firefangledfeathers. Passes GNG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reasoning in the nomination is solid. Serratra (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Albeit early in his career (age 26), appears to have won several significant awards in the movie industry. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dean Harris

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

There are no reliable sources or coverage of what you see, friends Opps Noor (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is me! I may not be as notable as some famous people, but I have had a notable life and have done many things. As a cancer survivor I plan to expand my own legacy and do good for the world. I am currently working on several new projects and I am and have contributed substantially to philanthropy. I am also working on a book called “Entrepreneur: The Incredible Adventure”. I expect my Wikipedia page to be expanded substantially over the next 10 years. I have largely been in semi-retirement, but that is changing and I am involved with several large, potentially world changing events.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would not delete my page. I can provide evidence for everything that is on the page, including original corporate documents, sales documents of various companies and more. Given a bit of time you will have a lot of more relevant current sources. Much of what I have achieved is older, like starting the first ISP in San Antonio Texas. There aren’t brand new articles about it. You CAN find old business journal articles about these things and things like that. But maybe those sources don’t meet your requirements. But they are factual none the less.

Let me know what I can do to help. I can provide a phone number and email address if required for direct communication if that helps.

Thank you, Scott Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottDeanHarris1 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and probably falls under the umbrella of WP:TNT as well. The argument above appears to be that this is at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting oneself and is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above argument by the subject implies that is a case of WP:TOOSOON fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure of meeting WP:GNG. While "I expect my Wikipedia page to be expanded substantially over the next 10 years. I have largely been in semi-retirement, but that is changing and I am involved with several large, potentially world changing events" may be correct, we generally wait for these things to happen (and are reported on in reliable sources) before creating an article. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sailesh Kolanu

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

It was previously deleted. I hope that the general note will be considered. Opps Noor (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't find any previous log to delete. Although he needs more presence from independent sources, he still adheres to WP:DIRECTOR as he has directed and written several notable films. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He have already directed three notable feature films. Although there are few independent sources, it still needs an expansion...but not deletion..Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems to pass GNG from the reliable source reference on the page.--Doctorlimp (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhyar Memon

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

I don't think it meets Wikipedia's requirements Opps Noor (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The roles are minor and fail WP:NACTOR (e.g., in Zindagi Dhoop Tum Ghana Saya, the actor's role, a baby, is exceptionally minor and not even present on the WP page prior to this addition by the creator of this page). WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG is also likewise failed, with the existing references being non-WP:RS and I could not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources per my WP:BEFORE. VickKiang (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No clear evidence of notability, and the fact that they moved this to articlespace seemingly as a response to being declined at AFC speaks volumes. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable actor, can't find anything about him anywhere except the Wikipedia article. Should be deleted. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delet- Not a notable actor, barely got the coverage in any media, blogs or news. Lillyput4455 (talk) 17:31 , 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: per nomination and fails WP:NACTOR. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers (film)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE.

Previously deleted via PROD in 2009 for failing WP:NFILM. Article was recreated in 2017. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are reviews in TV Guide, El Norte, Video Store Magazine, Video Business and the Winston-Salem Journal.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jonah Wittkamper. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Investor Coalition

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

I wanted this to be notable, but couldn't find any independent/secondary coverage despite its institutional support from UN, World Bank etc... May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to founder Jonah Wittkamper for now, even though his article needs more work to look less like an advertisement. Per nominator, at the moment there isn't sufficient in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:ORG. (To date they have mainly relied on press releases issued by the organization, op-ed type pieces authored by the organization, and quotes in larger trend articles.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonah Wittkamper for the time being, per Cielquiparle. Per nom., appears to be WP:TOOSOON for a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Angus & Robertson. czar 16:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornstalk Publishing

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

Publishing company that fails NCORP and has no additional sources on the internet. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, fails WP:NPOV, specifially WP:CORP. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP, article (that is barely a stub) hasn't been touched since its creation ~8 years ago. A quick google search showed no avenues for article's development. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable company from 100 years ago that no longer exists, so if RSs exist they presumably should be findable now. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It was not a 'company' for a start - it was an imprint, and a substantial player in australian literature and publishing history - [6] as an imprint of the publisher Angus and Robertson. Not made easy by the fact that Austlit identifies the 1990s imprint, and Trove has substantial listing of publications that relate to 1924-1929. ~~The least would be to salt/merge/into history of Angus and Robertson, at the very least. However~~ I would say delete is furphy, it is a stand alone item in oz literary/publishing history JarrahTree 06:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - re-reading the Angus and Robertson article, it is a very poor article, and I would see no benefit in combining anything in this article with it. The significance of the imprint, and its value to Australian literature (as seen by additional edits since the commencement of this afd far outweighs any misreading of the imprint and its context) JarrahTree 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Angus and Robertson The topic is of some significance, however, I don't think a standalone article can be justified through WP:CORP. - GA Melbourne (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this imprint/company has an interesting trajectory, being also responsible I believe for being the first imprint to publish the Anne of Green Gables series in Australia. It warrants a separate article and more work on its history and ethos. Sterry2607 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Angus and Robertson LibStar (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Angus and Robertson. The imprint seems to have published notable authors, but most of the sources cited mention the company only incidentally and lack the significant coverage required for a stand-alone article. Meticulo (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Angus and Robertson appears to be the most sensible option seeing as none of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. NYC Guru (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On a pure nose count this could look to be no consensus. However, the assertion that the source material is inadequately in depth toward the subject was not refuted, nor do any "Keep" arguments demonstrate a close analysis of the available source material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Artun

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing anything in the article that establishes notability. The sources include 2 couple generic "about the author" entries that would exist for just about any book published. The other 3 sources are just passing mentions of the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's more information about her in the news, major exhibitions she has participated in and major exhibitions she has curated, most notably I-You-They: A Century of Artist Women. Not going to agree with any delete given vague rationale that does not address available sources.--Gazozlu (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazozlu. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, amongst other criteria. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed every source cited in the article and not a one of them that qualifies as an WP:Independent, reliable source discuses the subject of this article in a detailed, descriptive fashion as required by WP:GNG/WP:NOTABILITY: almost all of them mention the subject once, maybe twice, and even then only in completely incidental statements mentioning her as the curator for a facility or exhibit that is the actual focus of the statement and source generally. Further, a number of the sources are simply not WP:RS to begin with. This clearly doesn't come anywhere near the detailed, significant coverage required under GNG, and (meaning no offense), I'd strongly encourage those !voting Keep above to take a second and more detailed look at the actual content of the sources here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost reads like a resume or LinkedIn post, I'm not showing anything substantial, as explained above. Curating an exhibit alone isn't enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:PROMOTION. Alex-h (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment darn nice looking list, and a good amount of work went in to compiling it. But I have to agree that I think this is too much stats-based and not enough article-content based (if that is such a thing). Is it a notable topic? Hmmm... I'm on the fence on that. It is well sourced and I'm confident the subject is discussed among reliable sources over time. But is it suitable for inclusion? The content might be more suitable for an online sports almanac and I suggest that enthusiastic editors try another wiki. Seems to violate WP:NOTSTATS. Is there content that can be created around thosee stats to turn it into an article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We usually keep list articles on leaders in major NFL statistics (and this seems like a major statistic). I don't see it as a failure of NOTSTATS, which says it only applies to Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. – the statistics are explained in the first paragraph. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR. Stats are all amalgamated by one particular source. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Geno Smith, but delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought Keep Statistic is defined in the lead and a players completion percentage is an important stat with notability established below.--Newtothisedit (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A relevant guideline is WP:LISTN:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
—Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a long-standing and well written listing of an important stat, both yearly and historical. I have no idea why this would be nommed for deletion, is it a good faith mistake? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bagumba's comment points to a guideline that I believe this subject aptly meets. As Randy Kryn mentioned, it is an important stat and it's stat and it's discussed enough by independent sources and broadcasters that there exists WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these sources that show these items are "discussed as a group"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  So, I guess that depends on what type of sources we're looking for here. Are we looking for year-by-year discussions, or sources that help to establish completion percentage as a notable statistic? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither. We are looking for sources that talk about completion percentage by player in such a league table. There's plenty of "important statistics" out there, but they only really denote meaning as an article if sources talk about the people as a group. We don't require the group listings to be up to date, you can use other sourcing for that, but just having Citations to specific people's percentages isn't good enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba added some good references, but here's a few more:
    Completion percentage records are falling around the NFL
    
    Aljancic: Many reasons why NFL completion percentages have dramatically improved
    
    NFL pass completion percentages soar to historic levels
    
    We need to re-think what a ‘good’ completion percentage is, and other stats
    
    There's a lot of articles that will pick specific players to compare, but I tried to find ones that included more of the group. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTSTATS does not apply per the first couple sentences of that policy because the list of the stat is explained. I've got other arguments I could make but they would border on WP:OTHERSTUFF and I use that policy quite frequently so it would make a hypocrite violating it.--Rockchalk7 17 15:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN as the leaders are discussed by independent reliable sources. I've added three sources to the page: Tom Brady vs. the NFL: The Case for Football's Greatest Quarterback, CBSSports.com, The Washington Post.—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets GNG, which is based on all available sources, not just the current state of the article. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient evidence that it passes GNG, and I implore the OP to refrain from citing NOTSTATS when it clearly is not applicable. I see people cite that policy from time to time, but I'm honestly not sure if I've ever seen anyone cite it correctly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's snowing.--Rockchalk7 17 02:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collective business system

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

Seems to be covered by the main articles so I cannot see the need for this one Chidgk1 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of spy films

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

There are 999 films in subcats of Category:Spy films by century per PetsScan so the scope of this list is too broad and WP:INDISCRIMINATE so not useful to readers. Indagate (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 999? Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Spy film#Films. This article passes WP:NLIST as spy films are discussed as a group in many reliable sources, however this particular page largely duplicates the main article, and there is a larger list of spy films there too. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated for deletion a day after it was created. List articles are more useful than categories, this one already has a table listing the director and year released. The size of a list is not a valid list to delete it. If someone could use a bot to search for everything in the relevant category, then grab information from the infobox, to populate the list with automatically, that'd save some time. Dream Focus 03:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Category:Lists of film lists shows how many list articles there are for this sort of thing. Lists of action films and others like it always divide the long list into smaller list by decade. Being a spy is a defining feature in spy films. Dream Focus 03:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is well-cited and of value to the public. JRed176 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is unambiguous encyclopedic value in listing all films in a major genre, and the category is over half an order of magnitude smaller than many overbroad lists that get deleted at AfD. If the list were completed based on the category contents, the article would be approximately 352 KB (about the same size as 2021 in video games or Glossary of cue sports terms),^[1] but this can be easily handled by splitting into sub-lists by decade. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Based on a 32.0 KB list of 91 films, plus 3.6 KB of non-list content.

