Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Egil (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 8 January 2024 (Adding Helsfyr-Sinsen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 07 January 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was ‎Keep per the clear consensus below. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Helsfyr-Sinsen

Helsfyr-Sinsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD<noincludeLijil (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)>View log</noinclude> | edits since nomination)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Describes a now defunct borough of Oslo. Not really notable, and no links refer to it. Egil (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to World War II in Yugoslavia. Star Mississippi 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav-Albania Front

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

Prod removed with no change in absence of reliable sourcing. No sourcing presently in the article to demonstrate notability, my own preliminary searching shows no sourcing that the term Yugoslav-Albania Front itself is in usage to describe events, duplicates material from Invasion of Yugoslavia. Possible original research. Happy to withdraw if RS can be demonstrated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete Hello. I do not believe this article should be deleted, as this is discussing the front of Yugoslavia and Albania, not a specific battle. I just listed some battles because they took place on that front. As for “duplicates material from Invasion of Yugoslavia”, can you tell me what part is duplicated? I did not purposely duplicate anything. Also, there is no original research here. I will look for more reliable sources later if it is still needed. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing unique that isn’t already in the overall article or in separate articles. This conflates two completely different operations on two different borders at two different periods of the war, which is the definition of OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is about the front, not a specific battle. Completely different from other articles. Antny08 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources call this a “front” and include both the invasion and the operations at the end of the Axis occupation? None I’m aware of. And I’m pretty familiar with Yugoslavia in WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a source to know it was a front of World War II. This article is just talking about the invasions that took place on this front and their outcome. Antny08 (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually you do. No source I have seen refers to this as a front, and in any case, the border of Greater Albania in the fighting at the end of the war was in a different place than at the beginning of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanshah Javid

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

Non-notable journalist. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Both of the article's references were written by the subject, and the subject has a history of editing the article. There are some other sources in existence (such as https://www.jstor.org/stable/20343473) but I do not believe they will add anything to the article. Redtree21 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing discussing this individual that isn't a primary source. This is a brief mention [1], but nothing else for GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As others have said, the article presently relies entirely on primary sources directly or indirectly created by the subject. A search on Google News reveals two more sources which refer to the subject. One ([2]https://iranhumanrights.org/who_we_are/]) identifies the subject as a senior researcher for the Center for Human Rights in Iran and the other ([3]) briefly appears to mention the subject only by name as a signatory to a letter calling for opposition to Iran's nuclear policy. There might be a marginal case for notability if the subject's work as part of the Center could be identified but otherwise it does not seem as if there are adequate sources to meet the WP:N standard. Pseudoname1 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several reliable sources have made him subject of their coverage. Sources are in Persian but reliable including BBC and Radio Farda: [4] [5] [6] --Drako (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sicaspi: the first two of those links are the same URL. All three are interviews with Javid, which don't count towards establishing notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the error, here are more correct links: [7] [8] [9] iewse[10]. In all these sources and interviews, interviewer is independent of this person, is a professional journalist and these sources are highly prestigous and reliable media with editorial oversight. In all of them he himself is the subject, he is not being interviewed about some third-party subject. As per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews can also be counted towards notability, it says interviews that "show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful." The sources here are like that. Also, according to Radiofarda he has founded Iranian.com which is one of the oldest and (at the time) most popular Iranian websites [11]. That is also an example of the second item in WP:ANYBIO as he has had a significant contribution to Iranian and Persian internet history by founding one of the earliest Iranian websites. More evidence on that from the BBC [12]. Drako (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: neither the sources cited in the article nor those found by Pseudoname1 and by Sicaspi offer the SIGCOV we need to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources I presented not only cover this person "directly and in detail", he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him, which is above the standard in WP:SIGCOV . I do not know what you mean by insignificance of their coverage of this person. Drako (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this friendly interview can be seen as "covering this person directly and in detail". The entire interview is about the website, not the journalist. No hard-hitting questions or criticism by the interviewer; all slow-ball pitches straight to his bat. Yes, interviews can provide SIGCOV. This one does not. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PBS is a reliable media platform, and is independent of this person. The required standard is for the interview to be deep and investigative which is what this interviews is, he is being asked specific questions about his work. Being friendly or hostile is not a requirement.
    As per WP:ANYBIO :"a person who has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" is notable. His widely recognized contribution is starting one of the most popular websites in a country, hence contributing to the Internet history there. If you agree that website is widely covered and recognized as such, that makes him notable.
    Also, How about the multitude of other sources? BBC and Radio Farda are highly reputable sources (and independent from this man) that have covered his person in depth as mentioned in the above links. Even in their interviews, in these sources material you see is "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts as mentioned in wp:interview#notability. Drako (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really consider the PBS interview to be "deep and investigative"? What exactly is the interviewer "investigating" there? You seem to be the only one here who considers it anything but a puff piece. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not here to judge interviews to be awarded Pulitzer prize. Sources should just meet a bare minimum. Also I do not get why you are stuck on this particular source. Almost ten other more thorough sources have been presented in this AfD, for example:
    • Radio Farda [13] goes in depth exploring the guy and his contribution, his website
    • BBC has dedicated an entire episode of the programme Chamedan to him [14], depicting details of his life.
    • First persian podcast [15], another BBC production, has made an entire exclusive programme on him and covered him [16]
    • Mahdi Falahati has hosted him on his Hard Talk style show on Voice of America and has done a thorough, deep and investigative interview with him [17]
    Drako (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, we will not be playing this game. You said, All the sources I presented not only cover this person 'directly and in detail', he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him. And by All you were referring to all six of the sources you presented above. The PBS interview was one of those sources you presented, therefore sufficient as a counterexample to disprove your "All" claim. Your options at this point are either (1) show us how the PBS interview meets your description of "directly and in detail"; or (2) retract your original claim. If not all your sources provide the required significant coverage, please amend your original claim to state which of those sources are the ones you believe provide SIGCOV. WP:REFBOMBing and playing Whac-A-Mole by shifting your claim to a different source whenever one is challenged will not work here. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Medical Complex-Karachi

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

Largely promotional and seems to be more of a blog of the project than an informative article. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 19:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Recently created so soft-delete probably not ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferns N Petals

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

Promotional piece, with very poor sourcing. This actually looks like something from a real newspaper, but there is no byline and it reads like a press release. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The byline is present, but easily missed. It is from a news agency called PTI. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 that's not a byline. A byline gives the name of the journalist who wrote the piece. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for promotion, Although it seems that the only available press coverage of this company is trivial, there is significant coverage in a number of text books.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Rajagopal (2019). Competitive Branding Strategies: Managing Performance in Emerging Markets. Springer International Publishing. p. 54. ISBN 9783030249335.
  2. ^ Rajesh Jain (2023). Startup to Proficorn. Jaico Publishing House. pp. 59–61. ISBN 9788119153084.
  3. ^ Arun Kumar (2011). Marketing Management, 2nd Edition. Vikas Publishing House. p. 390. ISBN 9788125942597.
  4. ^ Ali Farazmand, ed. (2023). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer International Publishing. p. 1366. ISBN 9783030662523.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is clearly promotional and full of puffery. The coverage in textbooks as listed above appears to be trivial, as well as the press coverage. Redtree21 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 3 is a RS, more of a description of the founder than the company, I'd use it for GNG. I can't find much else though... Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – It’s WP:PROMOy with press releases. Text books might be interesting, could be WP:TOOSOON TLA (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Eisai_(company)#History – the sources brought up include mere passing mentions, which don’t meet WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taar-e-Ankaboot

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2022.

