Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 01 July 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Blondeau

[edit]
Antoine Blondeau (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 about a businessman that does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Funding round sources, subject only being mentioned in passing. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://sifted.eu/articles/what-is-generative-ai Yes Yes No Only a passing mention. ✘ No
https://sifted.eu/articles/alpha-intelligence-capital-ai-fund-news Yes Yes No Only a passing mention. ✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/antoineblondeau?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F No Clearly not independent. No Generally unreliable source. ~ Partial significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.malaymail.com/news/tech-gadgets/2017/08/19/ai-revolution-will-be-all-about-humans-says-siri-trailblazer/1445991 Yes Yes ~ ~ Partial
https://www.huntonak.com/files/webupload/Lancer_Zi-Corp_notarized-exhibit_Steinberg_affidavit_9.8.05.pdf No Yes ~ ✘ No
http://www.adam.cheyer.com/Dejima%20Inc_%20-%20Press%20Releases%20-%20January%2031,%202002.htm Yes Yes No Passing mention. ✘ No
https://www.thetilt.com/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2017/09/24/antoine-blondeau-sentient-technologies-ai-for-the-unknown-unknowns/?sh=dccb5a73bfa5 No Forbes articles written by contributors may not be independent. No Forbes articles written by contributors may not be reliable. Yes ✘ No
https://theorg.com/org/crypto-com/org-chart/antoine-blondeau ? ~ No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141124151542/http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/11/24/artificial-intelligence-company-sentient-emerges-from-stealth/ Yes Yes ~ ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crispín Sosa Tapia

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, possible hoax here and on es.wiki. Put bluntly, none of the sources are reliable. The best available coverage comes from a amateurish student paper [1], with additional sources including a provenance-free document uploaded to a file-sharing website ([2]), a blog that isn't even a complete website ([3]), an empty search result [4], and, on es.wiki, the lyrics of some folk songs. I was unable to find additional coverage online, having searched the general internet, Google Books, Google Scholar, and my local university library's collection. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Mexico. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is information about this article in the general internet, there is also in writings that are not on the net, this case was in the media at the time the information is more concentrated in the newspaper library of the state of Puebla, of this Mexican character Crispin Sosa Buu119 (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, please provide citations to and excerpts from the offline texts in question. There’s no issue with offline sources. signed, Rosguill talk 06:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Toxqui, Alfredo (1991). Biographical dictionary of people from Puebla ("Cosmos" Editorial Press, edition). Mexico.
    Porrúa Dictionary. History, Biography and Geography of Mexico, Editorial Porrúa, S.A., Mexico, 1986, Fifth corrected and increased edition (six volumes), pp. 1911-1925 volume II, entry "Outlaws of the Mixteca Poblana"
    Bautista, Gonzalo/ Sosa Tapia Crispín. Brief Notes for the History of the political state in Puebla. Government of the State of Puebla. Editorial algaba july 2002.
    In these quotes the life of this character is mentioned, it is clarified by the situation of his events at the time the government suppressed information in some way at the time. As of today, you can see more about his life and his legacy, even if according to English Wikipedia The guidelines do not apply, his biography is fine, perhaps later, thank you for taking the time and clarifying this article, good day everyone. Buu119 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please provide the actual, Spanish titles? I'm trying to find these books in Worldcat to verify that they actually exist. Porrúa Dictionary seems plausible (here's the Google Books entry, although it does not allow for a preview), but I am unable to find any record of a book by Alfredo Toxqui in 1991 or Bautista Gonzalo in 2002. I've gone ahead and requested a digital copy of the Porrua text available from my local library and am hoping that I will receive it shortly--if there are any issues with this library request I should be able to retrieve the physical copy in a week once I return from my travels.signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I was not able to get a digital copy due to the poor condition of the physical materials. Hopefully I will still be able to access the book in person. signed, Rosguill talk 05:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A link to a blog is an article about a "Arnulfo Chávez", not a "Crispín Sosa Tapia". I think I've seen another article like this one, with a similar story about a good bandit that was killed in Mexico, but I think it was deleted via speedy deltion and I don't recall the article title. But this article is very familiar. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For whatever reason, the es.wiki article on Tapia uses one of the purported nicknames, El Güilo Sosa, as a title, in case that jogs your memory. signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That blog that talks about Arnulfo Chavez, actually refers to Crispin Sosa, even reading well at the end of the text, reference is made to him even in the comments that mention and correct. 2806:262:496:108:D949:8D5B:A724:FCC1 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history of articles about this person on Wikimedia projects is murky:
The Spanish Wikipedia sources are all unreliable except es:El Sol de Puebla. It is a newspaper in Mexico's fourth largest city, Puebla. It's used as a reference for 16 articles on the Spanish Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the link in our article goes to a useless search page turning up 272,000 various pages.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly draftify per Skynxnex pending a verdict on the purported print publications. There is too much funny business going on here to even consider giving this the benefit of the doubt -- and doubt is about all we have here, which wouldn't be enough to support an article in any case. As a note, the El Sol de Puebla search appears to default to Boolean OR between searchterms, but also supports exact phrases. However, none of the relevant exact phrases I tried ("el guilo", "sosa tapia", "Crispín Sosa") yielded any results at all. Likewise the 5th edition of the Diccionario Porrúa de historia (but perhaps not the increased edition?) is available for search-only access via Hathi Trust, but I'm not able to pull up any exact-phrase matches from any of the three volumes available there. At this point I'd call this a WP:V deletion, not even getting to notability. -- Visviva (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Spartaz Humbug! 02:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicana/Latina Foundation

[edit]
Chicana/Latina Foundation (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)