Comment Note, creator of article indef blocked, probably not worth anything as wasn't when created but noting anyway. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of spy films as suggested. This list is much too long. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the mere fact a list is big or could be big is not in itself a reason to delete it. WP:SALAT does say "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections", but this could be achieved by splitting the list up when it gets big, probably by decade. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is more about whether content has an encylopedic purpose or is suitable for an encyclopedia. Genre is a very natural categorisation to use for films and the concept of spy films is definitely encyclopedic. Furthermore, while this isn't binding Template:Films by genre lists a lot of other similar lists of films by genre, e.g. Lists of comedy films or Lists of crime films, and if we're going to decide that these aren't acceptable then that change should be considering the lists as a group rather than individually. Hut 8.5 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Dream Focus, LaundryPizza03 and Hut 8.5. Lists of films by genre have existed since Wikipedia's earliest days and are certainly useful to users engaged in film research. This entry is analogous to List of biographical films, List of conspiracy-thriller films and television series, List of Contemporary Westerns, List of dystopian films, List of religious films, List of romantic comedy films or List of science fiction comedy films. There are of course numerous other film lists, but the ones listed here are among those using the same sortable format and style as the nominated list. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by others above, this list article would seem to be completely consistent with a long-established practice of creating such lists for films of well-recognized genres. Personally, I do agree that the utility is limited, but I can certainly imagine contexts in which readers would find the listing useful, and as WP is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no prohibition against articles of niche interest, provided they are, at least in some sense, encyclopedic in nature. Further, and also as noted by others above, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article. Discussions regarding merging and other cleanup functions can, of course, continue on the article's discussion page. Joyous! | Talk 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markstrat

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

A substantially promotional page, tagged as such since 2017, which has never had any references to independent sources, and for which significant coverage in independent sources has not been found on searching. No evidence of notability. JBW (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these [7], [8], [9] Timur9008 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that this page is written particularly promotionally. It reads as if the person who wrote it has a positive view of the subject but not overtly so. I was able to find a small yet reasonable amount of WP:SIGCOV [10][11][12] to list a few. Also, referencing the sources found by Timur9008, the second source tells us that the game had 250 million players, which if true really gives it a good chance at passing WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I do see that someone edited the page since this discussion was posted, removing much promotional content. It certainly appeared more promotional before. WP:HEY GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find is the game's website, then youtube videos about how to play it. No sources, not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the sources from Timur9008 are probably enough, along with the journal article[13] from GoldMiner24. The article will need to be re-written from these sources, and might fit better in the biographies of the academics who made it. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hadden

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

This article is almost the archeotype of WP:CRIME in that because he is JUST known for the crime and the crime does not fall under unique and unusual stances it should be deleted since it violates BLP. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment plenty in RS about the sexual accusations and how the university had to pay out millions of dollars, not sure how we can cover this in NPOV. As it is, the article is more about the legal situation than the person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Again, it is (sadly) common sexual assualt. It doesn't meet WP:Crime and as such should be merged to Columbia University. (as Andrew Yangs wife is NOT notable, and notability doesn't transfer to her). Thats the main reason why I nominated it for deletion
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE also WP:BLP1E There was another recent AFD which had a very similar situation (and that person had much more than a 1 sentence blurb), that I was reminded of when I put it up for AFD, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF but it is an example here. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just "common sexual assault". This case is getting major media attention. I also want to comment that the nominator did not let me know that the article was for deletion on my user talk page, as it is usually done. Antonio La loca Martin (como?) 19:58, 8 January, 2023 (UTC)
Comment Major News coverage is ... literally what WP:CRIME is meant to address. A very similar case (and that BLP had more notability than this one guy does) was determined in a recent AFD to be subject to it. BLPs are a sensitive issue and WP policies are sort of clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis N. Ofori is the oddly appt example I was thinking of (its very unusual!) Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked at the sourcing, I don't think we can pull out enough to keep the article. Coverage is more about the crime than the person that did it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator, this is exactly what WP:CRIME & WP:BLP (the spirit of) is designed to cover. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hustle episodes#ep1. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Con is On (Hustle)

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

No references so no evidence of notability for the episode Indagate (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the extremely generic title does not make searching easy, but I could find no reviews of this specific episode, meaning that it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion, unfortunately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. The interview in the Manchester Evening News is not enough. BruceThomson (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Hustle episodes#ep1, althrough deleting will be a misstep but the redirect to an episode will be the best option as per AtD. Redirect is enough for any WP:NEPISODE failures. Not all TV series has a episode list to their TV programme.
2600:1700:9BF3:220:9585:F64B:E1C3:B891 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kielsen VII Cabinet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kielsen VIII Cabinet

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

Kielsen was the leader of seven cabinets. A Kielsen VIII cabinet never existed as can be seen the official Greenlandic list from their ministry of interior: link. On this site you can see the actual 7th cabinet, and also see that no 8th cabinet existed. The confusion is likely because the Democrats left the cabinet in february 2021. and then a good-natured editor assumed that a new cabinet would be formed. But Kielsen's 7th cabinet continued until the next election. I propose merging the article into Kielsen VII Cabinet, since having an article for an 8th cabinet is just straight up incorrect information. Kaffe42 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greenland. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination jengod (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Nominator stands correct. Please merge! gidonb (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmill (musician)

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

This artist is not unknown. But the subject lacks notability, due to lack of sources. My WP:BEFORE does not reveal that the subject meets WP:GNG (no in-depth coverage), WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:BASIC (most sources don't contribute to notability). The used sources are really bad, such as the booking agency website and edm.com, which publishes sponsored content (on their website: "In the interest of journalistic integrity we here at EDM.com are committed to the transparency of our business model. A portion of our content is sponsored by advertisers and we cover music released by the record labels with which we partner.") —Alalch E. 11:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, after running a check I found some promising sources. [14], [15], [16] not sure if this will help @Alalch E.: Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I was aware of those sources when I nominated the article for deletion. They are not useful for establishing notability. First of all, two of those three are not reliable: onthecomeuptv.com is WP:SPS (lacks editorial oversight, anonymous posts, all bylines are "ByOTCUPTV") and possibly sponsored content; consciouselectronic.com's posts are not anonymous but it also lacks editorial oversight and resembles a blog. www.youredm.com while not looking substantially different in terms of editorial oversight is better known and seems to be accepted as a source on Wikipedia. In terms of content, these are announcements of singles and an album, which fails WP:MUSICBIO (Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report ... release information). A combination of lack of reliability and triviality renders a negative verdict on all three sources. The only source which could be considered reliable deals with the subject the least, and is the most terse. To establish notability something from more mainstream outlets is needed; and in-depth coverage, or at least more scattered coverage in reliable sources that imparts significant information equivalent to what we would get from approx. WP:THREE sources each offering in-depth coverage (WP:NBASIC) —Alalch E. 09:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: Thanks for responding. Seeing as you are aware of those sources I think we should delete as the article fails WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep in my opinion, the sources in the article, the ones mentioned here + few others like [17] should do the trick. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not WP:RS. —Alalch E. 19:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was surprised to see Blackmill here. I clicked on the entry and was even more surprised to see what a poorly written, woefully incomplete article this is. Blackmill is a well known entity: 3 full length albums, and his top song "Let It Be" has almost 37M listens on Spotify (despite being from 2011, before the widespread adoption of Spotify). Matter of fact, his top 5 songs have over 20M listens on Spotify (I know, probably not WP:RS too, but definitely important for GNG)... not to mention constant play throughout radio, internet radio, and concerts throughout the early-mid 2010s. IMHO, this is an article needing expansion and cleanup, not deletion.

I'm not sure what type of sources nominator is expecting, but in the EDM world, Blackmill has gotten a lot of press. Here is one such article: [18]https://www.edmsauce.com/2017/02/20/blackmill-songs/. Another article from a major EDM website: [19]https://edm.com/music-releases/blackmill-first-album-in-ten-years-home. He is the main subject here of a Billboard (a rather big name in music) article: [20]https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/john-edge-blackmill-emerald-city-premiere-7989272/. Another independent article from another major EDM site: [21]https://edmidentity.com/2021/12/27/blackmill-brings-us-home-with-new-album/. Finally, Relentless Beats, another huge player in the EDM world, has given him coverage while espousing his fundamental role in the melodic dubstep genre: [22]. There's more than plenty here for WP:GNG. 50.237.197.242 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad affair in the form of a poorly written woefully incomplete article because the article should never have been created in the first place. Lack of notability on Wikipedia is not a judgement that someone isn't important or that an artist doesn't have listeners, it means precisely that we can't, are unable to, write reasonable encyclopedic content that amounts to something at least resembling an article. When someone thinks that we maybe can (and starts an article), but it turns out that we can't, instead of having a quasi-article that fails the expectations of our readers (like you), we delete, and that's what notability means, and is the purpose which GNG source criteria serve. I listen to a lot of electronic music myself (and the first thing I said when starting this discussion was This artist is not unknown.), but Wikipedia is encyclopedia world, not EDM world, and we need something to source information from, and that something can't be just anything, it needs to be reliable, so that readers, apart from having something to read, are also assured that what they read is reasonably authoritative. User generated content and self-published sources are not considered reliable. The sources which you mention which are already included in the article don't suffice to develop the article further, which comes from the fact that they lack in-depth coverage. The rest of the sources mentioned so far in the discussion are not reliable. Blackmill self-published his albums and other releases, and the coverage he gets is therefore also self-published and highly niche (where are at least reviews of his albums, in any music journalism outlet outside of blogs, Sputnik, and rateyourmusic?), that's just how it works in music.—Alalch E. 17:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several points of contention/discussion, respectfully: 1) The Billboard.com article is not a "self-published" source. The author Allison Stubblebine is one of their regular authors, and Billboard.com is a major, very reliable music source with a full editorial board (https://www.billboard.com/about-us/). 2) There is absolutely no proof at all that we cannot write reasonable encyclopedic content about this topic. It simply appears nobody has tried. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, it appears the article was only created on December 31, 2022! And you proposed for it's deletion the same day. Wow. It was barely a few hours old before you tried to delete it. Therefore, it has never even been given a chance to become an article. 3) I'm not sure I follow your logic that "Blackmill self-published his albums and other releases, and the coverage he gets is therefore also self-published". The separate sources independently covering his album are not self-published. Article #6 provided above from EDM.com is written by Nick Yopko. He is the associate editor of EDM.com and not affiliated in any way with Blackmill (https://edm.com/author/nick-yopko). 4) Finally, Blackmill meets multiple criteria for WP:WPMN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles). He satisfies criteria #1, 7, 10, and 11. 50.237.197.242 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2) I tried. That's why I'm the nominator here. I gave it a chance to become an article when doing WP:BEFORE. I searched the Wikipedia Library as well. I was aware of all the sources that have been mentioned so far, and that have been added to the article, I imagined how I could use them and concluded that a satisfactory article can not be written, seeing how the subject isn't notable. My work involves research and writing, I look at recent changes and see many borderline cases, have accumulated some experience dealing with them, and I can do this in well under an hour, let alone a day.