A redirect after a PROD was reverted DonaldD23 talk to me 13:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep well known dramathat passes notability. Creater needs to work on it. Skt34 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Editor blocked for sockpuppetry. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find refs to a 1960 Iranian film of the same name, but nothing for this. Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a controversial show based on a taboo topic as I still remember a lot of speculation was made regarding the serial back than. Referencing seems fine to me and should be kept.182.182.19.93 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Several of the sources cited in the article make no reference to the film whatsoever, leaving only trivial mentions of the film on several websites. Redtree21 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources do not hit the three needed points of RS, IS, and SIGCOV. UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎Keep without prejudice to a move to a better title. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Ibrahim Jassam

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

This biography article needs more facts of this person's life and career in addition to this single incident. More information is needed via in-depth sources to establish notability. After searching, found social media websites and coverage of this article's events, but unable to find sources with significant coverage about the person. Article was created on 13 May 2009. JoeNMLC (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jassam's imprisonment was covered from 2008 through his release in 2010, which the U.S military admitted in a statement only happened due to a negotiated withdrawal of U.S. troops from the area. (I've been reading a lot of articles. I have at least 20 open right now, and I closed the one on the acceptance speech that mentioned multiple imprisoned journalists as well as a couple that copied the LA Times. Syndication, I think.)
Even with a date-targeted Google search I couldn't find anything other than the information on his arrest. However, I'm in the U.S., so it's possible that someone in the Middle East would have better luck.
Anything returned with this name prior to 2008 was about another person (not a photographer or journalist). OIM20 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename. I expanded this article using all the resources I could find. I don't think the solution suggested by @OIM20 would work, even though it is a good idea, because the article suggested as a merge target has only overall details and not specifics. On notability, I think this case is significant because it was the first time US forces refused to comply with a decision by an Iraqi court, at least on civilian cases, during the US invasion of Iraq. I'm trying to find more WP:RS sources to establish this. What I would suggest is that the article be renamed to Arrest of Ibrahim Jassam because there are more details for the event than for the person. Also, I think this article could serve as an umbrella article for smaller but similar cases like those of Ali al Mashaddani and Bilal Hussein, which I'm trying to incorporate under a similar cases heading. Matarisvan (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let Matarisvan continue their work. There clearly is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over several years so likely meets WP:NEVENT. I support renaming the article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems ok, his detention is more notable than his works, but the sourcing supports notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hampton (writer)

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

Nominated by Oiyarbepsy with the following rationale (see request):

I've reviewed the sources listed and they are all either passing mentions, short quotes from Hampton, or the work of Hampton himself. He does not appear to meet the notability requirements. I'll add that enough sockpuppets have attempted to create articles on this person that his name made it to the title creation blacklist. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New baba/Archive for one of the sockpuppet investigation pages.

This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just from a quick glance for some sources, I'm finding plenty that cover his life and activities spanning years in multiple forms of publications, including the adaptation of one of his books into a TV series.
And that was just from a quick database search and Google search. So there's likely more to find for anyone who wants to dig deeper. SilverserenC 06:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources are not entirely about the subject, but they have enough coverage to just get it over the notability "edge". Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ones given above are ok, I'd rather these than what's used in the article to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sources listed in this discussion suffice. Please update the article accordingly. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well-published notable author and noted activist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Arguments come down to "meets GNG" versus "no it doesn't." No one demonstrated the available sources are not valid towards notability, neither did anyone clearly demonstrate they are. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Shaji

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

No claim of notability for this promotional article on a tiktok user. It has been stated that she is a model and musician, although this has not been proven by the sources cited. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:NMODEL. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've written an article about an internet celebrity for the second time. She does not meet any of the WP:ARTIST requirements. This is just an another case of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A celebrity vanity page. Fails GNG. Article has some weird claims that she is a social worker,model and actor. She has not acted in any movies yet and is not a big boss contestant. Only thing she is having are some Instagram and tik tok followers which is not a notability criteria.116.68.101.172 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Most coverage is about being a Big Boss contestant, but it's just enough. Most is in malayalam script, so a Gnews search brings up lots there. I'd give it a pass.Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The sources used in the article, although mostly tabloid, demonstrate enough notability to 'get over the line'. Redtree21 (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does't meet WP:GNG, nor WP:ARTIST . Dcotos (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Specific assessment of the sources available would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aurora Boulevard. Any editor interested in merging content to the target article can do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonas Street

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

Tagged as unsourced since 2017. WP:NROAD states: "Topic notability...local roads, streets...are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." But Anonas Street is just like any other street in the Philippines. Note that the street is not named after the station, but (per claim in this article) "named after the Anonas family who originated from Iba, Zambales, settled in this area and built a factory near the river." The claim itself is unsourced. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonas Street is a feeder street into Aurora Boulevard. WP:ATDs are much appreciated, upfront and after the fact! gidonb (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found a paragraph in this article by the Philippines edition of Esquire magazine, which states: At one point, Anonas St. in Quezon City became a hotspot for live music, and Freedom Bar and 70's Bistro were its busiest centers. Here, local bands were encouraged to play originals to jampacked crowds. Busy Anonas St. also accommodated a network of fans and musicians, providing an opportunity for folk and rock musicians to bump into one other. Left guide (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Left guide still it is just one reliable source, not sufficient to make this article worthy of inclusion here. Perhaps at least 2 or 3 sources needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JWilz12345: Understood, just laying it out here in case someone else is able to piece together another source or two (offline/print/newspaper/etc) to build a stronger case for notability, or if there's merge potential. Left guide (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep with sources presented above. SBKSPP (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – apart from the sources above – I'm aware that YouTube videos, Wikipedia files don't contribute to WP:NOTABILITY, but there are a lot of both regarding Anonas Street. There are also real estate listings. I'm looking at WP:Notability_(streets_and_roads) and WP:Notability_(Geographic_locations) (failed proposals though), this meets the criteria for both. TLA (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I find the above case for keep unpersuasive. If additional sources are ever found, the article can be easily restored. signed, Rosguill talk 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still see no sources in the article establishing notability, just another generic road. I don't think a redirect to a larger intersecting street makes sense. Reywas92Talk 16:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of roads in Metro Manila#Quezon City, where a sentence or two of sourced material from the Esquire piece can be integrated as a brief description, since the available sourcing is simply not enough for a standalone article. Left guide (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss the merits of possible merge/redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Aurora Boulevard, do not delete, where it is connected per gidonb's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's next-to-nothing to merge to Aurora Boulevard or to anywhere else, and redirecting it to this article would just make more questions than answers to a potential reader. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cantate!. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zion, auf, werde licht

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

No evidence found of any notability, the sources given are passing mentions or not independent, and no sources seem to have given indepth attention to this hymn. Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is - unlike many of Bone's songs - one that is still in a current prominent hymnal, and gets sung. I'd simply say let's redirect it to Cantate! if it had not been set by composers, see DNB. I'll try to find more sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cantate! as per comment by Gerda Arendt. The article appears not to meet notability criteria at WP:NSONG - I cannot find any sources of which the song is the primary subject, most web results are simply the song's lyrics. If more sources can be found, the article could be kept, though. Redtree21 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect hard to source per Redtree21, but Gerda Arendt is right, it is still prominent enough to be kept FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cantate! per the above. It might be worth merging a line, but not more. Unless someone can find more or better sources than are in the article at the moment (I couldn't) there aren't enough to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. While the !votes since the relist don't do much to provide further analysis of the sources, the absence of any rebuttal in favor of deletion since the expansion of the article with additional sources two weeks ago makes the outcome clear. signed, Rosguill talk 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Spence (entrepreneur)