An article relying only on self-organization's sources without any significant coverage on third-party sources, after my search for additional sources WP:BEFORE. It may be a product of WP:IPR. Chiserc (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to found sources that meet WP: GNG and the article can be expanded in the future. Added Stub tag Justwatchmee (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or I'm weakly inclined toward a merge to Olga Talamante. There's been some solid work done on the article in the last few days. But review of the sources added (and such others as I can find) only illuminates that most of the coverage of the foundation comes from sources that are either about or by Talamante. That makes it hard to write a good article about the foundation itself. -- Visviva (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: modified my not-a-vote to clarify that keeping also seems fine to me, as I think this meets the GNG, although I remain somewhat on the mergeist side here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider extensive work done since the nomination and the possibility of a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments on the newer sourcing would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Olga Talamante. The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:GNG because of the lack of significant coverage in sources currently given in the article. Additionally, almost all sources I can access are related to Ogla Talamante, overviews of the foundation, or scholarship information, which can't be considered as significant coverage of the foundation itself. I can't open some websites and I can't access information in the books, but these inaccessible websites may count towards GNG. However, a merge to the article Olga Talamante may be helpful because many sources in this article is directly related to the person, not the foundation. Please notify me if any more sources are found, since this article is a few steps away from meeting GNG. (Sorry if my edits flood your watchlist.) The person who loves reading (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really good analysis here, thank you! Chiserc (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both The Mercury News and Santa Cruz Sentinel articles load in more than one browser here. Can't say why it wouldn't load for others as they are both pretty mainstream papers. Also, the book published by UT has pretty good coverage. Anywho, just passing it along. Cheers. Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 01:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For The Mercury News, it shows "THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS" and tells me to pay money to read. For Santa Cruz Sentinel, it shows "Please, provide an email to continue reading free articles and also receive our daily email newsletter with the latest headlines." I can't read these websites because of these messages. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Mercury News Wikipedia page, there's a sentence saying that The Mercury News operates a paywalled website, which is located at mercurynews.com, sjmercury.com, or sjmn.com. Its SiliconValley.com website focuses on the technology industry in Silicon Valley. Although I may be able to open the website Santa Cruz Sentinel, it requires an email and I don't want to provide it and receive irrelevant emails. I feel that this foundation may or may not meet WP:GNG because of sources which I can't open, but a merge with Olga Talamante would be the best option for now. If more reliable, secondary, independent sources with partial of significant coverage come up in the future, this page may be converted to an article again. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd, I've never subscribed to either paper and can read the articles. Thanks for the tech details you're seeing. My view on the AfD remains unchanged. Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 02:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/chicana-latina-foundation,942923423/#personnel Yes Yes No No significant coverage found. Only provide basic information of the foundation. ✘ No
https://peninsula360press.com/en_us/20-years-of-the-foundation-of-the-family-spanish/ Yes Yes No Only a passing mention. ✘ No
https://www.maldef.org/resources/scholarship-resource-guide-2021-2022/ Yes Yes No Only a passing mention about the scholarship. ✘ No
https://missionlocal.org/event/galeria-de-la-raza-chicana-latina-foundation-scholarship-application-workshop/ Yes Yes No May contain partial coverage. ✘ No
https://diversity.berkeley.edu/news/student-parent-and-sage-scholar-receives-chicana-latina-foundation-scholarship Yes Yes ~ Related, but does not provide many details. ~ Partial
Andrea O'Reilly (2014). Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood Across Cultural Differences - A Reader. ? ? ? Not a website, but may contain useful information. ? Unknown
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/10/12/digital-connections-for-low-income-latinos/ ? ? ? Unable to open the website. ? Unknown
https://www.cetfund.org/grantee/chicana-latina-foundation/ Yes Yes No Only an overview of the foundation. ✘ No
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/02/12/name-dropping-senderos-earns-trailblazer-award/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170219035203/http://chicanalatina.org/about/history.html No Yes Yes ✘ No
Dionne Espinoza, María Eugenia Cotera, Maylei Blackwell (2018). Chicana Movidas New Narratives of Activism and Feminism in the Movement Era ? ? ? May have some useful information. ? Unknown
https://www.sfweekly.com/archives/woman-of-the-people/article_698ba47a-8a28-5894-adef-9b216b026cf7.html Yes Yes ~ Primarily related to the executive director of the foundation, not the foundation itself. ~ Partial
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/03/25/latino-role-models-conference-draws-hundreds-to-cabrillo-college/ ? ? ? May contain useful information. Cannot open the website. ? Unknown
https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/11/07/cepeda-latinos-giving-people/75318472/ Yes Yes No Maybe partial coverage, but primarily related to San Francisco-based Latino Community Foundation. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 the last source is an interview then it won't count to notability on independence grounds. Very clear consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 02:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Tehrani

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mehdi Tehrani (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. The creator has COI and got banned in Persian Wikipedia for this. And they created the article in 19(!) languages. Deleted in Persian Wikipedia. Many references don't actually mention him and most of them are not reliable. Already soft deleted where the creator contested and got it back right after deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehdi Tehrani) Ladsgroupoverleg 22:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example: Out of 15 of references mentioned, ten of them are Hamshari Online where he works in. That's not an independent source. Ladsgroupoverleg 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or the fact that "Ethics and weapons of mass destruction : religious and secular perspectives. Cambridge University Press." is mentioned as a reference but I got the e-book and searching his name doesn't return any results. In which page this is written? This is a WP:FAKE violation and I'm fairly certain the Hebrew source will be similar too Ladsgroupoverleg 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulhadi Khalaf (footballer)

[edit]
Abdulhadi Khalaf (footballer) (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)

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any sportsperson to have their own article. The best that I can find in Syrian source searches are Syrian Days, which has a passing mention of his own goal, Shahba News mentions him in a list of footballers, and Thawra, which mentions him only once. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Ann Burne

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent sources found. Kleuske (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, I'm amenable to restoration to that namespace or User space. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List countries by Bengali speakers