1&3) Your contentions on these points arise from your not correctly reading what I wrote I'm afraid. When I said in my last comment: The sources which you mention which are already included in the article ..., I was referring to these sources which you just mentioned in the comment which I am now replying to (I will call them sources A). The problem with sources A is that they lack in-depth coverage. I did not refer to sources A as self-published and highly niche, and I only used these attributes to describe The rest of the sources mentioned so far in the discussion (I will call those sources B). Yes Billboard.com is okay, and EDM is usable, as in not a source I would remove from the article, but is far from a good source because it generally publishes sponsored content and does not adhere to journalistic standards. They churn press releases and include some pseudo-review (usually vacuous, as is typical for such borderline music outlets) commentary in them which is always positive in tone. There is no real music criticism. But this isn't even the main point regarding Sources A -- the crucial point is that they do not even approach in-depth coverage.

4) Subject doesn't meet those criteria:

#1: ... multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician ... -- Clearly not the case based on what we've discussed so far.

#7: most prominent representatives of a notable style -- Which notable style? Which reliable source calls him the most prominent representative of any style?

#10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. -- Which notable work? Reliable source please.

#11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. -- Simply not true and not present in any source. Regards—Alalch E. 11:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things here: I feel like an article should be given more than a few hours to thrive before being nominated for deletion. I understand you may feel like you have scoured all internet sources, and are efficient at doing so, and were able to come to a conclusion that no decent article can possibly be developed and therefore it warrants deletion. However, a few of us found sources you were not able to; ie those cited above by Schminnte, Pelmeen10, and myself.

Secondly, to address criteria:

1) The Billboard and EDM.com articles, among many others, certainly qualify as reliable, non-self-published, independent sources and are non-trivial. So category #1 seems to be met. Unless I missed it, there is no evidence in this case that the coverage of Blackmill is sponsored by his camp.
7) Which notable style you ask? Take your pick: Melodic dubstep (as mentioned above. See Alexandra Myer's article in Relentlessbeats again. She's an independent author and one of their regulars, again with no relation to Blackmill). Or Chillstep. Another independent source (not listed before): [23]https://dancingastronaut.com/2019/12/blackmill-returns-with-melodic-dub-offering-in-hand/.
10) He's on the BBC Hustle Soundtrack. [24]https://bpb.opendns.com/a/bbchustle.weebly.com/commercially-available-songs.html. Series 8, Episode 6, to be specific.
11) Blackmill has his own Spotify station. [25]https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1E4vxbqlFLMsTX. Not everybody gets that: It means he's achieved a certain distinction, and recognition for a certain type of sound, that Spotify recommends to listeners who want to hear other music and sounds like him. He was also heavily in play in Pandora stations throughout Europe and North America during his peak - ie early to mid 2010s.

50.237.197.242 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion such as Billboard, EDM.com, and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the IP:
1. There are no "many others". AAE page is not an article, it's a listing. Billboard article is not about the subject per se but about a song (which is a collaboration by him and another musician). Significant coverage criterion not met.
2. Melodic dubstep and chillstep are not notable styles (no article, and no prospect of an article). Furthermore, there is no evidence in reliable sources that Blackmill is the most prominent representantive of either of those styles (he certainly isn't)
3. His song was used in one BBC series' episode's soundtrack. I agree that that is interesting but isn't enough to warrant having an article on someone. The series as a whole is notable but an individual episode isn't.
4. This is about Rotation (music), which is a notion in traditional broadcasting: rotation is the repeated airing of a limited playlist of songs on a radio station or satellite radio channel, or music videos on a TV network. This is fundamentally different from streaming services (Spotify and Pandora) and incompatible with how they work.
  BTW, the best and most reliable source I can identify, Dancing Astronaut [26], gives the subject, expressly (while also not writing about him per se, but about a release), a claim of non-notability, calling him an eternally under-the-radar producer. Wikipedia editors need things to be on the radar, not under the radar, to be able to do proper article work. —Alalch E. 10:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballet Melee

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it's technically verifiable as existing -- the notability test hinges on evidence of significance, such as notable film awards, documentable box office success, reviews by professional film critics in WP:GNG-worthy media, and on and so forth. But existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the footnotes are the film's own self-published production website, IMDb and a non-notable blog, absolutely none of which are reliable or notability-building sources.
As I can't read Bulgarian, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with Bulgarian language skills can actually find legitimate GNG-worthy media coverage to salvage the article with -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced considerably better than it is. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bulgaria. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Heroes characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Petrelli

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

Not enough out-of-universe information for a separate article to be needed, or demonstrate notability of the character. Could be merged to List of Heroes characters and/or Heroes (season 1) Indagate (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discussed in scholarly sources including:
- Carol A. Stabile (2009) “Sweetheart, This Ain't Gender Studies”: Sexism and Superheroes, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 86-92, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802663686
- Investigating Heroes: Essays on Truth, Justice and Quality TV, Ed. David Simmons. ISBN ‎ 978-0786459360
... and from Google News [27]. Additionally, [28] and [29] provide a bit more, but the first three should be evidence enough that the character can be written about in an encyclopedic manner. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The urls don't seem like significant coverage of the character. The screenrant link is duplicated, did you have another? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect. I checked Stabile's academic article and it totally fails SIGCOV, the character is mentioned there twice in passing the context of having superpowers and being one of Claire protectors, arguably he doesn't even get a sentence dedicated to him! Given this, I am not even going to bother to check other sources listed by Jclemens, as they seem to be simple google hits results and Stabile's article certainly does not provide any "evidence enough that the character can be written about in an encyclopedic manner"; this is a patently false claim and I am very disappointed to see it made here as it casts doubt on any other sources provided by Jclemens. Please provide an analysis of the sources and show us they contain SIGCOV and go beyond a plot summary.

Anyway, the article doesn't contain anything that goes beyond a plot summary, and as such, I recommend that this is redirected to the List of Heroes characters, with no prejudice to this being restored or kept if someone actually writes a proper reception/analysis section. In the current state the article fails GNG, my BEFORE shows some mention of him but someone needs to check whether any meet SIGOV and I am not motivated right now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you seem happy to spend more time to type out excuses why you won't read more than one reference, rather than actually, oh, click through any of them. The second one is particularly interesting, in that it's a book about Heroes and Petrelli is mentioned in multiple sections. But seriously, I appreciate your honesty that your opinion here is intentionally under-informed due to your own lack of effort. Jclemens (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Unless you provide quotes here to justify your claims about a source you didn't even link to an accessible repository, I am not inclined any longer to take your word for whatever claims about significant coverage you want to make. I am sorry, but you've lost my trust. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to read the various passages to you on a WhatsApp recording, so you don't even have to search in Google Books for a book where I clearly posted the ISBN? Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, please just quote the passages here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I reviewed the sources provided, and did my own search. There is a lot of plot summary, and some passing character analysis, but most of what I'm seeing is material that is analyzing the series, not the character, and as such belongs in the parent article. I see no justification at all for a standalone. I also do not consider ScreenRant a good source for this type of article. They're known for producing any number of listicles that are regurgitated plot summaries; these add nothing to our understanding of the topic, and are useless for determining due weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these are passing mentions. Redirect is my call here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the right call. Only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in the sources, which focuses more on the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Given the sourcing situation, clearly this character is better described in a more limited summary in the article for the narrative work itself. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LS Mark

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. The most I can find is an interview done in a regional newspaper, with most other online information coming from unverfiable fan-collected material. Regardless of which policy we look at this through, I don't think the sparse sourcing supports retention. Whether assessed under WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER, the subject isn't receiving sufficient attention to reach the notability threshold. This was a disputed PROD by the article creator, Beargreen1 (talk · contribs) Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Ireland. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search shows a lack of wide coverage to show notability. The article includes mention of a show the subject is working on that says t will be released in 2023. Wikipedia articles are not based on the future. Badly fails WP:GNG and does not pass Basic. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, ineligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator could WP:DRAFTIFY, but as it stands (and based on the available refs) this feels WP:TOOSOON. A WP:BEFORE returns only the same sources we find in the article. And three sources (an online-only local news source, an "and finally" section on a local TV channel's web outlet, and an apparent blog post/interview) do not add-up to WP:SIGCOV. Guliolopez (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for reviewer closer. Likely already noted, but article's creator has added what appear to be "keep" arguments on AfD Talkpage(?) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hooper-Hodson

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

Undersourced and insignificant. Sricsi (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A prime example of notability not being inherited -Roxy the dog 18:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by UtherSRG per CSD criteria G5, as it was created by a banned or blocked user (Mostly shoaib) in violation of their ban or block. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reetu Sattar

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

Non notable & promotional article. I am unable to see/find any significant covarage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

All of sources are either passing mentions, interview or primary. Didn't won any major/notable award. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Fort Apache