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

Fails the general and biography-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person has sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources, including print media such as magazines and books, to meet the GNG criteria. Additionally, some non-routine awards also contribute to the subject's general notability --Moem-Meom (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources 6 and 19 are the only ones that are green per sourcetool. His company investing money and a profile in Indian media aren't really what notability is here... Rest don't appear to help much either. I can't find mentions of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the page with reliable and independent not-routine (focused on the subject of that page) sources and now the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. Besides good coverage in such respected publications like Business News (Australia), Fortune India, Entrepreneur (magazine), The Economic Times and some Indonesia tourism/leisure magazines, I added 4 sources with significant coverage of the person from The West Australian - I accessed them via Google cache so no "paywall" issues anymore. These sources are from 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2023, showing a clear sign of a reliable media interest over a long period, as required by Wikipedia. And I added 1 piece from City A.M., a nice detailed storytelling on he subject. Briefly speaking, the coverage in The West Australian and City A.M. alone is sufficient to pass the problem with reliable sources, as I found 5 new sources with in-depth coverage. Of course, without reaching that content, the page appears under-referenced; however, coverage in magazines and other media, including Yale University, are almost enough. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the page, which now includes multiple new reliable sources added after the AfD began, clearly meets the criteria of WP:Basic. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Keep per good deep press (third-party) coverage in Australian and some other print&online media. Thus it meets ANYBIO or general notability requirements. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment noticed and read new additions from The West Australian newspaper focused entirely on the person. It should be enough to keep it. Moem-Meom (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Addition of new sources help clearly support this for WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as newly added sources prove WP:NEXIST as there were already reliable sources but not in the article. Also easily meets WP:Basic and GNG. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. While a minority of participants maintain that GNG has not been met and that the article should thus be merged into an article about its parent district, a clear majority of editors are satisfied by the extent of coverage found and/or find it to be highly indicative of the existence of further usable coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maudrie M. Walton Elementary School

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

We don't typically keep elementary schools and the sources listed seem to be WP:ROUTINE in nature pbp 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:ROUTINE's definition of "routine" is: "Common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out". It is not every day when PBS, a national US TV channel, makes the school a star of a documentary on school improvement (the other RS is also tied to the school being covered in a documentary). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there may well be something here. But the existing sources are primary so a secondary source about this is required to demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are not primary sources. They are secondary: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
Both newspaper articles are written by journalists affiliated with a newspaper (Matt Frazier, a Star-Telegram staff writer, and Lori Elmore-Moon, a special features writer of the same newspaper.). That makes them secondary, not primary sources.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. They are both reports about the PBS show. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the page states: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" so it would be best to have that happen soon.
Anyhow, the page states: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." Therefore we can check each article to see if there is some kind of analysis and/or commentary.
  • Source #1 by Frazier: "The documentary has already been broadcast in other markets, and Walton has received congratulatory[...]" and the same source also cites TEA data. Frazier did not only report on what the documentary and people from the school said, but also brought in analysis from other sources.
  • Source #2 by Elmore-Moon: "Kemp played a prominent role in the one-hour documentary" which is analysis on part of Elmore-Moon.
Additionally, note this article is actually about a school, and not the documentary itself! (the documentary has its own article at A Tale of Two Schools). Elmore-Moon makes it clear that A Take of Two Schools itself compares and contrasts the two schools it is about.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lakota_Tech_High_School is an example of an article that has news articles with sufficient analysis to show notability
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
High schools are usually kept and elementary schools are usually deleted, tho pbp 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS is an explanatory essay, but the point is made in the policy page on OR too, see WP:PRIMARY and particularly follow note d. But it is not just Wikipedia saying this. Newspaper articles are generally primary sources. That is the settled historiographic view. It is how such sources are treated in academia. And note that just a reading of PRIMARYNEWS again indicates that even if you dice these as editorials, they remain primary. The sources are primary. What secondary sources exist about this school?
But to pbp I would point out that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has changed although the change is taking a long time to be recognised. Any school must essentially pass the WP:GNG. None are presumed notable but elementary schools can certainly be kept if they are shown to pass GNG. However, if the only sources presented to demonstrate that notability are two primary sources, I'll be !voting delete or redirect per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the change in SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as per AFD, newspapers are treated as secondary: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hardin_High_School_(Texas) is one example of an AFD outcome. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Blue (there were academic book reviews, but the newspaper coverage was not discounted) is another. And the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benbrook Middle-High School was withdrawn because of the newspaper coverage I found (which linked the building of the new school to the Benbrook community being dissatisfied with previous schooling options, so yes, these newspaper articles have analysis!). These Wikipedia outcomes say they are secondary. Wikipedia is saying this. But not only is it saying this, but Wikipedia must do this to survive. Here's why:
Regardless of whether academics technically, technically treat newspaper articles (that have analysis and explanation) as primary, it is important to note this is a general audiences encyclopedia in which many editors are not immersed in academia. Editing (in most cases) should not be too difficult for, say, the working class ordinary homemaker or a farmer, who are not schooled in academia extensively, to contribute reasonably to a field of interest. Trying to impose high level academia standards will drive away ordinary editors and leave many topics of common interest without a viable path to notability (newspapers are extensively used in notability discussions).
There is a reason Nupedia failed and it heeds to remember why.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that participants in another AfD failed to challenge obvious primary sources tells us nothing about Wikipedia policy. The rest of the argument here is not grounded on policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F states: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Precedent matters, and the cases I cited are similar cases.
Also academia is not the be all, end all of every case, as User:Jimbo Wales has made clear in this dispute about Hugo Chavez: Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_26#Chavez and food (he felt that the article overall did not have a proper reflection of the issues; some editors heavily relying on academia wrote sections that missed other key aspects). What did Jimbo cite as his rebuttal to the academia sourcing? The answer: Newspapers and magazines.
  • I quote Jimbo: "But it is also perfectly fine and often absolutely necessary to use reliable newspapers and magazines as sources. Bill Clinton came to power nearly 18 years ago, and our article has 210 references, the vast majority of which are from reliable newspapers and magazines." (and Wikipedia instructs editors to rely on secondary sources, and so implicitly they are being treated as secondary here)
There are cases like ancient history, aviation science, medicine (especially!), global warming, etc. in which academia does need to be weighted higher, but newspaper articles (so long as they have a level of analysis/explanation, and so long as it is not ROUTINE) are clearly sufficient sourcing and counted as secondary for Wikipedia purposes for school-related articles.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: If the argument is that the school might be notable because of the documentary, shouldn't the school just be redirected to the documentary? Again, let me note that elementary schools rarely, if ever, survive AfD. pbp 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools a non-notable American public school is to redirect to its school district. The reason why I figured this particular school would be an exception was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pershing_Middle_School_(Houston): an education writer featured Pershing's program in a book, and the coverage in the book was enough for Pershing to have its own Wikipedia article. Similarly, I figured the coverage of Walton in a PBS documentary for its particular program would give it notability for its own article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (ETA - see below) - My searches have turned up no secondary sources that have significant coverage and are reliable and independent. This page therefore does not meet WP:GNG. There are two primary sources in the article (per discussion above), but these don't establish notability. There are many pages showing in searches, but these are directories, or the school's own materials (not independent). Book searches drew a blank (a couple of trivial mentions but these in directories in any case). No papers either. I am a lttle surprised that a school that was subject to a PBS dcoumentary has no other sourcing but I have found none and the conversation above has turned into something meta, rather than a search for secondary sources. I conclude none will be found. Scholar searches are impacted by the existence of Maudrie M. Walton, an educationalist, who does yield hits, e.g., [19] but not about the school. As this does not meet GNG, there should not be a page, because ultimately there isn't much that can be said about this school. However an ATD is possible, and redirects have been mooted to the school district or to the PBS documentary. I would support a redirect if there were consensus as to where that should point to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - being one of two subject schools of an entire documentary from a highly reliable source like PBS is more than enough to show notability. The news clips that have been recently added are just icing on the cake. I really don't understand why there is a question. The delete !votes just seem to be trying to uphold the generality that elementary schools aren't notable. Generally they aren't. Particularly this one is. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Noticeable school, per the documentary coverage mentioned above. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks, Maile, for adding new text and two sources to the page. These too are primary sources (a news report and a release about a book drive), so the article continues to lack any secondary sources at all. Has anyone found any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely do not understand your contention that the PBS documentary is not a secondary source. A news report is primary generally as it is only made up of first person observation of an event or thing. A documentary is the video equivalent of a book. It includes both first person observation of the subject, and numerous secondary interviews with experts on the subject and the producer's conclusions about all of it. By your rather unique understanding of what makes a secondary source, I guess I need an example of what would be a secondary source. In my mind, and I don't think I'm alone, having a documentary in which this school is one of two schools the author of the documentary used to prove his thesis is a better showing of notability than the majority of articles on Wikipedia have. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is not about the documentary itself, it is about the newspapers, which are primary sources. For some reason we have not cited the documentary itself, nor considered it as a source. We could treat it as a secondary source, although I note that the interviews within it may constitute primary sources, and also not meet the independence criterion. Nevertheless, in general I would be happy to accept the documentary itself as one secondary source. We need multiple secondary sources to meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that a documentary is a secondary source, so I suspect this school may be notable. However, this article is quite short, and I notice that the school board's article does not have much information, and this school gets lost there in a long list of schools. For those arguing keep, I wonder if you might consider a redirect and merge up to the school board's article? This seems like a better option than a short standalone on the school - just as easy to find by search, but additionally more discoverable on the school board's article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input on the later suggestions would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - The school is notable due to the PBS Documentary. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fort Worth Independent School District per Asilvering's suggestion. I have struck my delete vote in favour of this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this source is good coverage demonstrating notability for the school. All other references are weak, but where there is one, there should be more. The article should be expanded to cover the full history of the school and neighborhood. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep coverage is definitely a step above routine, but I am not sure how much being chosen for a documentary weighs on the notability scale. In any event should be a redirect to Fort Worth Independent School District if not kept as an independent article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it seems rare that a WP:VERIFIED educational institution is deleted (WP:Notability_(high_schools), though this is not a high school). Sources above present > WP:ROUTINE. TLA (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salva Marjan