[edit]
List countries by Bengali speakers (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:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH (WP:CIRC). Created 4 days ago, apparently from arbitrarily WP:copying within Wikipedia without mentioning sources. Article states: Some numbers have been calculated by Wikipedia editors by mixing data from different sources; figures not attributed to sources and given with a date should be treated with caution. In most sources, the results shown are of people who say that they can speak Bengali, while that was not verified; which means the actual number of Bengali speakers could be higher or lower. This means the creator has not taken up the basic WP:BURDEN of providing WP:RS and Wikipedia:Attribution, and expects other people to fix the problems he caused. This is in line with a common pattern of disregarding policies and guidelines by creator User:Marxist Economist ever since he began editing Wikipedia 2 months ago, and has been repeatedly warned about from day 1, but seems to ignore. As this is a theoretically potentially legitimate topic, I say we WP:TNT this, and wait for someone else to start over properly. (I would recommend a standardised article title like Geographical distribution of Bengali speakers per established convention in such a case). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Mccapra (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article needs fixing, but there is no need to start over. This article is not nearly bad enough to be deleted per WP:TNT. It is OR to some extent as it copies from other Wikipedia pages, but someone can update the page with references and fix any grammatical errors without much difficulty. WP:TNTTNT explains my reasoning well. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is calling for violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract with contributors, that they are credited with their contributions by the page history of an article. That is exactly what the creator of this article has done by explicitly admitting he does not attribute any figures to any sources whatsoever, plus copying within Wikipedia from other contributors without giving credit where it is due. If this "fundamental contract with contributors" is regarded as significant, then the first thing we should do is delete this copyvio and punish the creator for his violation of the contract. As noted (and can be seen on his talk page since day 1), this is not the first time he is violating many of the Wikipedia community's rules. As for what is here, it is so small with such a short history that it's not even worth saving. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, looking over WP:TNT more closely, I'm not opposed to a deletion either. This article plainly falls under the TNT argument mentioned there: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. I'd like something along the lines of ANI to address the root cause, though. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No opposition to draftification. I'm not sure there's a strict copyvio issue here, as the bare numbers in the table seem highly unlikely to be eligible for copyright; but there really doesn't seem to be anything salvageable here, just a small pile of unverified and possibly unverifiable numbers. It's not even clear if the list description's reference to "Wikipedia editors" refers to the editor(s) of this page or other pages. But either way that just isn't an acceptable way to source information. -- Visviva (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Wilcox train robbery. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox, Wyoming

[edit]
Wilcox, Wyoming (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 Old West's Infamous Train Robbers And Their Historic Heists describes Wilcox in 1899 as "little more than a trackside station and water stop manned by one or two railroad employees" and I could find no evidence that it was ever anything more than this. Newspaper and book coverage focuses almost entirely on a nearby train robbery and various railroad-related incidents that took place nearby, simply using Wilcox as a reference location. –dlthewave ☎ 17:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Spartaz Humbug! 02:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins, Arkansas

[edit]
Perkins, Arkansas (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 railroad siding. –dlthewave ☎ 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete In spite of all the verbiage about the rail line in another article, aerials reveal that the line wasn't built until the Certainteed factory was built. We have thorough coverage after than to show that this is only the north end of a long siding. Mangoe (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google Earth shows a railroad crossing. The Certainteed factory is nearby. No evidence of a community within several miles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion, deletion contested on article talk page so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd Leave it Be - While it is not an earthshaking question whether Perkins does or does not have a Wikipedia page, I see no reason to delete it. The article is accurate and documented, and the settlement appears on maps of general applicability like Google Maps. I’m sure it’s important to the people who live there, and It is certainly an important locale to the railroads since the websites for both Union Pacific (see Reference 3) and the DeQueen and Eastern (see https://patriotrail.com/rail/dequeen-and-eastern-railroad-dqe/ ) specifically reference it. And, while someone seems to have been cranked up to discuss Umpire, Arkansas on its Wikipedia page, most unincorporated communities in Howard County have even less going for them (see Corinth, Midway, Mineola, Okay, or Schaal). That’s just a function of rural Arkansas; I don’t think we want to delete Howard County because it’s boring. And, I suppose that, to the extent someone sees the place on a map and wonders about it, the fact that there is a Wikipedia page but such page does NOT show Perkins as a more interesting locale may by itself answer the question of whether this is a hidden gem worth investigating. Absent a good reason to get rid of the page, I’d leave it be. TulGuy (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Moved from Talk:Perkins, Arkansas –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
@TulGuy:, what is it that makes you say this is a settlement, or that anyone lives (or did live) there? Right now all we know is that it's the location of a railroad connection, and there's no significant coverage to establish notability. Unfortunately your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT which isn't a valid reason to maintain an article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Visviva's work above. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, and I might be missing something here, but just for the record I should note that that is the opposite of the point I thought I was making (namely that delete-and-redirect would be improper here). -- Visviva (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages

[edit]
Armenia in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (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 been draftified on two occasions, initially for a lack of any sourcing. After its most recent draftification, it was moved back to the draft space by Joe Roe citing WP:DRAFTOBJECT. While DRAFTOBJECT is not a policy or guideline, this discussion is likely a more productive solution.

The article is most likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet work with neutrality issues. The article here is largely without references, and the two given are cited in an unusual way. The first, an article on the genetic composition in Armenia during this period, is solely used to support a passage on statuary. This academic reference, despite being three years old, appears to have never been referenced by any other academic literature, raising doubts as to its reliability independent of its likely erroneous use here. The second is not used to verify any content in the article, but does indicate the nature of this article: it is a book produced by the Armenia government and disseminated internationally for audiences to discover certain layers of the Armenian history and culture–raising doubts regarding its neutrality. The article itself is otherwise completely unreferenced.