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

This one is admittedly a close call but I don't think the album meets the requirements at WP:SIGCOV for multiple reliable sources that say informative things. The album does have an AllMusic review (already cited) which usually helps for notability around here, but it is brief and does little beyond listing some of the tracks within. I also found a very brief release announcement that mistakenly calls itself a review ([30]), and one blog review ([31]), but that's all. It's a quickie compilation that is now only present in the usual retail listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep--there are a lot of reviews: Billboard, Rolling Stone, The Dallas Morning News, The Columbus Dispatch, The Washington Post, Interview, and, hey, Seventeen. Many tend to go over the history of the notable recording studio, so merging is another option. Caro7200 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caro7200, please provide links instead of just a list of titles. You are correct about Washington Post where there is indeed a review at: ([32]), which I missed the first time. For Billboard, I found the following reprint in Google Books: [33], but that one really strikes me as a basic release announcement rather than a review. I can't find any of the others that you listed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard review, under Album Reviews, is on page 58 of the 1/21/95 issue, for one example. I work with physical bound journals; you may try to use a database to find things... Caro7200 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you may try to add more info on things that you say exist, such as "Interview, Nov. 17, 1995, p. 136". I just saw Bigfoot but that doesn't mean you have to believe it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my own search, I didn't find any of what Caro listed above, but I did find sources for a Grammy nomination [34][35] plus this blurb and this review from Cash Box. Based on what I've seen, I'm also leaning keep but would not oppose a merger. QuietHere (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters (it may not) the Grammy nomination is for the art director thanks to the CD's elaborate packaging. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is true and perhaps I should've clarified that myself as I don't know how much of an effect it has. I wouldn't expect much given it's still a notable award and the nomination lists the album specifically, but I guess I could understand an argument given it's for the packaging and not the music itself. QuietHere (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources in the article to indicate that this passes WP:GNG. I can also find other reviews, including Here in the Washington Post, here in a small Boston indie paper, A short review here in the Sun-Sentinel, LA Times info on the Grammy nomination, Here's a review from a paper in the Netherlands. There certainly seems like enough here to clear notability concerns. --Jayron 32 19:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable, with several in-depth enough, IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity FinEx

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

It's not clear what this organization does or even that it exists. The sources cited in the article do not mention the company and Google searches only bring up user-generated content like Facebook, Google Maps and IMDB. This is either a hoax or an utterly non-notable company - it's probably eligible for A7/G11, but I'm going through AfD so it will be eligible for G4 if recreated in the future. Spicy (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. Spicy (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: No evidence of notablity. Also, it was declined three times from WP:AFC, but still was posted to mainspace. Mike Allen 17:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if it does exist, its role is so obscure and trivial, it doesn't merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage of this company in multiple, independent reliable sources so that WP:CORPDEPTH is not passed. I didn't find much at all on google but if someone finds some good sources please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thriller 25. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller 25: Limited Japanese Single Collection

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

WP:NOPAGE. This is an article about a limited edition of an album reissue (Thriller 25) of another album (Thriller (album)) — not deserving of its own page. Consists of little more than a track list and summary of contents. This release is of little notability and can be summarised in a single sentence in the main Thriller 25 article. Popcornfud (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to Thriller 25, where substancial mentions could be found right in the parent reissue album article. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:984F:BC09:7E73:6D6E (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed seems like the best option. I don't find much sourcing for this special release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - absolutely not necessary when we've already got two Thriller articles as it is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thriller 25. Not notable enough to have a standalone article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some potential sources have been identified in the discussion, so let's see if the article is improved using them, and if not it can be nominated again. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance fee

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

The article provides "a definition" with a supporting link to a vaporware encyclopedia called "Justipedia." The definition itself can be found on websites including Cornell Law and NOLO nevertheless Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from talk page, "Adding a source, entry from the site "Justipedia". I couldn't find any information about whether it's considered reliable by, for instance, WP Law, but seems better than no source. — Mainly 16:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be kept, there are more sources related to it online ([36], [37], [38], [39]). I haven't reviewed most of these sources, but search results have plenty related to this. The article however needs serious cleanup, and I'd be willing to help with that after the AFD if it's kept. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was categorized as law related so I viewed it from that narrow perspective which may not be correct. Consistent to that Item 1 is a copy of a NOLO definition. Item 2 relates to a different topic (food surcharges). Item 3 relates to a different topic namely Credit Card surcharges. Item 4 relates to convenience fees in rentals etc. If the article is improved I will close the AFD. Perhaps the way to do that might be to expand the topic beyond a legal definition as to cover some of the links you have found. Best Regards and thanks Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is fixable, it shouldn't be in AfD. It should be fixed or tagged for cleanup. BruceThomson (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a "legal definition" the article is a "definition." The four sources provided would blend food surcharges, credit card fees, and convenience fees; which would not be correct.

I found a convenience fee as a definition on another site. There are actually websites saying that "convenience fees are not credit card surcharges."

Blending distinct terms into an article and connecting them together would be original research.

Back to the reason for AFD - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. So Why 10:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Marchand

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

This article was previously deleted 5 other times under the names Greg J. Marchand Greg Marchand. A 2018 deletion discussion here was closed as delete and salt. It was originally created by a family of socks involved in undisclosed paid promotional editing. The most recent creator of the article also appears to be a member of that group of socks.

Evidence for this includes the fact that the names of references and their formating in the version by the User:GuinnessFreak and User:Nilanda2019 accounts are the same.

The version created by User:GuinnessFreak in 2018 begins with refs

2018 version

<ref name=longman>{{cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=brown>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=cline>{{cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017}}</ref>...<ref name=stern>{{cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times}}</ref><ref name=academy>{{cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017}}</ref>

And the newest version in 2020 by User:Nilanda2019 began with refs

2020 version

<ref name=longman>{{cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=brown>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=cline>{{cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017}}</ref>... <ref name=stern>{{cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times}}</ref>...<ref name=academy>{{cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017}}</ref>

The User:Nilanda2019 account was also involved in other promotionally article creating before it was abandoned as is the style of this group of socks to keep their accounts from being connected one to the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a July 2019 deletion discussion of the article name Greg Marchand (surgeon).[40] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with more salt than was applied in 2018, since apparently that wasn't enough. Undisclosed paid editing is intrinsically unethical, and we don't write about doctors because they "won" a plaque from a novelty-gimmick company. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this latest paid-for effort by sock accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Rhode Island. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - still doesn't meet WP:GNG, obvious WP:PROMO. Levivich (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - per Levivich. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, as failing notability and violating multiple policies, and with thanks to Doc James for nominating it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Sources too tainted to pass WP:GNG. I am pleased that the proposer took this BLP to Afd: it was the proper thing to do. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and Salt per everyone above. ("Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record", <sigh> where is this world of ours heading when doctors see setting "world records" like that as the pinnacle of their careers, and more important than saving lives...) - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W ^talk 22:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth independent coverage of the subject. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt No in-depth coverage, weak citation record fails WP:NACADEMIC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt. The article was salted (for good reasons) and should had not been re-created and allowed to stay here for years, no reason to discuss this blatant exemple of self-promotion and paid-editing for a whole week. BTW thanks to the nominator for catching this. Cavarrone 07:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Nagelkerke

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

This article (a stub) was started four years ago but since then no work has been done on it. I have started a discussion of the academic notability of this researcher on its talk page, and again, here. Richard Gill (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Richard Gill (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be highly cited, including one with over 6300 cites [41]. Seems to be a pretty clear pass of WP:NPROF#c1 even if it is a stub. Curbon7 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
That is 6300 citations of a short note on a technical issue which led to "Nagelkerke R2" being a standard item in some statistical packages used in epidemiology. If this topic is important, then Nagelkerke is certainly a notable scholar, and there should also be a Wikipedia article on "generalisations of R2 to logistic regression". (There are several competing definitions of R2 in logistic regression; Nagelkerke R2 is used in SPSS, McFadden's R2 in STATA). Apart from this item, his citation pattern is typical for a senior biostatistician working his whole career in medical school, supplying the p-values for research in many parts of medicine and epidemiology. It's highly professional, laudable, and necessary work. But I can think of plenty of biostatisticians with evidently greater and wider impact who are missing from Wikipedia, for instance, Danish biostatistician Niels Keiding (RIP). Citation counts and H indices (age index!) are not everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics [NB I'm the one who made this proposal, but I'm neutral myself.] [Presently veering toward "Keep"] Richard Gill (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly cited and meets PROF C1. --Mvqr (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much cited and meets WP:NPROF C1. gidonb (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency