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

Fails to meet any notability guidelines, also full of wrong information. H4MCHTR (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – there are two examples of seemingly independent coverage among the sources... They read like paid promotion. A 23-year-old with one weekend of entry-level single-seater experience (Indian F4, where she DNQ'd) is neither notable nor a "professional athlete". Article is very short, poorly written and full of lies. No apparent WP:POTENTIAL. Slam-dunk delete. MSport1005 (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/drafty -- This riser is a female Formula 1 driver[20][21][22] and a female motivator.Women are rare in the more male dominated field of racing, specially in India.This is not a reason to retain an article, but as a motor sports delate she participated in a notable event 2023 F4 Indian Championship in his career and became a champion at the state level- Will this pass WP:NMOTORSPORT ? Or Or if it's a future pass then keep it as a draft and move it to main space if it comes to policy pass later.Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 9:26, 08 January 2024 (UTC)
Participation in a single round of an F4 series is far from notable. There is no source for the state-level championship, and even if there were, that does not automatically qualify the driver for an article. Please revisit the page for the WP:NMOTORSPORT guideline you are referring to and take note that this driver is extremely far from qualifying for any of the guideline's points - now and in the foreseeable future. H4MCHTR (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spworld2: She is not a Formula 1 driver; she is in Indian F4, which is several steps down the F1 ladder. Racing in F4 doesn't confer notability on a driver – please familiarise yourself with WP:NMOTORSPORT. There's nothing in the article that's worth preserving, it's extremely short and poorly redacted. On top of that her results don't suggest any sort of WP:POTENTIAL, so draftifying is futile. MSport1005 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the arguments of H4MCHTR and MSport1005 she is not notable and won't be in the near future. Formula Downforce (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Tegucigalpa

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

The scant information on the embassy building, which appears entirely unremarkable, can easily be included in Honduras–United States relations, of which this is a content fork. Biruitorul Talk 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The sources listed by Pilaz should have put an end to this discussion in my opinion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • change to keep on the basis of sources found which meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weebl and Bob

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

This article has a lot of WP:CRUFT, but aside from that, I don't see why the subject is notable. I can only find trivia mentions here and there based on Google searches. Spinixster (chat!) 08:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - completely agree with the above, this may be a bit wordy but that's not a reason to delete. There is the possibility to merge into List of Weebl's cartoons if other editors think this is necessary, though. --GnocchiFan (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Jamaica–United States relations. Star Mississippi 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kingston

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

The article says nothing about the Embassy of the United States in Kingston, and whatever it says about Jamaica–United States relations can be added there. Biruitorul Talk 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Jamaica, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can be a standalone article given that it meets WP:GNG and that there is coverage specifically about the embassy (as opposed to the bilateral relationship): JO, Radio Jamaica News, JO 2, Jamaica Gleaner, Caribbean Journal, The Washington Post. The article can be further completed with descriptions of the architecture from the architect's website KCCT. Pilaz (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting aside the architect’s self-praise, there really isn’t coverage about the embassy building: we have a couple of routine articles about its guards going on strike, one about some colored lights being flashed onto its exterior, another about it closing for a Federal holiday (like every single non-essential Federal building in existence) and one about a guard who admitted taking bribes. None of this in any way amounts to significant coverage of the purported topic. — Biruitorul Talk 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Pilaz – Kjerish (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      see WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jamaica–United States relations: the thorough source analysis carried out by the nom has not been refuted--or even addressed--by the "Keep" voters or the PERXs. Fleeting mentions do not add up to SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimuto Siding

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, train stations have no inherent notability, and Zimuto is a passing siding or passing loop, not even a station. Apart from coordinates and an unsourced statement as to why this location was selected in the steam era, most of the article is about Masvingo province in general or even Zimbabwe in general. The material on Chief Zimuto could go to a page about that chieftainship, if sources are found. Nothing to do with the railway though. Babakathy (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:Geoland is very clear that train stations are not inherently notable, They must clearly satisfy WP:N to have an article.James.folsom (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Sleeper

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

American fashion designer that does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA, references in the article as well as in my BEFORE fail WP:SIGCOV and are of borderline reliability at best (some are press releases or obvious rewrites of this type of sourcing). Ps. I note no consensus AfD in 2016. The article has not improved since and per my BEFORE, there is nothing to improve this with. As our standards improve, this seems below what we consider acceptable in 2023 when it comes for living people. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Both those supporting deletion and keeping make reasonable arguments that are plausibly based in policy (implicitly WP:DEL-REASON#8 for the deletion supporters, and WP:ANYBIO#1 for those supporting keep). Consensus is ascertained in light of the quality of the arguments presented in this discussion as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, as the arguments were of relatively similar strength, there is no consensus in this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Tripp