As to the question of sock/meatpuppetry: this article was created by Antonio Skywalker who first created it on 20 June in the mainspace. Previously, the same editor made their first edit on 3 June–creating their sandbox with the contents of Draft:Armenia in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. Antonio Skywalker did not create that Neolithic draft, but Օֆելյա Հակոբյան did, also on 20 June. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան had previously edited edited Antonio Skywalker's sandbox on 15 June, prior to the latter making any mainspace contributions. The same day what is now the Neolithic and Bronze Age drafts were created in the mainspace by both editors, Օֆելյա Հակոբյան created Armenia in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods, Draft:Armenia in the Middle Bronze Age, and Draft:Armenia in the Early Bronze Age. Each of these articles similarly uses the government book as a source and are otherwise largely unreferenced.

In short, this appears to be a sock or meat operation to publish unreferenced articles on large swathes of history regarding one of the most heavily disputed subject matters. Until sourcing can be added, all of the mainspace articles mentioned should be moved into the draftspace. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These historical ages are covered on the article for Armenia. If there is more to be added it should be added there. This reads like a student essay and meets none of the requirements of an encyclopedia article. Lamona (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source cited inline does not support the claim referencing it. The general reference published under government auspices, while it probably does have neutrality issues, this article uses it mostly to discuss archaeology, and the only truly contentious thing that pops out at a non-expert like me is the stuff about ethnic groups in the lead. I feel this reads more like popular literature than a student essay. Student essays cite sources, right? I don't think we have much of a reason to mistrust the government published popular work for its coverage of archaeological topics, but the way the random citation to a genetic study was thrown haphazardly into the middle of an unrelated paragraph makes me mistrust the article author. Folly Mox (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are existing articles Prehistoric_Armenia and Urartu for this topic. Perhaps it would be best if those articles were enhanced by material in this one. (However, I do not think the article should be deleted for the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry alleged by the OP: if the article is kept, it should be marked as requiring citations. And if there is contentious material, the text can be made to reflect that. )Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GanttProject

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
GanttProject (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 kept in 2009 after numerous previous deletions, but it has never attracted a single non-trivial independent source. Everything I can find is either affiliated, a download site, or a directory. There are a handful of mentions in dead-tree books, but nothing substantive in any that I can access. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is about the best I could find [6], from what appears to be a pay to play website. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish immigration into Syria

[edit]
Kurdish immigration into Syria (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 contains repeated information from Kurds in Syria article. It also lacks some impartiality, as emigrations to Syria after World War I consisted of Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds and other ethnic groups due to various conflicts, and were not intended for Kurds or a specific people. Sulaimanl (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is well-sourced and seems to be an SPA target of the nom as they're bludgeoning the talk page trying to picture the topic as merely an opinion (and odd editing on Kurd Mountain) and attempted an A10 speedy. Nate • (chatter) 21:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @MrSchimpf: what I mean is that the article is mentioning information and ignoring others because as I said the emigrations after the First World War to Jazira were not consisted by only Kurds so that we call them “Kurdish immigration” because De Vaumas Étienne mentioned Assyrians, Arabs, Kurds and others , he also said in p. 10 of his book La Djezireh syrienne et son réveil économique « Most of them are Sunnis but there are also among them Christians, Jacobites and of the Armenian rite, as well as Yazidis included in the group of Havergans with whom they united in the revolt and in the exodus… Jazira welcomed Christians of all sects and from various origins, from Turkey and Iraq for the most part. From eight to nine thousand Assyro-Chaldeans, Nestorians and Chaldean Catholics from the regions of Mosul and Baghdad, were settled, under the control of the League of Nations, on the banks of the Khabur. ». This is why I have proposed to create an article that talks about Immigration to Syria in general or merge those information with Kurds in Syria article because it’s repeated information first and used in a not neutral way second. I don’t see what do you mean by “bludgeoning the talk page” or what odd editing on Kurd Mountain have to do with this but anyways I am active in the Arabic Wikipedia not a SPA if you look at my contributions there, you’ll see they are on diverse and peaceful topics. I read the article by accident and the way it’s written caught my attention because it is strange to create an article about the "immigration" of a group while ignoring other groups in emigrations that included them all, and it is difficult to believe the innocent motives behind its creation. However, If the title of the article had been Migrations into Syria and mention every details on it, it would have been neutral at least. I’m not calling for vandalism, on the contrary I support any suggestion that contributes to the development of the topic so that it does not become a POV. Sulaimanl (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, and Syria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not an expert on this subject but my inspection of the article and its sources suggest it is well-sourced and reasonably well-written and should be of general interest. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeirdNAnnoyed: Thank you for your participation and sorry I have modified my comment and didn’t saw yours. I agree with you to keep the content but either merge articles or create a general article about immigration into Syria, so that we do not link population jumps to the displaced Kurds only while other ethnic groups were displaced too into Jazira with large numbers. Sulaimanl (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI also believe the article could be an interesting one. Bu on the 'well sourced' issue...At least the tables give limited info on the topic into Syria. One is only for the Hasakah Governorate in 1939, and the other one on several years also only on the Al Jazirah Governorate, and then also not specifically relating to Kurds but for in general. I'll go after some of the other sources to double check before making a keep vote.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A group of POV-pushing users have been trying to hide this part of the history of this region of Syria, and would remove any sourced material from reliable sources that goes against their POV. The same behavior can be witnessed in other similar articles such as Arab Belt and Syrian Kurdistan. Thank you. New Aramean (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I cant see the merits of this nomination. If the nominator wants to expand on the Armenian migration to Syria, he is free to create an article for it. As for the tables: Jazira is part of Syria, and part of the Kurdish inhabited regions in Syria that received the migration. The only argument against them is that they should be contextualised if they are not already are, but deleting them is too far.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Attar-Aram syria: I have nothing against the content, I nominated the article for deletion because it contains repeated information in addition to some general information. In the case of detailing the topic, I think we can create an article about Migration into Syria in general so that we do not try to link migration and emigration into Jazira and population jumps to a specific people. The cited sources mention many other details about the migrations of other people to the Jazira region and the topic is not limited to that. Sulaimanl (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes @Attar-Aram syria, context is needed and maybe you can help as you know how good articles must look like. But tables that do not show how many Kurds immigrated to Syria or only show the demographics of the general population which specifically do not include ethnic distinctions, in my opinion don't fit in an article on Kurdish immigration into Syria. But I absolutely also tend to a keep, because neeedless to say, there existed an immigration into Syria. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradise Chronicle: Exactly, this is what I meant by linking topics as the article contained an individual opinion especially with the tables, in a way that makes it look like an attempt to make the issue of immigration to Al-Hasakah limited to the Kurds. And I said from the beginnings that the informations were used in a wrong way and I didn’t said that the ressources are the ones that have a problem, or if the article was well sourced so many here didn’t understand my point. I maybe rushed to nominate the article for deletion after I saw the repetition, the lack of contexts and the wrong used informations, but if we can develop the content I think that it is important to create an article that mentions the various migrations to the region, because as there were Kurdish exodus from Turkey due to various conflicts, there were Assyrian exodus and migrations from Turkey to Syria, specifically Al-Hasakah Governorate, and from Iraq to Syria, especially in 1933 around Al-Khabour in the same region. The issue of immigration to Al-Hasakah is not limited to a specific people, there is a lot to mention and a clear context is needed. Sulaimanl (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG, and is well sourced and constructed.Onel5969 TT me 10:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is or at least was not good sourced and constructed in my opinion, but a Kurdish immigration into Syria existed.21:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Onel5969 and Pharaoh of the Wizards. Okoslavia (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Spartaz Humbug! 02:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qaym