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

WP:NOTSTATS - this article analyses the results of the 2022 Swedish general election down to område level (third level administrative division), equivalent to precincts in the US and parishes in the UK. We already have constituency articles and Results of the 2022 Swedish general election which analyses the results down to county and municipality levels (first and second level administrative division). Analysing down to område level is overkill. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this is overly granular. There's Results_of_the_2022_Swedish_general_election#Results_by_constituency, but the sources for this should be linked there. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Fair enough to debate whether this should be an article, but WP:NOTSTATS doesn't apply, as they are provided with context and in tables. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused as to why we'd have a stats article showing results for three parties only, out of the eight parties represented in the Swedish parliament. That makes no sense in the Swedish political system. /Julle (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP The charts are collapsed, which means they are not taking up much space at all. The three largest parties received 70 % of the vote, compared to just 28 % for the five minor which makes it an easy distinction, especially since coalition results remain. There is a potential to change it to a 10 % municipal threshold and add a fourth party where this applied, though. This is absolutely not inappropriate stats, this is a constituency-based breakdown of the results. I would have preferred to have it in the main results column like it initially was, before someone flipped it. Above all, after all of this work by myself for three months with no complaints, this sudden terrible nomination for deletion is highly disrespectful and inappropriate and whoever did that now rather than back when this project started should be ashamed of themselves. I can't believe this nonsense. I didn't even start this article because it fit into the main results article, someone decided to split the two and I didn't complain about it and now this? Merge it back into the main results article anyway, it's about halfway home so it's not going to swell to uncontrollable levels. If you scroll without opening a chart, this article looks like nothing in terms of a wall of text. At some point, you have to have sympathy for the good-faith work I've done with this rather than figuratively dropping the jewellry of a cliff for no reason after three full months. Like seriously, why? Glottran (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to finish this article in a few months and then be done with it. Like a once-in-a-lifetime project this and I won't even want to try and do something this intensive again so all I really want is for this to remain and be properly finished :) Glottran (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, we should retain the considerable content so that it can be used in other articles. I lean towards keeping this article, but I believe it is possible that the content may be more appropriate elsewhere, if an editor were to make a convincing argument for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred solution in the event of the tragic deletion, would be to put this back into the main results page like it used to be prior to someone arbitrarily splitting the articles without consulting anyone else. The thing is that while there will be 290 charts once it is finished, like previously mentioned it does not take up excessive space due to every chart being collapsed. What would be the best solution if put back there would be if it was possible to have the charts "double-collapsed" if possible, which would make them visible only if a) opening each constituency's municipal list, b) then opening the respective chart. I'm not a technical expert, so I'm not sure on how feasible that is though. Even then, I don't believe a list of 290 collapsed articles is particularly bad per se. The main thing for me is that my work should live on and enable me to finish it in due course, be it this year or until 2024. I have no plans to do anything like this again in the future, so it's supposed to be the pinnacle of my work here. If these are to be in separate articles, there are 29 constituencies, with 1 and 2 being larger than the others (Stockholm city and county). My suggestion would be to have it divided into 1-5 (Stockholm and valley counties to north and south of it, 33 % of votes), 6-14 (the south, 23 % of votes), 15-20 (western, includes Gothenburg, 20 % of votes) and 21-29 (mostly rural counties and 24 % of votes). Glottran (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it would be possible to divide it into three different alphabetically listed articles: constituencies named B-N (33 %), S (35 %) and U-Ö (32 %), although the simplest course of action is just to leave this article as is.Glottran (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content is too much for the current page, and would be too much for the main results page as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, either the letter separation or by number into three or four parts then. Like Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency (1-5), (6-14), (15-20), (21-29) or Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency (A-R), (S), (T-Ö).Glottran (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glottran, you are ignoring the reason why the article was nominated for deletion, the granular level of detail, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether it's in Results of the 2022 Swedish general election, in an article of its own or split into several articles as you're now proposing, this micro-level of detail isn't needed in Wikipedia. If anyone is genuinely is interested in the percentages (not votes) obtained by just the top three parties at a precinct level, they can get it at the Swedish Election Authority website.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chart is useless without listing each candidate, and that's part of the problem, it doesn't represent all the parties running nor give much of a description for anything. We need a detailed explanation for each, rather than a wall of text and colours. This is likely too granular for wikipedia, without further details given for each and every person listed/represented. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the singular category this article is in, I see 80 other articles about elections, none of which are at the constituency level. This supports the claim for removal under WP:NOTSTATS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the last two, all I can say is bad faith nominating and bad faith arguments. Just terrible and selfish nonsense all round. Some people truly only live for tearing down work of others. This whole article does not take up much reading room at all, purposefully being designed to contain a lot of data without becoming a wall of text.''Glottran (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is fine, but we need much more details than what this is. A political chart here usually has links for each candidate or political party, pointing to an article about them; from what I understand, this is only 3 of the eight parties than ran, and has no listings for any candidates that ran. Red and blue colours and a wall of text don't really offer much critical discussion or analysis here. This would be impressive if it had more details for each candidate and a discussion of local matters in each "parish"; otherwise, this isn't much beyond a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has a lot of interesting information and there will surely be readers looking at it to find out partisan results in local areas. Agreed with Oaktree that candidate details might be good, but an article having potential improvements doesn’t mean existing info isn’t good to have. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just plain data. No meaningful analysis. WP is not a collection of data, so delete. Cinadon36 08:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree and UtherSRG. This is classic WP:NOTSTATS in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're a goose mate for deleting some genuine good accurate content that only expanded Wikipedia's library of information on the topic of the A-League. Matt jobe watson (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Mariners FC–Sydney FC rivalry

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. While these two teams play each other, there is simply not enough in-depth coverage about any rivalry between the two. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soccer in Australia if sources are not found. Best I could do is [42]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY. Most of the sources are not even about the actual rivalry except reference 8. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arihant TV

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

This article is not notable. It doesn't have any references or sources. Any notable references can't be found on the Internet. Doraemon Lover 12 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus fails GNG. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Oresti

AfDs for this article:

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

Word-for-word copy & paste from Draft:Luke Oresti after an initial move was reverted by User:Simione001. Worth noting that the article was draftified following clear consensus at the previous Oresti AfD. All participants agreed that the subject was a WP:TOOSOON case. This still applies, in my view. Best source I can find is being listed as an unused sub in The Football Sack.

I've done a WP:BEFORE search and can't find any coverage of him from independent sources since the previous discussion, therefore I suggest deleting the mainspace copy and retaining the draftspace version, which contains all of the article history. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable for mainspace and draft already exists. Trout to the creator. Giant Snowman 20:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has already scored and played at professional level. He is notable & has many articles from independent sources. Nzs9 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playing at professional level is not relevant in terms of notability. Please can you point me to examples of significant coverage in independent sources as you have not used any such references in the article and I was unable to find any when doing my own searches? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that it really matters in terms of notability but he has not actually played in any professional matches. The two matches he played in the cup were against semi-pro clubs. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG, which I forgot to cite in my initial deletion comment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Google search shows little that can help expand/ better reference the article. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing seems to have changed from the previous AFD, which had clear consensus that he wasn't notable enough right now. Anyone voting keep needs to demonstrate that the coverage of him now is significantly more than 8 months ago, to prove that the previous AFD is no longer relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's scored at professional level since then. Nzs9 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make him intrinsically notable though. No evidence of significantly more coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Return to draftspace~~ as there is still not enough WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. Subject may have passed the old WP:NFOOTY but that is not a valid SNG anymore. Frank Anchor 20:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete as this was created as a "copy and paste move" from Draft:Luke Oresti, which still exists in draftspace. Frank Anchor 20:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone is interested in working on a Draft version, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbul Touqeer Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

Likely UPE, and fails WP:NACTOR, references are mainly interviews with Khan, with little or no editorial, one is a 404 error. Nothing substantial here. WP:ADMASQ. The prior article was deleted at AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR UtherSRG (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - To me this topic appears possibly notable in near future, I would suggest to incubate the article and move it to Wikipedia:Drafts instead of deletion until it meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems ok, there looks like a much bigger article could be built, but it's not quite there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete the subject was not notable one year ago, and they are not notable now. Argument supporting draftify - "will be notable in future" is a WP:CRYSTAL argument. UPE tag at the article is also off putting. If the subject becomes notable in future, a genuine wikipedian might create the article, or there is the paid editor. We shouldn't tolerate/entertain UPEs. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mogilev#Economy. Any content to be merged can be found in the page history. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mogilev Free Enterprise Zone

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

This article was created by a user named "FEZ MOGILEV" which means the username almost matches the name of the article. It is entirely unreferenced. While there are brief, trivial mentions in several books none of these mentions constitute significant coverage that would warrant a standalone article per WP:GEO. Most media coverage is regarding other economic zones, rather than this one. There is an article on special economic zones, and there is simply no need for a stand alone article on individual zones. The article has been tagged for notability for 13 years yet only 400 bites of expansion have been made, and this is pretty much only other editors tagging the article. I cannot locate any significant coverage nor find any appropriate alternatives to deletion, hence I am nominating at AFD. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Belarus. AllyD (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of Belarus's 6 Free Economic Zones: [43]. There does not seem sufficient evidence of notability, but it probably merits a mention at Mogilev#Economy. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD great suggestion. I think that is a good target for a redirect also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MaxnaCarta and AllyD Elinruby (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hughes (politician)

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

Non-notable failed political candidate; does not pass WP:NPOL. A WP:BEFORE search returned only trivial and WP:ROUTINE election news, with no significant coverage, indicating the subject fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and Minnesota. Curbon7 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I can see coverage such as this and this is not trivial and seems to be independent and secondary, it also seems to more like WP:ROUTINE coverage in the lead up to an election which didn't amount to anything and which did not result in the candidate being further recognised. I can't see anything too recently which asserts notability for this individual, who does appear to fail WP:NPOL. Maybe in future, but for now at least I think WP:TOOSOON. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage in existence is routine. Given that the candidate is unelected, they are not subject to sufficient significant coverage outside that which is routine to be considered notable. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, and the article is no longer maintained. Kablammo (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed political candidates are not notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Esparza (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Viktor Axelsen. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Axelsen career statistics

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

Most of the important information has been included in the main article "Viktor Axelsen". So, do not need to separate main article with player career statistics. See also: Talk:Wang Yihan#Merger proposal. Thank you Stvbastian (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Badminton, and Denmark. Stvbastian (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viktor Axelsen. Unnecessary bundle of stats all dependent on primary sources. zoglophie 07:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page was initially created as similar pages seemed to be commonplace for tennis players, but if experienced users are of the opinion that the page is unnecessary, please feel free to delete it or redirect it to the subject's main article. Jasonb28 (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ezequiel Echeverría

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Argentina. Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], among many many more Spanish sources. There are definitely offline sources as well, having made over 60 appearances in the fully pro Venezuelan top flight and Argentine second tier in the 2000s. Has an ongoing managerial career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk)
Keep per Das osmnezz passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked over Das osmnezz's articles he mentioned... agree that it passes WP:GNG JojoMN1987 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all of the coverage Das osmnezz identified above relates to Echeverria's time as a manager of a club in the Gral. Villegas Partido league (yes, it's organized football, but not at a level any reasonable person would consider notable). The coverage of his managerial exploits is entirely routine (interviews and match previews mostly), so falls far short of WP:GNG. If we go back to his playing career, he did play 50+ matches in the Argentine Primera Nacional - which is a league that gets substantial coverage in the Argentine press. That said, I can't locate any significant coverage because there isn't much online from 2004–07. Coverage of the latter part of his career is available but consists of routine stuff like match reports and interviews. There is really nothing available that makes me think this meets any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the level of competition matters anymore, if he gets coverage at regional football league coverage then he could still pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, if a student athlete receives significant coverage in reliable sources, an article about them would meet our guidelines - the obvious problem here is not the level Echeverría manages at, but the clear lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1, as the nominator is not even arguing for deletion. Merging is not a type of deletion and merges should be proposed on article talk, not at AFD. (This was eligible for soft deletion, which would have made the nominator's proposed merge impossible). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Revolution Network