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

Nicely researched genealogical piece, but not notable. Ingratis (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG; search in Google News and Google Books found a few obituaries and news articles of different people of the same name. Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 10:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recipient of the CB, which we have always held to easily meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1 (which is a CBE or above). Chief administrative officer of one of the most significant police forces in the world. Only someone with absolutely zero knowledge of the subject would think this was merely a "genealogical piece". Very clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: a clear case of asserted inherent notability. a) The only source that refers to Tripp's job, which is the only reason for his posited notability, is the book by Fairfax, which the article's creator himself describes as unpublished - don't think that counts. All the other sources are entirely genealogical - census returns (unreferenced), a parish register entry, civil registration indexes and a probate entry - and equally available for anyone in the country: they are bog standard pieces of genealogical information and certainly don't go to notability. b) Police civil officials are not inherently notable; come up with proper sources for this man. c) "we have always held [CBs] to easily meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1": I have no idea who "we" are; again, actually provide some proper sources. ANYBIO specifically says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included'." (bolding mine). If no adequate sources are forthcoming, the rest is just handwaving and the article should go. Ingratis (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[continued below the relisting line]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • "We" would be the Wikipedia community, as illustrated here. It's called consensus. If he was considered notable enough to receive a high honour by the British government, then he is clearly notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should not need reminding that notability rests on sources - but since apparently you do, see WP:N. Where are the sources? Ingratis (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I don't, but thank you for the patronising comment. You should also not need reminding that Wikipedia works on consensus, which I have illustrated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • As to "patronising", people in glass houses... As to the rest, you're apparently arguing that because this man had a CB (as per WP:ANYBIO#1, if that were to cover CBs) the article is exempt from the sourcing requirements of WP:BASIC. I've already pointed out that this article presently contains only a single secondary source, which is invalid, because it is unpublished; all the rest are primary sources/original records, which without the secondary source do not add up to SIGCOV. Even if this were a clear instance of "automatic" notability - such as those covered by NPOL - it would not stand without the appropriate sourcing, which this does not have. (Your lists, in my view, are missing the point: articles have to be considered individually, as they will not always be decided solely on the ANYBIO issue, as you seem to suggest). Ingratis (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • One of the reasons we have ANYBIO is that it would be laughable if Wikipedia considered people who had been granted high honours in the real world to be non-notable. Clearly notable in the real world, but not in the rarefied atmosphere of wikiworld, where the only people considered notable are those who have sustained coverage on the internet! It really does just make us look like we live on another planet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                To be frank, show us sourced about a monkey that took a selfie [23] and it get's an article here. Wining the award is fine, but we need things that talk it about it at length. We don't have much that talks about the person here that isn't related to him or the award presenter. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ANYBIO #1 - agree with Necrothesp here. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Chief financial officer of the police is fine, but not terribly notable. I don't see extensive coverage (or much of anything) on this person. Civil servant that won an award. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are only a few hundred of the higher members of the order, almost 2000 of the lower level (as this person was), so it's a rather long list. We'd need a ton of sourcing to create an article on a Companion-level individual. They give out so many of these, it seems most names are only mentioned, then onto the next name. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Won an award. It's being appointed to a high honour, not winning an award. They give out so many of these. They really don't. A couple of dozen at the most every year. Not many in a country of 60-70 million people. There are only a few hundred of the higher members of the order, almost 2000 of the lower level (as this person was)... The statutes provide for a maximum of 1,925 Companions at any one time. That doesn't mean there are 1,925 Companions at any one time (or even close to it)! But even if there were, it's a drop in the ocean considering the population of the country (or, in those days, the entire British Empire). And the "lower level" of the Order of the Bath is a very high level indeed. It outranks pretty much anyone else who doesn't have a knighthood. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then provide us with extensive sources with which to build the article. For all of the 10 lines of text, that's not extensive coverage at all. That's my issue, the lack of sourcing first and foremost. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Rojas (weatherman)

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

Fails WP:NBIO/WP:NJOURNALIST, might be WP:TOOSOON for an article. No widespread coverage; there appears to be two ([24] [25]) independent and reliable sources that talk about Rojas directly, but the rest are written by those working in the same news agency as Rojas, so I don't count those as "independent". Chlod (say hi!) 07:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a third source: [26], but doesn't go into detail about Rojas himself. Chlod (say hi!) 07:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the Bandera article isn't SIGCOV, and mostly focuses on controversy related to Kim Atienza instead. Rojas is mentioned here because he replaced Atienza as ABS-CBN's weatherman when Atienza left the agency. As for Filipino sources, I was unable to find any except the Bandera one. Again, some sources from ABS-CBN (but mostly describing his job rather than himself), but they're all either written by Rojas or his co-workers. Chlod (say hi!) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. Nothing much found in my WP:BEFORE aside from the Bandera article presented by Red-tailed Hawk. SBKSPP (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. R. Jangid

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

In general, Wikipedia does not regard an IPS officer as notable unless they have accomplished a significant national or worldwide milestone. Most of the news are old. Nothing found new to meet WP:SIGCOV since its last afd. Macbeejack ☎ 07:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President’s Medal for Jangid 2409:4085:3D88:1697:220E:BA8C:F9DC:2F78 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jangid has received the President's Award. And has held the highest post of DGP of the state police. And Bavaria Gang was investigated under his leadership. On which two films have already been made and news has been covered in many major newspapers. 2409:4085:3E8E:B6A4:1167:8681:9F97:F03E (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia does not regard an IPS officer as notable unless they have accomplished a significant national or worldwide milestone. That would be heading a state police force 112,000 strong! Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBASIC. The individual has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include things related to his job (like his retirement, his public statements, a time he got sued, being involved in a gang takedown), but also things like earning his doctorate. And, his actions in Operation Bawaria are apparently the inspiration for the plot in Theeran Adhigaaram Ondru, which is well-attested to by sources. My only lingering concern would be WP:BLP1E, but I don't think he meets either the first criterion (he does have some coverage outside of the Bawaria saga) or the second criterion (he was certainly high-profile in his role as head of police), so I'm comfortable supporting a keep here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the prior AFD was closed as Delete, I'm relisting this discussion to give it a little more time to reconcile the previous evaluation from editors' views in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete please please - Someone ruined the article previously. So it was made into a draft, then is under construction. Previous records speaks that whenever i see article about S. R. Jangid was viewed by 30000-50000 viewers for 30 days.
2409:4085:3D83:91:F7B1:95CC:9EB6:75A8 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not look like a BLP1E to me. I am seeing continuing coverage not just a single burst around one claim to fame. In particular, [27] and [28] have coverage not related to Operation Bawaria. Some of the sources have limited coverage but I think there is enough to meet WP:GNG and searching in local languages would probably bring up even more. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive communication

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

The concept may be notable, but what we have is an unreferenced OR mess in needs of WP:TNT (footnote to dead site that doesn't look very reliable, two ELs that are no better). BEFORE as noted shows that this term is used but in various different contexts, and what we have here is just terrible (including a section on "History of interactivity", which is NOT the topic of this article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this reads like OR about a poorly sourced neologism. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This goes beyond "broad concept article" and into the realm of blending together things that vaguely sound related. Draftification would just be delayed deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Payhawk

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to funding coverage and press release reprints. ~ A412 talk! 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Bulgaria. ~ A412 talk! 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi A412. I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. I suspect this article was created for promotional purposes. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A412. I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of sources referenced, so per WP:THREE, it would be helpful if you could identify here the three best sources from the references, to help us evaluate. Please pay attention to WP:ORGTRIV and WP:ORGIND, in particular: these sources should not be announcements of Payhawk raising money, press release reprints ("Today, Payhawk announced...") that do not contain additional analysis, or articles that primarily consist of interview quotes from people associated with Payhawk. ~ A412 talk! 18:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Apart from the significant coverage in a large array of routine coverage, here is WP:THREE that I could find quickly.

Forbes article about how the company is the first unicorn in Bulgaria. Business Insider article about how it raised $100M. Capital (Bulgarian newspaper) about its billion-dollar valuation (again). It's impressive as Bulgaria's first unicorn. Meets WP:GNG in my books! TLA (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that this would meet WP:GNG, but the relevant SNG is WP:NCORP, which is stricter, and specifically excludes coverage "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital". RS don't actually say anything about Payhawk other than that it's been really good at raising money. As an aside, the term unicorn doesn't actually independently mean anything outside of the startup's valuation when they raise money. It's just a number. ~ A412 talk! 19:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. What about this? TLA (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The post clearly says "Sponsored by Payhawk" in the header. Fails WP:ORGIND. ~ A412 talk! 21:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources in the article and the ones I can locate all rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing++ 21:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation, with no prejudice against an immediate renomination at AfD. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club

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

Non-notable club. Hundreds of such clubs exist in the UK, and I cannot see why this one is particularly notable. Other than Wikipedia mirrors and some directories, can only find one external source about the club here.