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

This is a completely non-notable website. There's nothing about it in Google News, etc. It fails to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sources cited in the article seem ample to demonstrate notability. Beyond that, while I lack sufficient expertise to locate and evaluate Arabic-language sources, the article's existence on AR is a positive indicator, as is the fact that Qaym review datasets seem to be very widely used for Arabic-language sentiment analysis tasks. Even if the existing sources come up short, I find it implausible that additional sources cannot be found. -- Visviva (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a specialized guideline for websites WP:WEB. The thing is, the site arabcrunch.com was doing articles specifically about this website, but it's down - do we know how reliable it was as a source? Denaar (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Stadlen

[edit]
Matthew Stadlen (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)

Their seems to be very little evidence that Stadlen is notable. The only sources given which are specifically about him are written by him. Some of the handful of sources that are included have been added by an account called "Matthewstadlen". Also, the article was created by an account "Richay01" with no edits to any other pages which could also be associated with Stadlen. Llewee (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Brown

[edit]
Julius Brown (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)

Five appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nissman

[edit]
Alexander Nissman (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)

Five appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waddells Corner, Maryland

[edit]
Waddells Corner, Maryland (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)

Sourced only to GNIS; could not find any coverage of an actual community at this location. Newspaper articles use it as a landmark when discussing road coverage, and a few articles mention a migrant camp at the crossroads [9][10], but nothing approaching the requirements of GNG or GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 17:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maryland. –dlthewave ☎ 17:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is a tough one. The state/county dignifies it with a town name sign as you approach from the north, and it does look like a tiny town both at present and in older aerials, though the buildings change over the years. That said, it's hard for me to defend keeping it given the near total lack of information besides its location. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google Earth shows a crossroads with a farm stand. There's no stop light. There's a subdivision of about 40-45 homes nearby. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 11:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are quite a few articles at newspapers.com. This was clearly a community. In the Denton Journal June 11, 1943, there is an article about a migrant labor camp being setup in Waddell's Corner. The Waddells Corner Labor Camp got a lot of press over the years. There were several crime reports, including one in August or September of 1954 when a worker murdered another in a crap game at Waddell's Corner migrant labor camp. The migrant labor camp there also was in the national news July 18 1958. There are several mentions about the Waddells and that Waddells Corner was named for the family. In August of 1958, the state attempted to claim imminent domain from "15 property owners from Waddells Corner". These sources show this was clearly a community, not just some crossroads. This is not one of those places with one or two newspaper articles, there are hundreds. Jacona (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per Jacona. It is/was a bona fide populated place, and we can provide some verifiable and encyclopedic information beyond the location. I would actually much rather merge this, as there really doesn't seem likely that there is anything to say about it that couldn't fit into a moderately verbose list, but we have no such list currently (only a bare list of placenames in the county article). So until someone puts in some substantial work to build out a proper List of populated places in Dorchester County, Maryland, we face a zero-sum question of whether to keep or delete, and I don't see a convincing basis for deleting encyclopedic content here. Ultimately the project and its users are much better served by following the bedrock policy of WP:PRESERVE. -- Visviva (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: if this article (or any other that I have !voted to keep) is kept, please feel free to message/ping me and I will take my best shot at improvement. -- Visviva (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Source and cute analysis seems compelling Spartaz Humbug! 02:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Griffin (psychologist)