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

Lacks notability. Most of its content talks about its founder Fida al-Sayed and what he did in the first months of the protests in Syria. Can be merged into his article or the Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war. The page itself is no longer active on facebook. Sakiv (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion hinges on whether or not there is significant coverage of the topic. I find no consensus on this point, hence no consensus in the deletion discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyme Lulaj

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Europe, Albania, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @GiantSnowman: "Introducing Cyme and Sabina, two stars of Albanian football!" in Dritare looks promising (two paragraphs dedicated to Cyme Lulaj plus photos) but "bloggy". This 2017 Panorama Sport interview "Scored 10 goals in one match – Lulaj: 'We overdid it a bit'" looks promising (one paragraph of prose plus two paragraphs of quotes) and slightly less bloggy, but some people will say "it's an interview". For Albanian speakers, we also have this Top Channel TV interview of Lulaj and another player, which doesn't count for notability but at least confirms she is TV interview-worthy. (I'm still thinking about it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite enough, but close, in my view... Giant Snowman 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cielquiparle. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the characterisation of the Dritare source as "bloggy" is a bit harsh! It's listed at List of newspapers in Albania as an online news portal and when I googled it there was various Linkedin pages for its journalists, so it's run to professional standards. Cielquiparle is right that some editors do try to disallow interviews but that's always been bunkum, frankly. I'm not too sure why the TV interview source is being discounted either? Looks okay coverage to me, albeit I dunno exactly what's being said. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! Cielquiparle (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews that don't provide any significant secondary independent commentary cannot be used for GNG. The Panorama Sport interview only has around 3 brief sentences by the interviewer, so N. The TV interview has a little discussion outside the interview, but I don't speak Albanian so other than picking up a couple "Cyme"s (and "30 Seconds to Mars"...) it's hard to gauge how much is secondary direct coverage of Lulaj versus primary comments or focused on the other players. The fact that she was interviewed at all has zero bearing on notability as it is not a criterion of ANYBIO or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that's 2 paragraphs or more in 2 reputable Albanian-language news sources plus a TV interview, good enough for me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect. There is one marginal source (Dratire) but GNG requires multiple pieces of SIRS SIGCOV, and I am not finding this for Lulaj. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The Dritare source is quite good, although I agree that it's probably not enough by itself to meet the GNG. Let's see if an editor can find something more to bring it up to our notability standards. Jogurney (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't consider "fails WP:GNG" with no further explanation to be a valid reason for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of established WP:SIGCOV - one, two or a mere handful aren't just enough imho. Angelo (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Kavur

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

Article does not meet biographical «creative professionals» notability requirements. Article appears to be created and updated by subject. KejwfnNKR (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not the best sourced article (or even adequately sourced) but I don't see a strong argument here, or any support, for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Adequate sources for article do not look to exist. Looking with English language newspapers, the references are are in letters to the editor from the subject only: <<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/09/13/lettersthe-scandal-parliament-holding-government-ransom-refusing/>>, <<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-kapi-rw7s3ptjqcd>>.

The fact established that the subject is a named producer on the notable film mentioned is sourced. The subject's name the New York Times as the producer of the film mentioned in the article: <<https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/04/movies/film-peter-ustinov-in-memed-my-hawk.html>>. The subject's name is all that is mentioned. This does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Google Books results are all to indexes which confirm the fact. The book by the subject mentioned on the page appears self published, with no external references, and is non-notable. The opera mentioned, sourced in the article from <<http://www.jstor.org/stable/957306>> is a non-notable student production at University of London.

The article is currently self promotional. I would happy improve the article, but there are not adequate sources to support notability of the subject. KejwfnNKR (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG or NBIO. I couldnt locate any reliable sources that could improve this article.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biel TVZ

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability, fonts are paid promotions. He even made a video himself teaching how to write an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Horcoff (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Entertainment, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another case of WP:SOAPBOX. In the pt.WP, this article was deleted four times for this same reason. Fails WP:N and any other notability criteria. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 03:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-promotion WP:SOAPBOX. In the pt.WP, this article was deleted four times for this same reason. Fails WP:N and any other notability criteria, reinforce that this entry is not qualified to remain as an entry, I agree to permanently delete this entry and block future creations. Moniiquedecastro! ^Dimmi!!! 17:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moniiquedecastro, what is your connection to Kacamata? You offer almost the exact same deletion argument and you have an identical signature. Do we need to open an SPI case here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They likely copied my signature. Which is odd, is that the account opened the first AfD on this article, but they did it without a proper rationale. They also are normally in the other side of a AfD voting to "keep", since they normally create a lot of article with questionable notability. I would really like to understand their behavior and intentions here. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 13:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moniiquedecastro, I just agree with the position, I make it clear that my contribution is in good faith. I have no connection with Kacamata. ^{Moniiquedecastro!!!} 4:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Moniiquedecastro, I'm new here so I don't have all the knowledge, but every day I learn more. I'm not fluent in your language, but I'm specifying myself in English. I can prove that this person paid to be here with an entry, this artist produced a video teaching how to have a page on Wikipedia, that is self-promotion, and as I know, creating an entry is not right, but now I leave it to you to decide. https://web.archive.org/web/20221020061035/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tVa196YoKg&feature=youtu.be I make it clear that I will abstain, because I see that my presence is not adding up, I am sad to have as much dedication Wikipedian here and to be frowned upon. — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable references exist. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 05:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khelna Bari

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

Web series doesn't seem to meet WP:NMEDIA - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE episode reviews and viewership statistics. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Nominators' view. Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not in favor of deleting this page. Because I see everything on this page is presented correctly. I fixed everything that was lacking on this page, starting with accurate reliable sources. So I say this page should not be deleted in any way and I do not agree to delete this page.Nilpriyo (talk) 2:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Nilpriyo, which sources do you think are non-routine and support that WP:GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: MrsSnoozyTurtle Please review the page carefully first. Check out the sources that have details about the series here.

For example here is Biswajit Ghosh who is the main lead hero in this series. How is his character in the series is given in the source ^[1]. Besides the show has Last week charted in Top 4 BARC Viewership of TRP ^[2] clearly passes WP:NTV with sufficient WP:GNG. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Biswajit Ghosh to play a successful businessman in 'Khelna Bari'". The Times of India.
^ "প্রকাশ্যে বছরের শেষ টিআরপি! একাধিক মেগার স্কোরে রদবদল, বেঙ্গল টপার কে?". Aaj Tak বাংলা.

Delete Yet to gain notability. >>> Extorc.talk 17:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This page has enough source and depth of various sources and this page is presented in an organized manner so there is no question of deletion. I understood that through source. Nilpriyo (talk) 1:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please vote just once per AfD. The Banner talk 15:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Up to know, all keep votes are from the same editor. The Banner talk 21:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FYI, editors do not all have to agree on deletion for there to be a consensus to delete an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that there are copyright problems with this article as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom coverage is routine and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to meet notability, aye WesSirius (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drumchannel.com

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

A non-notable business/website where the single award from DRUM! isn't enough to prove notability (nor is notability inherited from its freelance instructors). Why? I Ask (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Websites. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyard Indian Settlement

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

I am not convinced that this particular unrecognized tribe meets, for Wikipedia purposes the definition of notability. A Google search does not meet GNG. Google Scholar reveals three newspaper articles (one of which is the SIU student newspaper) that incidentally mention the settlement. The newspaper articles I could find tend to cover the one-off controversy of their efforts at state recognition. Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization has been in the news through the years. They are a notable organization. I'll add more sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Comment. Thank you for the edits. It's a much better article. I am now lukewarm on deleting vs my prior warm.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’ll take it. They are definitely low priority, but they do keep popping up in the news and are still invited to present publicly even after being denied state recognition. Yuchitown (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added, and improvements made, by Yuchitown are just enough to cross the notability threshold, IMO. Sal2100 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be a consensus here to Keep this article despite the varying opinions on the quality of the sources used in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeta Singh

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

A non notable businesswoman with the only claim for notability being a judge in Shark Tank India which is not enough to establish WP:GNG. The subject has no significant coverage and the article contains PR sources. Some sources are just routine announcement of her participation in Shark Tank while some other have only brief mention about her. Thesixserra (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, and India. Thesixserra (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________

Keep is my vote, as could be expected for I am the initiator of the article. I believe the article qualifies for WP:NBIO as the subject is:

Widely covered in WP:RS with explicit mentioning of the the subject's name and her individual thoughts and deeds. These sources include:
- India's most important general printed news papers: Times of India and The Hindu.
- Basically every business-related digital/printed Indian news outlet. (Challenge: try to find one that does not speak about the subject!)
- A full chapter dedicated to the subject by the authors of the book: The IITM Nexus.
As mentioned in Thesixserra's deletion request: the subject is a judge on the Shark Tank TV show. In countries that enjoy a better representation on Wikipedia (i.e. USA, Australia), all resident judges have their own article on Wikipedia. In my opinion, WP:BIAS is the reason that this is different for the equivalent Indian subject. However, notability is by no means limited to the Shark Tank appearance. Other topics covered include (all of which reported by WP:Secondary sources explicitly naming the subject):
Her founding and CEO leadership of a company (i.e. Sugar) with more than 1750 retail outlets in more than 100 cities.
Her three business-related awards with nation-wide impact (none of these is related to her Shark Tank appearance).
Her rejection of a job offer, which was considered significant enough by Times of India to report on it in 2006, mentioning her name and quoting her ideas around it.
Her activism for the empowerment of underprivilidged women (many verbal quotes in feature articles in reliable secondary sources).
Her views on entrepreunership and marketing (many verbal quotes in feature articles in reliable secondary sources).
Her father being a famous scientist.
Her appearance in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (admittedly, this was related to her Shark Tank role).