Article is also completely unsourced and has been since 2009. Elshad (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been largely unsourced since its inception, but that does not appear to be for want of extant sources. A search of the British Newspaper Archive turns up more than 100 articles, out of which a strong Wikipedia article could undoubtedly be built. As for the claim that "Hundreds of such clubs exist in the UK, and I cannot see why this one is particularly notable", the first sentence of the article appears to hold the answer: "the Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club is one of the oldest clubs belonging to the National Small-bore Rifle Association". Indeed, it appears to date to 1903. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Could have closed as N/C, but as Jfire points out (thank you!), the sourcing isn't there and we also have some verifiability concerns. Star Mississippi 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Aquarium

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish what makes it notable. Other language WPs exist but have similar issues with lack of sourcing and evidence of notability. Google check didn't come up with sufficient evidence of notability - I am aware though that I may be missing something as this is not an area of the world I am familiar with. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:ITSANAQUARIUM. Tourist attractions are usually listed in guidebooks and are generally considered notable. The citations from Egypt Today are a good example of the kind of coverage this sort of public attraction often gets. Toughpigs (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I don't think this is a good example for WP:ITSANAQUARIUM. The most extensive guidebook coverage I've been able to find is in a National Geographic guidebook, whose coverage consists of this sentence: Across the street is the Marine Aquarium, where the fish, sea turtles, and Nile crocodiles, housed in small and dirty glass tanks, are barely more alive. On TripAdvisor it's 31 of 69 things to do in Alexandria. So I don't believe the Egypt Today sources, which say things like the ultimate sea collection and one of the most important tourist attractions in the city, should be considered reliable on this subject. Note that Arabic wikipedia claims that the photo on the page is of a different museum. Jfire (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. North America1000 06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight (2014 film)

After Midnight (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While leaning keep at this stage, relisting to allow further review of the sources added during this debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see three usable reviews (two in the sources and one in the See Also) and a fair amount a routine coverage. That's sufficient for a film of this caliber. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Gokarna, Karnataka#Education as a viable ATD when multiple AfDs have not brought on participation or consensus. Star Mississippi 18:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrakali High School

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

WP:GNG Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Growth of photovoltaics. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of photovoltaic growth

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

This was apparently the "unnecessarily detailed statistics" version of Growth of photovoltaics until people stopped updating it ten years ago. All of the prose and analysis a reader would actually want to read already exists (in updated form) at that article. Wizmut (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Communist Party of Australia. Article was converted to a redirect as a normal editing action, making a full AfD unnecessary (although one may be warranted in the future if it is expanded back into an article or the redirecting is reverted). jp×g🗯️ 19:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Communist Party

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

No notability and relies almost entirely on primary sources. Very few secondary sources can be found online. AndreyKva (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Two votes for keep after nearly two weeks. (non-admin closure). TLA (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Media

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

Non-notable company fails WP:NCORP. CNBC source is mostly about the founder. Tubefilter source is a funding announcement, an interview, and a questionable RS at best. ~ A412 talk! 04:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tubefilter is a good source for YouTube-related content and has a significant usage in that area. The source is clear SIGCOV. CNBC source is mainly about the founder, but it also gives SIGCOV to Jubilee to an extent (after all, Jason is only known for funding Jubilee). There is also SIGCOV in Business Insider and NYT. Skyshiftertalk 05:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Tubefiller and CNBC sources each contribute to the subject meeting the WP:NCORP. NYT article is also usable for notability as well. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katsiaryna Shumak

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

No available SIGCOV to be found other than databases. Never won a medal nor scored a record. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Belarus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to improve it. I added a reference of her hometown and location, and I added an infobox showing her Belarusian Athletics Championships results (where she is a multiple-time medalist). Looking up her native name seems to show coverage in Russian language sources. --Habst (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you specify which sources? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And finding her hometown isn't something that could prove notability in itself. You need to be finding SIGCOV which describes that the subject has enduring significance to be on this encyclopedia. If you can't find coverage from significant independent sources (not databases) which describe her notability (and don't just mention her in passing), you should consider changing your opinion to Delete or Draftify. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found several non-database sources that discuss Shumak's results and added some to the article. I have discovered that Екатерина Шумак is actually the Russian name for Shumak, and not her native Belarusian name (that language uses different characters). So the sources that I found were in Russian discussing her, which is not where you would expect to find the most detailed coverage of someone not from that country. Do you know how we could request the assistance of a Belarusian Wikipedia user to get her Belarusian language name? --Habst (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brestcity source mentions her in passing. Same with bfla.eu source. And telegraf.news source. All three new sources mention her in passing. This is not SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for responding. I would not expect to find any coverage of her under that name, because my understanding is it is not in her native language. Do you know if there is a way to find her Belarusian name, or if you can assist in finding that? It is encouraging that there are at least mentions in so many sources under a name that I understand isn't even her primary one. --Habst (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy and paste the name – and do Control/Command F. That's what I did. And I only got one match each in all three sources that you found. Textbook passing mention, and not SIGCOV. Any other SIGCOV you can find? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for responding. As I understand, the name Екатерина Шумак isn't actually her native name, it is just the Russian version that I originally found at ru:Шумак, Екатерина Михайловна. I am reading that the Belarusian language has different characters than Russian, and the subject would have a different name in her native language. Limiting our search to only Russian-language articles and ruling out Belarusian-language would not be a complete search. But to do that, we need to find Shumak's Belarusian name, do you know how we can do that or if you can assist? --Habst (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think there are some problems with the Control-F approach, namely that it would not find mentions of only her last name or references to her by using pronouns like "her" (in the respective language). Not applying that to this case specifically, but I am just pointing out the caution we need to take with foreign language sources. --Habst (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do it by last name in those three sources, I didn't get additional hits. I have no idea how to get her name, and I cannot honor finding her by her name until we have it. I will treat it as a false claim. Even after google searches with the Cyrillic name, can't find any true SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV in either Russian or Belarusian Cyrillic. I searched "Кацярына Шумак", the spelling used by the BFLA (the governing sporting org), and didn't even get a full page of hits.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for finding that, it is very helpful. Based on that name, I found this other Wikipedia article which is about the same person, but the Wikidata item was erroneously not linked, so I fixed that and merged them. I found some more Belarusian sources using that name (some with the reverse order, it seems that sometimes surname-given name order is used in Russian/Belarusian), so now we do have a few solid sentences dedicated about the subject. --Habst (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a passing mention in a university press release and her name in a couple lists of competitors, not a single one of those is anywhere close to SIGCOV. Can you please refrain from alerting us to new sources unless they are actually substantial non-routine secondary independent coverage? 15,000 trivial mentions is still equivalent to 0 SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No WP:SIGCOV found for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. BLPs require more rigorous sourcing than is present here. Let'srun (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE found stats, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if ASIGCOV sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. North America1000 06:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kaley

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

Unable to find SIGCOV - potentially seems to be confused with an Arkansas athlete of the same name. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Canada. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; seems to be significant coverage in Canadian newspapers, from which it appears he studied microbiology at the University of Arkansas, so is the same person. wjematherplease leave a message... 05:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it motivates us to improve it. potentially seems to be confused with an Arkansas athlete of the same name -- I added an article source that confirms that Sean Kaley of Arkansas and Sean Kaley the Olympian are the same person, because it mentions his World XC results representing Canada. It is very common for athletes with dual citizenship (or sometimes foreign nationals) to go to university in America and compete in the NCAA system, but represent their native countries at the Olympics because it is easier to qualify for the Canadian team than the American team. With that association out of the way, there are many WP:GNG sources covering Kaley from his time at Arkansas, it seems like this AfD was created in error thinking that they are not the same person. --Habst (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Deming

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

Music critic/local musician with single minor acting credit; no significant, in depth coverage from secondary sources as an actor, music critic, or musician; fails WP:GNG. Rift (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you out there to just save a couple bits? his allmusic reviews are quoted/re-quoted regularly. 96.42.182.14 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For fans of indy, rock, alt, etc. he is a notable reviewer and critic. Joelrashflint (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, and Michigan.
    WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)    [reply]
  • The Susan Stark profile (multiple pages) appears to be SIGCOV. No? Cbl62 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. It's definitely a "local boy makes good" piece which, per WP:GNG, creates the assumption but not a guarantee of notability. Given that it's a minor acting credit (he was billed 36th), and there being a lack of secondary sources about any other aspect of his career, I'd say it's thin. Rift (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 05:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Joel Rodriguez