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

I am not finding anything to indicate that this Irish psychologist and self-help writer meets either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. He has published prolifically, but none of the refs support GNG. I found only one article which mentions him: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/helping-humanity-thrive/202303/why-we-dream.
I am not sure that my google-fu is in top gear today, so maybe I have missed something ... but so far this all looks to me like promotional stuff with non-RS refs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think. Griffin is widely credited and discussed as a co-founder of the Human Givens approach to psychotherapy, including by authors with no apparent promotional intent, e.g. here, which would seem to meet point 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. (I'll confess I had never heard of "Human Givens" until just now, but then again I am not a psychotherapist and it seems to be a somewhat influential thing about which whole books have been written.) -- Visviva (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he is the founder of a viable branch of psychology, I do not find expected evidence. His works are barely cited (single digits) in Scholar. There are mentions (only a few) of his "invention" but little about him. I note that articles exist for his co-author, Ivan Tyrrell, about whom even fewer sources exist, and for the technique, Human givens, which appears to be well-sourced. A redirect from Givens (and, IMO, Tyrrell) to the article for the technique would suffice. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a couple very brief reviews by the same community health nurse in Nursing Standard magazine (non-academic) of his books Freedom from Addiction and How to Lift Depression--Fast (these would count as one source, if at all), plus another review of the latter in another journal (Mental Health Practice) by the same publisher. There's also a first-person account (primary) in Independent Nurse magazine (non-academic) from a nurse who uses the human givens approach. There are also non-fiction books from Jessica Kingsley Publishers (publishes in Chinese medicine). But the majority of "academic" sources on the approach are from Human Givens Publishing (non-independent) or are in predatory or pseudoscientific journals like Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar (articles submitted through the predatory publisher ScopeMed), NeuroQuantology, . The ones that aren't are mostly uncited articles in very low-impact journals like Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry (IF 0.185), Mental Health Review Journal (IF 1.51), Educational and Child Psychology (IF 0.49), a lot of them by the same couple authors. Only 8 hits for "human givens therapy" in Scopus keywords, 25 overall. I'm concerned that this is a rather FRINGE method. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

Human Givens Therapy is an established therapy in the UK and Joe Griffin cowrote the book which developed the therapy "Human Givens: The New Approach to Emotional Health and Clear Thinking", which was reviewed by Psychology Today,[1]Starlighsky (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Skylighsky[reply]

@Starlighsky: There is an article for the Human givens therapy, which that Psychology Today article could be considered in support of. The article you link to does not give information on Griffin, and it is this latter which is needed so that Griffin can have an article on Wikipedia. If you think this Wikipedia article should be retained then you need to provide sources that are substantially about Griffin. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK...Will do, thanks Starlighsky (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I edited what I wrote. Joe Griffin and Human Givens Therapy was extensive coverage on Google Scholar, because the therapy is cited quite often. Starlighsky (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/human-givens-therapy
I also looked at G-Scholar but do not see "extensive" coverage. It would be helpful if you could link to 3 or more of the sources you see there that you consider to be extensive. Note that non-scholarly resources, like this conference (which is held by the HG institute) aren't considered good sources. Also, if I may say so, it might be better if you would "lurk" here for a bit until you understand the AFD culture and the policies that feed into delete/keep decisions. Lamona (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martiros Vartanov

[edit]
Martiros Vartanov (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:BLP of an organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for organizational founders. The article essentially just states that he and the organization exist, and is referenced to one primary source that isn't support for notability and one source that tangentially verifies the existence of the organization without mentioning this person's name at all -- and then there's a contextless linkfarm of excessive "external links" that includes repeats of the same two links, more primary sources, and some sources that briefly namecheck the subject's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, none of which is contributing to getting him over WP:GNG. As always, people are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third party coverage in reliable sources that analyzes the significance of their work, but nothing like that is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Moe Htwe

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

Stats stub on a footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches in English yielded only US Soccer Players, a trivial mention about being an unused sub in a youth fixture, and ASEAN Football, a trivial match report mention. Burmese searches (အောင်မိုးထွေး) were similarly unsuccessful. The best that I could find were Mizzima (translated), a squad list mention, Myanmar Digital Newspaper, which mentions him once, and The MNL (translated), which mentions him just once. Being mentioned once in an article is absolutely not WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time that I've seen someone try to use this keep argument on a footballer AfD. It's basically the same sort of thing as WP:NOTINHERITED #4, which is on the list of arguments to avoid. Footballers are not inherently notable nor is their notability inherited from clubs or players that they may have been associated with. It all comes down to GNG and SPORTBASIC. Please can you share multiple sources showing significant coverage of him? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Facebook is not a reliable source that can be used as evidence for notability. Bremps... 16:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 18:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Min Khant (footballer)

[edit]
Aung Min Khant (footballer) (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)

Badly sourced BLP, with only a database source used. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Nothing found in English except database sources and Facebook. Burmese searches, including those in conjunction with his club, Ayeyawady (ဧရာဝတီယူနိုက်တက်), yielded nothing of any significance. I found plenty on Aung Min Khant but nothing on the footballer of this name. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Inn

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

Article subject lacks the in-depth, independent coverage needed to establish the subject as meeting WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage consists of local reviews and press releases announcing the opening of the venue, which may be WP:TOOSOON as it opened in June 2023. Little indicates the longer term, encyclopedic notability of the subject, or how it is uniquely, notability different from other, similar venues.SamHolt6 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. My !vote's rationale here closely resembles my rationale at another similar AfD at an article created by the same author. Those two sources aren't enough. I'm especially unimpressed by the second source, which is more or less a guide for what to do at the inn, with headings like "What to eat", "What to drink", "Who to go with", "What’s on the speakers", "Best seat", and "Pro tip". One of the reasons I think the article fails WP:SIRS is the fact that its coverage of the truly important aspects of the inn is missing. The only part of the second source that actually mentions the inn's history, for example, is "Andrew McConnell’s Trader House team has opened a new venue in Melbourne". I'm not seeing any "significant, in-depth coverage" there. What needs to be available in these sources is a detailed history of the inn, or perhaps a neutral description of the inn's influences on its local setting (so that it can be used in the article), or something of the sort. In addition, the inn opened quite recently, and most businesses in large cities will be subject to reviews anyway, many of which won't contain WP:SIGCOV; imagine if we had an article for every new business in Australia. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TOOSOON. The Sydney Morning Herald article is fine, but the place just opened. Beyond covering the local nightlife, there isn't much to be said about coverage for this place. Could perhaps re-visit in a year, but no point in draftifying until then. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with TOOSOON. It only opened last month. Generally speaking restaurants (and indeed organisations) need long term coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom a case of WP:TOOSOON opened in June 2023 that is last month.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berystede