On a personal note: I spent one day initiating the article and now again two hours for the rebuttal of this deletion request. I would like to leave it with this and subsequent casting of my vote, wherever required. If other editors arrive and there is consensus to delete - so be it. If there are founded concerns of WP:SOAP, I recommend WP:BOLD to improve the article. PR was certainly not my intention and should be removed, if present. However, as I am not aware, which specific statement is meant, I advise Thesixserra to edit the concerning sequence(s).Tomeasy_{T C} 11:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________

I will respond to all of your arguments individually.

1.all resident judges have their own article on Wikipedia- Being a judge in Shark Tank do not guarantee anyone a wikipedia article and you are simply talking about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
2.Her founding and CEO leadership of a company (i.e. Sugar) with more than 1750 retail outlets in more than 100 cities- This does not count towards notability. The subject need significant coverage to meet WP:GNG which is clearly missing here.
3. Her three business-related awards with nation-wide impact- All these three are some non notable awards given by some private organisations. The awards itself dont even have a wikipedia article. I'm wondering why you are saying that the award has a nation wide impact.
4. Her rejection of a job offer, which was considered significant enough by Times of India to report on it in 2006, mentioning her name and quoting her ideas around it.- Not even a proper reason to keep an article. Her name is mentioned in brief with some routine coverage. Again fails to meet WP:GNG
5. Her activism for the empowerment of underprivilidged women- This is somewhat a good argument. But again the citations are weak PR puff pieces with some mentions on her and do not give significant coverage.
6. Her father being a famous scientist.- Notability is not inherited as per WP:NOTINHERITED
7. Her appearance in the Indian Who Wants to Be a Millionaire- There are like hundreds of participants in this show. Do they all have a Wikipedia article. Thesixserra (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep either this article or an (as yet unwritten) article about her company Sugar (company), which I've just added to Sugar (disambiguation). Not sure there's enough notability for both person and firm. PamD 15:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems notable based on the coverage for being on shark tank (I'm thinking WP:NCREATIVE) plus general notability criteria due to the articles talking about her business and media work. One was behind a paywall and one relied on interviews, so I say "weak" because of that, but seems like the type of person that an encyclopaedia user would want to know more about, so I think the encyclopedia is better to have this article than to not have it. CT55555(talk) 19:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, she seems to have an interesting career. The sources are not the best, but it's enough to build a bio for the wiki. Also, we're trying to combat gender bias/ethnic bias on Wiki. She's a female judge on a non-Western television program, I can't see how deleting this helps combat either type of bias. Weak GNG at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She'll have some recognition from the media appearance, which helps in a small way make her more notable. She was also basically told she wasn't important without her husband's involvement, that's also a form of gender discrimination. We can talk about it here, perhaps help combat it in some small fashion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst she seems like a fairly minor celebrity to me, it appears that there is enough media coverage of her life to meet the GNG. For example this in GQIndia. Taken with various other interviews in national media and a few more in-depth pieces about her history, in my judgment it is enough. JMWt (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That GQIndia source states it is a "repost from Humans of Bombay" (wikilink added) and includes churnalism, e.g. "Speaking to HT, she said..." and "According to a recent CNBC report, Vineeta Singh was paid...", includes a quote from her, and the entire article (excluding the Instagram posts) is 6 grafs, with a brief overview of her career and biographical information. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find significant coverage on a regular basis in reliable sources. The sources are well reputed Indian NewsPapers & business magazines. The coverage is specifically talking about Vineeta's journey quite extensively. Burfi (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure whether it is relevant to say this here. But this is Burfi's first edit in 12 years since making their last edit in 2011. [59]. They have only made 99 edits so far. Thesixserra (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you know yourself the answer to your "wondering"! Of course, it is not relevant. Relevant is only the content, facts & constructive edits that make better articles. Personal opinions, mistrust etc. are just derailing the discussion.

If the opposition to this article is really heading to arguments of this sort, I want to propose to rather conclude this discussion with a clear decision and move on. Instead of wasting each other's time. Burfi (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source Assessment Table is provided below. RPSkokie (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the 6th and 7th sources are being cited to support the statement that she has appeared on the cover of those titles, how are they "unjustifiable"? PamD 06:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what we need is something pertinent, like a text that is easy to read and which discusses Vineeta Singh. I am not aware of the extent to which visual identification can function as a justifiable reference. My understanding is that way, and it's possible that you could improve upon it by adding something that would make it more meaningful. RPSkokie (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the link, and also linked to the profile of her which was included in coverage of the Forbes W-Power list. PamD 10:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Smile Foundation link doesn't mention Singh (though describes what Smile Foundation is, which is useful), but their LinkedIn page does and seems to be a RS to support the statement - have added it to the article. PamD 15:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandably, there may be differing opinions on the reliability of LinkedIn or any social media post as a source. Nonetheless, I appreciate your addition to the page. RPSkokie (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Source Assessment table? You present this as if it was the outcome of a technical and objective algorithm. However, it appears to me that it is nothing but your personal opinion on the sources, especially, in context of this particular person. Let's use facts and not personal opinion. The same sources like national newspapers have been used for other prominent Indian figures. Why are we questioning their credibility of here when these are all of the main English language Indian news papers? Burfi (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly recommend that you take some time to read and investigate the notes added next to each source in the source assessment table. Please be assured that the information contained in this table is not a reflection of my personal opinion, and the majority of the analysis (about the sources) are based on guidelines provided by Wikipedia. RPSkokie (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked at your table. To say the least, the column "Pass/Fail" is very arguable, personal judgment if you ask me. What does this even mean: the source fails? Fails what? Your approval? Some reliability criteria? Fails to prove the content referenced? There are sources where you tick all categories green, only to conclude fail. How does this make any sense? Anyway, let's not go into that, because more importantly is ...

To look holistically: Singh's coverage regularly goes beyond short mention into detailed articles on her entrepreneurial achievements, female empowerment visions, education and career decisions, and/or about her TV representation. This includes quotes from interviews with her but also text written by editors.

Then, I think we are mixing up two things here: the notability or the quality of sources. To see more clearly, it would be good to look at both separately.

Regarding Notability:

Vineeta Singh is covered in various newspapers - basically all Indian newspaper of national significance. Tell me which one has not a story on her? Building a sizeable business from scratch which gives employment to thousands of people and known at the national level where big players already exist (such as Unilever, L'Oreal, Lakme) is definitely notable. Clearly, notable enough that she is interviewed continually by various news outlets, or that her company has become a case study of the best business schools of India [60], or that she is asked by Sony TV to be one of the judges.

Regarding Sources:

Take any article about a living Indian person and you will see that its sources are very similar to the ones used here. If you want to play it hard on WP:RSPSS, then almost all Indian sources, and thus all Indian bio-articles, would have severe issues. Maybe this is rather an issue of WP:Bias toward Western media or a quality issue of Indian media - whatever... We have to live with the sources we have in India, and still build a Wikipedia that covers Indian topics sufficiently.

In my opinion, Enterpreneurs are underrepresented at Wikipedia, especially when it comes to female entrepreneurs. For me, this is an important limitation to be addressed. It takes sweat to build a company of that size from scratch, and it is recommendable to to something for the average Indian women.

How much better could we have all used our energy improving the article than wasting it on this discussion? When I see the effort you put into your assessment table, it just makes me sad why this effort cannot be spent constructively. Read about the subject, find the better sources that you are missing, and edit text that broadens the content based on theses sources. Just an idea ... Burfi (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, RPSkokie's analysis demonstrates how the subject of this article has a particular challenge due to the many unacceptable sources that 'fail' our guidelines for the independent, reliable, and significant coverage necessary to help support notability. The effort and time spent analyzing sources helps protect the encyclopedia and helps improve the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources	Sources Type	Links	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Written by Staff Writer	Pass/Fail	Notes
Two IIM-A grads shun Rs 1-cr offer	News	Link	N	Y	?	N	N	FAIL	A brief mention.
The IITM Nexus (1st ed.), Chennai, India	Book	Link	N	?	N	?	Not Applicable	FAIL	The publisher; Notion Press is a self-publishing/vanity publishing company.
Sugar Cosmetics	Company link	Link	N	N	N	N	Not Applicable	FAIL	company weblink
'As CEO, my job is to get out of their way'	Video News	Link	?	?	?	Y	Y	?	Possibly a brand profile, with no critical analysis. Founder, speaking for the company and herself.
Sugar Cosmetics surpasses 2 million followers on Instagram	Blog	Link	N	N	N	N	Not Applicable	FAIL	promotional blog talking about Instagram followers.
Forbes India W-Power 2021: Role models who will inspire a generation	News	Link	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	FAIL	There is not a single mention of Vineeta Singh in text. "Editor's Note" including an image of the cover showing Singh" - unjustifiable
India's Best B-Schools	News	Link	N	N	N	N	Not Applicable	FAIL	There is not a single mention of Vineeta Singh in text. "Image of the cover showing Singh on the right side of the website" - unjustifiable
Self Tweet: Grateful for 2022 🙏 Thanks @BWBusinessworld for this	Twitter	Link	N	N	N	N	Not Applicable	FAIL	SPS
Sugar cosmetics: Lips don't lie	News	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	FAIL	It is a news article about the company, and it includes quotes from the founder(s).
'Investors refused to fund Sugar until my husband joined it': Shark Tank India's Vineeta Singh	News	Link	N	?	?	Y	Y	FAIL	Quotes from the founder; Vineeta Singh; INTERVIEW. Interviewer: Startup founder of another company. Subject: Sugar company. Publication: Youtube YOUTUBE, Adapted by: Businessworld staff writer - a reasonably lengthy chain.
Sugar Sugar, Ah! Money, Money	News	Link	Y	N	N	Y	Y	FAIL	It is a news article about the company, and it includes quotes from the founder(s).
What makes Sharks take the bait? Vineeta Singh, Namita Thapar share the idea USP that attracts	News	Link	Y	N	N	Y	Y	FAIL	Quotes from the founder; Vineeta Singh; INTERVIEW
<KBC: Here's how Vineeta Singh, Aman Gupta, Anupam Mittal pitched for themselves to grab the hotseat	News	Link	N	N	N	N	N	FAIL	Vineeta Singh is the executive director of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd? - There are significant concerns regarding the source's editorial reliability.
Smile Foundation	Company	Link	N	N	N	N	Not Applicable	FAIL	NGO weblink. Unable to locate any significant references to Vineeta Singh.
Entrepreneuer India 2019 Awards	Awards	Link	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	FAIL	Company's award, not a personal award.
Forbes India 2019 Women Power	Awards	Link	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	?	NAWARD; Awards as an afterthought would have made sense if there was substantial coverage of Vineeta Singh to begin with.
India's Top Entrepreneurs: BW Disrupt 40 Under 40, 2022	Awards	Link	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	Not Applicable	?	NAWARD; Awards as an afterthought would have made sense if there was substantial coverage of Vineeta Singh to begin with.