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania, Poland, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Short nomination statement here, but even if there are articles about the guy, the subject has not demonstrably done anything of note, failing WP:SPORTCRIT and rendering the coverage that may exist not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's decently curious to ask how a Hispanic American wound up playing football in Albania at age 23, but his whole recorded career is under a minute. (see only source) Looks like this page was made to scrape the last atom of the barrel of WP:NFOOTY, it's hard to imagine a tighter pass over its threshold. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a source from the LA Times which explains that question nobody else was asking, but again it's just routine transfer coverage. [35] Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently the people of Albania care enough about him to want to know about his girlfriend (NSFW, arse shot) [36] but that's not notable in our books. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Comprehensive WP:GNG failure. Jogurney (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - right now this is just sport stat catalogue entry with no indication of subject's existence outside them (no media coverage, etc.). Wikidata entry will suffice for now (WP:TOOSOON?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting career but doesn't seem notable enough Marcelus (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. North America1000 05:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Jassal

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

Fails GNG and not passes NPOL as unsuccessful candidate. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 03:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NPOL. For GNG, only the BBC article really focuses on Samir at any depth, so I wouldn't call the coverage significant. YordleSquire (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Passing mentions. BBC is barely WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 17:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry S. Wingate

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

No extensive coverage of Wingate and being CEO of International Nickel Company does not meanWP:INHERIT. A before search yield significant primary sources/correspondences regarding the company but not about him ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific analysis of the depth to which sources cover this person may be helpful in reaching a consensus as to his notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Acknowledging that it does not mean WP:INHERIT, NYT obituary is nice. There are partial notability supplements. Being on the cover of Forbes definitely meets something, and Harvard Business School regards Wingate as a top leader in the 20th century. Additionally, aren't the requirements for deceased people slightly looser than living people? TLA (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The Harvard Business School entry seems like a usable source, and the 1967 Forbes cover feature almost certainly has SIGCOV in the actual article even if we can't access it at this moment. It seems quite likely that further offline sources exist given that the subject died in 1982. signed, Rosguill talk 14:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staten Island Economic Development Corporation

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

One reference to their own website. Seems to have a lot of mentions in articles, but none go into detail. Don't know what their relation is with New York City Economic Development Corporation, if any. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Lots of local coverage at silive.com, and some regional/national coverage of their projects (which I think is the crux of their notability -- the Skyway, tram, and other big infrastructural/redevelopment projects seem to get attention). It's not a slam dunk, though, and the water is muddied with a lot of local promotional events ("nominate an important local businessperson!" type stuff), but there's likely enough to squeak by GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to be much in depth coverage about the organization itself and as such the subject fails WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems to have sufficient sources, though there is room for improvement. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to The Great Pottery Throw Down. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 5)

The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. No indication this particular season was notable, and no clear sourcing found. Star Mississippi 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or as WP:ATD, Merge with main article The Great Pottery Throw Down. Here are some reviews of the fifth season: [37] [38] [39]. Deleting the content would result in a loss of valuable material for the main page, which would have no information related to season 5. --Broc (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a properly sourced summary into the main The Great Pottery Throw Down, season does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  17:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar power in Azerbaijan

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

There is only one solar plant of note in Azerbaijan per RS[40]. An entire article devoted to "solar power in Azerbaijan" gives outsized importance to the subject and may mislead readers that this petrostate is a major producer of renewable energy. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Renewable energy in Azerbaijan. Thenightaway (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Economics, Environment, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable subject, author likely a COI SPA, part of a massive flooding of recent Azerbaijan related articles, most now in AfD. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Turkishturan Can you tell us whether you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest please. If you do not have a COI do you think this article should be kept and if so why? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Actually, there are several solar power plants in Azerbaijan right now, for example in Pirallahi. The names of the solar plants are true and can be tranfered to "Renewable energy in Azerbaijan" article. But the subject itself fails WP:GNG and almost the entire article is about "solar radiation in Azerbaijan". --Surə 🗯 18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have excerpted to that article Chidgk1 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand your point but if we delete it now we will only have to recreate it again in a couple of years time. I have no conflict of interest and am willing to improve the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenightaway If you nominate articles for deletion often please consider using Wikipedia:Twinkle as that should automatically notify the creator of the article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I both agree that it's doomed to be a stub for a while until Azerbaijan does more with solar, but it's also likely that they will eventually. Although I would guess ten years and not two years. Keeping or deleting depends on if preemptive creates like these are setting a good example or a bad example.
Wizmut (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Sandstein 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Middleweight

Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Middleweight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic does not meet standalone notability. It would be better to delete it per WP:NOT or to merge it to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics as an alternative to deletion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment, at least. There is a long-standing consensus from years back (around 18 years, to be exact, when this was created) that having all the results simply make the main Olympics page too long and thus an editorial decision was made to split them all into individual event articles. These have been regarded as acceptable for the past 18 years and every event in Olympic history has one; a wider discussion should take place to determine whether these are inappropriate, rather than a single AFD which I honestly don't think would be a sufficient consensus level to overturn such a long-standing and wide-spread practice. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question unrelated. If the consensus is changed how do people perform such rearrangement cleanly बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the consensus has changed to that these thousands (tens of thousands?) of event articles are inappropriate, well, then we'd have quite the cleanup project on our hands... Now, before we try to bulldoze through these I think that first, a wider discussion should be held (maybe at some part of the village pump or WT:SPORTS?) as to (1) whether they're appropriate and (2) what to do if they're not appropriate. Merging to a main event article would probably be best if these splits are deemed inappropriate; however, this has not been determined yet, hence my "keep" !vote. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, United States of America, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without prejudice for other pages similar to it, simply because it's the only sensible thing to do. Add a fifth column at Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, detailing the competition in prose. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics: Don't agree that this should be procedurally kept, and never agree with the constant WP:OSE arguments from BF11. As it stands, this subject does not meet the GNG on its own and as such is better covered as part of the article about the boxing competitions at these games. User:Let'srun 14:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per BeanieFan11. As much as it may seem unremarkable from today's perspective, it is an Olympic event from the beginning of the 20th century. The context for the time and relevance must be considered in this case. Svartner (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Svartner: I proposed a merge and no context or information is lost through a merge. It's not that it is unremarkable either, it's just that there was no competition leading up to the gold/silver medal match. From Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, the events are linked as "Details", but there are no details here that couldn't fit into the table at Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, either with a fifth column or an extra row. Geschichte (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand better, if it's not going to change the basis of the information, I endorse it for merge. Svartner (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge given the small amount of content and limited sources (I didn't find anything better than the one cited in the article in a quick search) a merge makes sense. May not be needed for other years with more bouts or easier to find coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. North America1000 05:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brown (lecturer)

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

It's difficult to check because there appear to be several financial advisors named Peter Brown, but this one doesn't appear to be sourced well enough for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:PROMO, Peter Brown is not a "lecturer". He's one of the Baggot Investment Partners. Some of the sources are dead, but one is a podcast and the rest are financial advice from Peter Brown. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not sufficiently notable. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A few sources are reliable, but not WP:SIGCOV. Others are a profile/self-published. Overall just Peter Brown talking about stuff. TLA (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Traub