[edit]
Berystede (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)

NN hotel, fails WP:NBUILD. Only sources are about sale of the company, not the building. UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't see what the claimed 'non-trivial' cites are, but I cannot see how this thoroughly unremarkable hotel is notable. There is no claim that the building itself is notable, and I expect that the company drone who assembled this cringing festival of snobbery in an attempt to make their dull business seem appealing would have mentioned it had this been the case.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A factor that works against notability is that the building isn't listed so has little to distinguish it architecturally. Hotel reviews online are scant. It's listed in editions of Fodor's but the entries aren't substantial. The area of interest is the history of the site, including its earlier connections and the fact that it was used in the Second World War as a court. Berystede is named in books in connection with some of the court cases held, but mentions only. Also, the BBC chose it for a short series of radio broadcasts. So, indications of notability. The only substantial coverage found to date is the publication listed under the Source heading, the 1973 review in the local newspaper, plus the Britain/In Britain magazine articles, which I'm counting as one as they may be the same publication with a different name. These three sources have sufficient coverage to just get the article over the line, as regards the GNG. The Reading Evening Post reference isn't sufficiently focused on the hotel to count. Although the article was likely written by a SPA editor with a COI, User:TheLongTone has removed the unencyclopedic tone and off-topic content. To summarise, borderline notability, but I'm erring on the side of keep because a merge to South Ascot is impractical given the length of the article. Rupples (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find additional sources to expand the article. "Tea at the Berystede" seems like it is potentially more normal then the hotel, but I'm not finding sources to make an article on that either. It definately doesn't meet WP:COMPANY. Under Notability, Geographic Features, we have WP:NBUILD, specifically about buildings. People seem to be missing that guideline. Denaar (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Barnards.tar.gz, referencing might be weak but article should be preserved at this point in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found many newspaper articles and I am satisfied that the subject meets the WP:NBUILD guideline. Lightburst (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at the Bracknell and Ascot Times article[11], this would certainly not meet WP:SIRS in WP:NCORP. As the article is about the business, NCORP applies. Neither does the Evening Post piece meet the independence criterion of WP:SIRS as it is clear from the articleThe Evening Post, 25th April 1988 that this is a promotional piece. Note that the end of the article contains the offer of a weekend for 2 as a prize for readers. What are the other sources being relied on here? because based on these two, I think this fails WP:NCORP for the business and it is clear it does not meet WP:NBUILD either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And to add, could someone please add the delsort for NCORP as I think this needs attention of editors experienced in the NCORP guidelines as it is about a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While currently there is enough support for keep based on the sources that were identified, there was a reasonable request to bring this AfD also under the attention of editors specializing in companies. So giving this an extra cycle and including this AfD in that delsort.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough to meet WP:GNG
Let'srun (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOD'SPE Paris

[edit]
MOD'SPE Paris (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 indication of any kind of notability per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Current sourcing are 2 press releases and a primary source. McSly (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A2. Foreign-language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. See https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prior_(Teolog) CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Prior (Teolog)

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

Not in English, very WP:PROMO Nyanardsan (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Spartaz Humbug! 02:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vecepia Towery

[edit]
Vecepia Towery (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)

She may have been the very first African American and very first African-American female to win Survivor, and I see some hardcore fandom fawning over her. However, being such and such and such would not be enough to save the article from being deleted, redirected, or whatever else would happen to the article and to prevent WP:BLP1E (or WP:BIO1E) from being applicable. Even those appearing on highly-rated series doesn't make someone like her a high-profile individual. Even appearing in an episode of a TLC series and writing an autobiography (or two) would not cut it, IMO. Even doing other activities haven't prevented (articles about) other certain Survivor winners from being redirected to their own respective season articles (or deleted). The article must be redirected to Survivor: Marquesas. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Justification to delete is flawed. WP:BLP1E needs three criteria to be met and the second one is not, as evidenced by the media interviews. Examples:
  1. https://ew.com/tv/survivor-marquesas-vecepia-towery-robinson-quarantine-questionnaire/
  2. https://www.avclub.com/i-was-called-the-n-word-black-survivor-all-stars-rev-1844171814
CT55555(talk) 01:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AV Club article is more about racism than more about her, and the EW questionnaire is more of an interview and more of a primary source than secondary IMO. I can't believe you're trying to question my justification. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot believe that I'm trying to question your justification? That seems odd. If you thought this was a slam dunk obvious delete, you'd presumably have done a WP:PROD, and you didn't, so here we are, at WP:AFD. You have suggested it for deletion in a forum where the two main responses are invariably people supporting your justification or people refuting your justification. I see nothing unbelievable about this chain of events. The explanatory essay WP:LOWPROFILE helps us differentiate between high profile and low profile individuals and I think clearly supports my assertion that people giving media interviews are not low profile individuals.
I think my argument is logical, common sense driven and in line with norms here.
I find the essay WP:NOTBLP1E very helpful in these circumstances where people are discussing deleting articles based on their reading of WP:BLP1E.
I hope not to get into a long back and forth on this, I think my !vote speaks for itself and probably doesn't require further justification.
Guided by WP:WHATABOUT, I have not checked the link to another article discussion (regarding your reply below), I prefer to just focus on the article in front of us. CT55555(talk) 14:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you argued just now reminds me of another editor doing the same thing, yet most AFD discussions on one-time Survivor winners resulted in redirecting those articles (and one deletion). You can keep citing essays all you want, but I'm unsure whether they can apply to this discussion. I retain my stance toward this article. George Ho (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even low-profile or non-notable contestants, like this person (who doesn't have an article yet) and that person (whose Wikipedia article was converted into redirect per AFD), have agreed to respond to EW questionnaires. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and/or merge If you remove the reality summary that reads like a novel synopsis, this article has 3.453 kBytes of prose size, 1.181 kB (194 words) of which is "readable prose size". That's very close to the lower limit of WP:SIZERULE and the suggestion on what to do at that size. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a reality show game winner, this is the epitome of WP:BLP1E - this person is not notable for anything other than this win. Although the first African-American to win, this is still just a TV show winner. Lamona (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lifer (band). ✗plicit 14:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lifer (Lifer album)