Comment - I don't really understand why interviews in national newspapers are somehow not a signifier of notability. Some of the sources above (specifically newspapers and magazines in India) have editoral staff that's independent of the source, it's not advertorial (or paid for by the subject as far as I know). If they've chosen to interview the subject, that suggests they think the person is notable. JMWt (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am really surprised that we are discussing the notability of her for two weeks now, when almost every reputed Indian national newspapers (The Times India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Financial Times) publish about her. Out of many, just one example, On Dec 30, 2022, The Times of India has an exclusive article on her, the content of which could actually double our article.[61]

Out of 100s of entrepreneurs and founders, she is one of the 6 sharks who was got to the SharkTank on Sony TV. So, the Indian media considers her notable enough to publish about her, but here at the English Wikipedia we are discussing the quality of sources, credibility of her work and Journey. A journey like hers should be talked about more and we need more female role models on Wikipedia, especially in area like economics.

She has been in news continually since 2006, 2013, 2018 for various reasons, rejecting a lucrative job offer from Deutsche bank to running marathon when pregnant, to building Sugar & recently almost everyday because of Shark Tank. Getting a big investments by L Catterton in her company and by a popular Bollywood star.

She has been in the news even for various types of marathon races - maybe something that the article should still cover as it symbolises her vision on women strength, motherhood, independence, and health.[62][63][64] Burfi (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dec. 30 2022 WP:TOI source might as well be a press release promoting season 2 because she "spoke exclusively to ETimes TV about her experience of being associated with the show in season one and two and what the second season has to offer" - there is no secondary context or commentary from the source to support notability. The 2023 Economic Times source is a brief mention "On her 13th Mumbai full marathon, Singh took a break from her 'Shark Tank India' duties to finish her run in four plus hours, as she had expected". The 2022 Entrepreneur source is by a contributor, and per WP:RS/P there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes.com contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces, so it should not be used to support notability. The 2018 Mid-Day source is 3 paragraphs, mostly based on her quotes, and reports she ran a marathon while pregnant, so this is not significant independent coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I started Vineeta Singh, I forgot to link to it from other pages. A few days ago, I linked from the Shark Tank article. Since then, Singh's article attracts about 800 views per day, which is a pretty substantial number. I think this also demonstrates the relevance, besides other arguments above. Tomeasy_{T C} 07:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per burfi and beccaynr, the sources seem reasonable enough for notability and in general its good to err on the side of keeping articles which represent gender diversity. BogLogs (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BASIC, with respect to the source analysis by RPSkokie, which raises important concerns about support for notability from many sources. From my view, there is 2006 coverage in the Telegraph that is more substantial than the TOI mention, and I think this source, combined with other sources per WP:BASIC, helps support notability. The 2021 Forbes coverage is bylined to a staff writer and includes biographical, education, and career coverage that can help develop the article - she is quoted in the article, but there is secondary content. The 2022 Business Today coverage is based on an interview, but the source is covering her speaking out about gender bias, in her past and present, and seems different from the much more promotional coverage related to Shark Tank in some sources. Reviewing the 2022 GQ source again, it covers her being covered in Humans of Bombay, and mentions her net worth "becoming one of the hottest search terms right now" and the churned news from CNBC is about how she is "paid Rs 5 lakh for every single episode of the most popular reality show in the country right now." While not sigcov, it seems like more than trivial coverage. My !vote is weak because there are many promotional sources related to Shark Tank and her business, and independent coverage appears limited. Beccaynr (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Graaff

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

Article is an an autobiography as admitted by the subject [65]. It has repeatedly been deleted at the Dutch Wikipedia and the subject is banned there for self promotion and for falsifying sources. Another editor has detailed on the article talk page that some of the sources here are, again, fabricated and that some facts are falsified. This article is not salvageable. It should be deleted as WP:TNT and started from scratch by someone neutral who is not the article subject. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my GOODNESS I don't think I have ever seen an article with that many cleanup templates. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 02:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. If there is an actual claim to notability here (via "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), it is so buried under unsourced and questionably-sourced promotional waffle that it is almost impossible to discern. Wikipedia is not a platform for unfettered egotism... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE The Dutch Arthur Graaff article was published for six years until about 2013 and 'the subject' was not banned for self promotion or falsifying sources. 'Another editor' on the English version was repeatedly corrected over the laast weeks for unjustly using the accusation of fabrication (not the case, unproven) and 'falsifying sources' (not the case, and unproven). It is clear 'the subject' is an important figure in the anti-fascist movement and has gained international recognition.

The article is not an autobiography but a translation of the old Dutch article the existed for over six years, and has been edited by and contributed to by some three dozen Wikipedians. It now features some 60 refs. It is clear that most of the content is therefore proven and sourceable.

The main accuser is a Dutchman who has been stalking Graaff for over 2.5 years, and here uses aliases and false names, such as 'John A Drummond' or simply the IPs 86.95.90.103, or 84.86.115.84 practically all edits are negative, and with unfounded accusations. The first IP edited the article 48 times over the last two weeks, most of which was reverted, and the man behind this IP has written over 70 very negative Dutch articles on Graaff, which led to a formal criminal complaint for libel and slander against this accuser.

Nevertheless, the article seems a bit long. I think about half would be fine.

Webnetprof (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? You have already stated that you are Graaff. And no, Dutch-language Wikipedia article content (whether subsequently deleted or not) is not a reliable source, as far as this Wikipedia is concerned, so who may have contributed to the article there is of absolutely no concern to this discussion. The article is, per English-Wikipedia standards, poorly sourced where it is sourced at all, unambiguously promotional, and full of trivia that only the subject would know about. Or care about. That is what matters. Not some spat you've had elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get hits on an antifacist/activist person with the same name in Dutch sources, I can't tell if this is the same individual. There is so much wrong with the citation tags here, I wouldn't know where to start the clean up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It is almost the opposite of verifiability and neutrality. Attempts at improvement by myself and others are undone, and falsified sources put back. Hopeless. Wammes Waggel (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons outlined in the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I'm a Dutch user. I know his name and I've cleaned up the article. Graaff gets a lot of flak from opponents in Holland, also active on this WP. In Holland he is a regular item in the news since about 2012. On Google he gets about 3,000 hits - see here: https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22arthur+graaff%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.98.200 (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've known Graaff's name for a very long time, given the number of promotional edits to the Graaff biography made by anonymous Dutch IPs. And of course, the ongoing unsuccessful attempts by Graaff to restore his biography to the Dutch-language Wikipedia. Which you seem to have participated in. [66] Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User 86.82-98.200 = Webnetprof = Arthur Graaff.

See: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/86.82.98.200

And of course the editing by 86.82-98.200 on Wikipedia pages in English.

The "Ati Schermel" mentioned on the NL-Wikipedia was a woman with whom the subject allegedly had an affair - according to the diverse IP addresses that can be linked to the subject. John A. Drummond (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N and WP:Soap 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons outlined in the nomination statement and because of sockpuppetry. COI: I am a Dutch journalist who has written several articles about the subject. In my opinion the subject might be worthy of a WP lemma, but then categorized as Dutch Walter Mitty, or something like that.John A. Drummond (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't 'categorise' people based on contributors opinions. And we try to keep external disputes out of these discussions - the outcome needs to be determined according to Wikipedia policies (e.g. on notability, and on the proper use of published sources etc) only. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I seriously doubt the selection of sources because at least seven of them are written by the subject of the article + I agree with the reasons stated in the nomination. ThegaBolt (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested by nom, after having done the entire research anew. The subject is notable under the WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. By itself that would lead to supporting keep. The problem is that the article is part fact and part fiction. This overlap of fact and fiction runs much deeper than a bit of WP:CLEANUP because of WP:COI. I'm not afraid of cleanup and do it all the time. This article is really bad. So bad that WP:TNT applies. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if notability can be established, which is possible, an entirely new article would need to be created and probably have to be submitted as a draft to ensure proper review. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As several have noted, there might well be a case justifying an article for Graaff. That would have to be built from the ground up, though, since this is beyond fixing. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are arguments for a whole new Arthur Graaff article. But... the person behind "Webnetprof" and countless IP addresses will no doubt try to bend such an article in the same direction as the current one. This person, coincidentally the same as the subject, did so on the Dutch variant in the past and does so on the current one. Only if it will be possible to prevent his (or his sock puppets') interventions will the creation of such an article make sense. Otherwise, the same misery will start up again. John A. Drummond (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why I do not suggest creating a new article. It's begging for trouble. gidonb (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education Budget of Pakistan

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

This page is just a poorly written essay. Wikipedia is not an opinion-hosting website, so this page should be deleted. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Pakistan. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an essay, not an encyclopedic article, and doesn't even have a lead. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced statements like "The major factors of this negligence were parochial feudal and self-serving politicians, authoritarian regimes, culture of nepotism, thirst for power, corruption and fake democracy." and "Students memorize the content and reproduce it in the examination. Thus schools in Pakistan are producing the best types of parrots in the world." should not be seen in an encyclopedia. That goes to the "Our demands" section too. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 06:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The page is only 1 day old and the creator of the page should give more time to improve because the topic itself is very important. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify As the article / page has only recently been created, the creator and any other editors should be given opportunities to add more content and sources to the article. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Based on a 32.0 KB list of 91 films, plus 3.6 KB of non-list content.

[2] "Biswajit Ghosh to play a successful businessman in 'Khelna Bari'". The Times of India.

[3] "প্রকাশ্যে বছরের শেষ টিআরপি! একাধিক মেগার স্কোরে রদবদল, বেঙ্গল টপার কে?". Aaj Tak বাংলা.

[1]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irpin Declaration}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judd Hamilton (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École Française Internationale de Riyad}}