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

Article fails WP:ANYBIO. Subject has not work a well know of significant award. Has not make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the historical record. Article reads a bit like a WP:RESUME. Did WP:BEFORE, was unable to find other sources that would have made this person notable. Checked Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and the Newspaper archives. There is content for some of the things that he did but nothing that would rise to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation to delete the article appears rash; perhaps the page was analyzed before citations were added. There were hundreds of articles and several books that mentioned Doug Traub over the past few decades; most of them are no longer online, however, especially as most major newspapers and magazines now archive stories and make them only available to subscribers. Regardless, several articles from significant news sources like the Associated Press are now cited and archived in the article, and dozens of stories are still online (The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc.) that have not been cited. Please take another look. FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrequentTraveler100 Sure no problem just point out which references address any of these points WP:ANYBIO. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hitting the sack in a bit, but let me address your issues now before I turn in by pointing out three areas where the Doug Traub article meets the Wikipedia Notability criteria:
Any biography: Doug Traub made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record - the Surf City USA trademark and the attendant publicity are recognised as part of the historical record in California Tourism (the Surf City USA page itself is within the scope of the WikiProject California project) and trademark branding (the Surf City USA trademark is within the scope of the WikiProject Law).
Creative professionals: The person's work has become a significant monument - the Fayetteville History Museum within the restored Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley railway depot that Doug Traub led the charge to rehabilitate after remaining vacant and dilapidated for more than 50 years meets this criteria.
Politicians and judges: Doug Traub is a local political figure who received significant press coverage. This final criteria alone should be more than sufficient to meet the Wikipedia notability criteria.
Thanks for pointing out your issues with this article and providing me with an opportunity to respond to your concerns. Good night! FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Tampa Bay Times is essentially a newspaper of record. Decent local coverage too. I think this meets notability. TLA (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but one source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, numerous new additional sources have been added for this page, including The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, NBC News/Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal. I am currently making a substantial revision to the Surf City USA page where Traub is also cited which includes links to stories all over the world, including a front page story on the Wall Street Journal. Please do not be too hasty to pull the trigger on this page. I hope to return to it before the end of the week and bolster the citations quite a bit more. Thank you. FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Puffy stories used for this marketing person, not seeing any about his specifically. He does stuff related to travel, but nothing we'd use for article sourcing here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 05:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pfaudler

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

Fails WP:NBIO WP:NCORP. Sources both in the article and from what I could find are routine business operations that would not confer notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the text in WP: BIO.
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
The article being objected to is not a biography so the objection is irrelevant. PMChefalo (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't completely thinking when I mistakenly typed NBIO instead of NCORP. Non-notability still stands. Longhornsg (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources consist primarily of press releases / (routine coverage?). TLA (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. North America1000 05:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Johnston

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC. In hopes of meeting WP:NAUTHOR, I searched multiple sites for book reviews (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Library Journal) but didn't find anything. I also Googled her and her books, and although I could find some sources, none are reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage. Most sources, including those cited on the page, are interviews (see also 1 and 2). Ping me if you can find something. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ARM Cortex-M development tools

List of ARM Cortex-M development tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncertainty propagation software, this list similarly violates WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content from ARM Cortex-M article was move to this new "List of ARM Cortex-M development tools" article on July 18, 2013 to allow growing room and shorten the original article, per edit comments.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not sure about the possibility of a merge. Azuredivay (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTCATALOGUE. No merge. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - stop this sillyness about a list article shouldn't be a list. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; web development is not the only type of software engineering, and plenty of people discuss the topic of developing for microcontrollers. jp×g🗯️ 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you linked is a very brief, high-level overview of the ARM architecture. The page up for deletion is a laundry list of any old piece of software or hardware that's geared toward development on one specific family of ARM processors. I fail to see how that's relevant here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's spend thirty seconds on Google Scholar, specifically looking for sources that cover development tools, specifically, for ARM Cortex-M processors, and see what we can find for just one search on the front page.
    General resources (tools, etc):
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 25.
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 12.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 607-632.
    Lucan Orășan, Ioan; Seiculescu, Ciprian; Căleanu, Cătălin Daniel (January 10, 2022). "A Brief Review of Deep Neural Network Implementations for ARM Cortex-M Processor". Electronics. 11 (16): 2545. doi:10.3390/electronics11162545.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 58.
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 499-519.
    ARM toolchains, flows:
    Ovidiu Vermesan; Mario Diaz Nava (May 2023). Embedded Artificial Intelligence: Devices, Embedded Systems, and Industrial Applications. p. 80-85.
    Lai, Liangzhen; Suda, Naveen; Chandra, Vikas (January 19, 2018). "CMSIS-NN: Efficient Neural Network Kernels for Arm Cortex-M CPUs". arXiv:1801.06601 [cs.NE].
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 652.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 85.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 329-404.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 409-422.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 459.
    IDEs, debuggers:
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 69.
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 263-312.
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 518.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 387.
    RTOS:
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 605.
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 355-395.
    Compilers, development suites etc:
    Ovidiu Vermesan; Mario Diaz Nava (May 2023). Embedded Artificial Intelligence: Devices, Embedded Systems, and Industrial Applications. p. 80-85.
    Lai, Liangzhen; Suda, Naveen; Chandra, Vikas (January 19, 2018). "CMSIS-NN: Efficient Neural Network Kernels for Arm Cortex-M CPUs". arXiv:1801.06601 [cs.NE].
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 561-582.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 392.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 427-454.
    jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any of that really helps though. As I said below, this page is merely a laundry list of pieces of software and hardware, the vast majority of which is primary-sourced to websites about said software or hardware. Taking the various Definitive Guide books in your search results above, these necessarily use some of these as tools to guide the reader through, but it's not the focus. Per WP:NLIST, "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." And I don't think you're going to find anything like that. Even on the off-chance you can find someone somewhere that does, it's still not really enough; this list very much falls into the spirit of what WP:NOT is all about. As is, the list is a giant pile of WP:OR, as editors are the ones who must do the research to find these things. All together, this is a really strong case for deletion I think. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not make sense. If sources exist for List of IDEs and debuggers for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also List of toolchains and development workflows for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also Real-time operating system development for ARM Cortex-M processors, all of which are subtopics of this article, then these must necessarily be viable sources for a combined article covering all of the constituent subjects.
    This is the kind of musical-chairs reasoning that results in the wholesale deletion of giant swaths of content: people will say to "split articles out because of size concerns" or "merge all articles into one because the coverage on each is scant", creating list and overview articles with a disjunct scope, then a few years later people will say "delete because none of the sources cover the specific overall topic as notable".
    If this article has a disjunct scope, it can be moved to a better title, but no, it should not be deleted, and specifically there is no basis to conclude that the topic of development for these processors is not a notable subject. jp×g🗯️ 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But sources don't exist for your red-linked lists, so I'm not sure how that helps either. It's not a notable topic, because Wikipedia does not collect lists of names of products, nor is it a link farm, nor is it a guidebook, nor a vehicle for original research, nor is it anything that this list would fall under. This sort of list dreck is routinely deleted, as it should be. There's zero encyclopedic content in here, and it should be excised, not split, not merged, but deleted. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so to recap, my argument consists of providing 24 specific citations with page numbers to five different sources, and your argument consists of saying that "there are no sources"? Am I missing something? jp×g🗯️ 13:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't find any reasonable sources for this topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Features of the Marvel Universe. Consensus appears that the article fails GNG but the info can be included in Features of the Marvel Universe. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 00:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden races

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with a lack of any reliable secondary sources whatsoever. This sort of content is a better fit for FANDOM than Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 05:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidullah (Guantanamo Bay detainee 1119)

Hamidullah (Guantanamo Bay detainee 1119) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Fails WP:GNG. Being a one-time Guantanamo detainee does not confer notability, and there's no WP:SIGCOV to support WP:NBIO. The entire article is WP:DIRECTORY of the administrativa associated with the subject's case. Longhornsg (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Looking through the pile of unsourced material, WP:PRIMARY-sourced material, and WP:OR that make up this article, it's hard to find any there there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A large chunk of the article is intelligence reports about the person/interviews of the suspect... Nothing else we'd use, as this is all primary sourcing. No charges were laid and the person appears to have faded away. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_January_8&oldid=1194327588"