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

Non notable recording. Only cited to an AllMusic review, in a WP:BEFORE search I could find no other promising sources. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Bolton (musician)

[edit]
William Bolton (musician) (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 musician, sourced only to associated record labels, blogs and unreliable sources. I couldn't find anything but blog posts and promo pieces in my WP:BEFORE. I conclude that the artist is non-notable, as they fail both WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters#Adversaries as an alternative to deletion. The history is available if there is any content worth merging. RL0919 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Paint Killer

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Blue Paint Killer (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 only source used in this article is primary and a quick Google search does not give enough sources to prove this character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 11:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Characters. Whilst I don't think every part of the article should be included, I feel he isn't outright non-notable enough for exclusion there. As for the article itself, in its current state, it definitely doesn't pass GNG, and a search for sources is mostly passing mentions. (Of which there are a lot) The article should definitely be removed in its current state. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge the adversaries don't necessarily need an article unless they're notable across the season or even series. The Blue Paint Killer had two episodes. Conyo14 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't enough significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG, but there is a reasonable redirect target as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Merdeka Tournament

[edit]
2023 Merdeka Tournament (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)

Align with WP:TOOSOON, above that wikipedia is NOTNEWS, seems WP:FUTURE. Along with that have citation concern, the first link added is not even a citation, Ref 2 says some countries, mismatch with Ref 3 where 2 countries mentioned. The article can be created when there is a formal announcement of Teams, Venue, Date and Format. Its too early seems crystalball. Drat8sub (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I never said, the 2023 edition does not need an article, never said, this is not historical tournament or not important in Asian football. I just pointed out that the article created too soon as no schedule, no team, no venue has been announce by the host federation, which is enough to say its align with TOOSOON. So not a bad nom at all but a justified one for now. When they announces all these then it can be created, otherwise the team written in the article and venue or the format all are aligning with WP:NOTNEWS. Drat8sub (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, when 90% is not sourced or unannounced contents, schedule, format, venue, time, teams (not confirmed by MFA, provided sources contradicts each other) nothing is announced yet, but providing such in wikipedia will make wikipedia a news. Mentioned in the edit summary too. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: However, I am sure, but still saying kindly read the arguements instead of votes. Till now users infavour of keeping the article pointed out reason like historical tournament, Importance, long-standing tournament, but failed to refute the points on guidelines like Article for creation, WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS etc. In reality the tournament is not announced yet formally, just like we will not create an article on 2038 FIFA World Cup based on few secondary unrelaible sources. My argument was never that the article should not be created, my argument was always to be created when the tournament be announced by MFA and follows notability and verifiability but not on speculations or crystalball. That's why it's better to create draft rather than such stubs which fails many criteria & guidelines. Drat8sub (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drat8sub The tournament was announced by Malaysian FA on 5 April 2023. The dates, teams and venue has been announced by the FA. I have added official announcement as a ref. Also enough references from secondary sources have been added about the upcoming tournament to pass WP:GNG. I have reverted your deletion and added refs for all the information that was previously unsourced. Dhruv edits (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reinard Dhanriano

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Reinard Dhanriano (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 SIGCOV and NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mention clausal that violated SIGCOV and NBAD. Rudiwaka (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rudiwaka Read here: WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBAD. There were only 1 clause about badminton. And for SIGCOV, Stvbastian (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood Rudiwaka (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Connect

[edit]
Adobe Connect (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:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watercolor Fairies

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

I believe this is the specific book this article is about. I can't find any sources on this book at all (other than places to buy it), for a fail of WP:NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I found one book review:
    1. Buchhaus, Erich (March–April 2005). "Watercolour fairies: a step-by-step guide to painting fairies" (PDF). Cape Librarian. Vol. 49, no. 2. Department of Cultural Affairs & Sport, Government of the Western Cape. p. 37. ISSN 0008-5790. EBSCOhost 17564578. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.

      The review notes:

      RICHE, David and FRANKLIN, Anna

      Watercolour fairies: a step-by-step guide to painting fairies.- Search P., 2004.

      An imaginative and lavishly-illustrated guide to painting fairies in watercolour produced with easy-to-follow step-by-step illustrations and photographs. The author provides an outline of basic watercolour tools and techniques, revealing how to create a fairy world and various types of fairies. Included is an in-depth look at the techniques of four well-known fairy artists as well as twenty more contemporary fairy/fantasy artists. The subject is well presented and practical, and is likely to be inspiring to readers who wish to do their own illustrations.

    Cunard (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for sleuthing! This review is on the light side, but I think it could count for 50% of an NBOOK pass, pending the other 50%. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a link to the review Cunard found to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time before a consensus is arrived at.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Bay Capital

[edit]
Hudson Bay Capital (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. Refs are routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 2 July 2023 (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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 20:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Uncontested, would not have needed two relists. Sandstein 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Need for Bushido

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
No Need for Bushido (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)

Sources given do not show notability or SIGCOV. BEFORE shows mostly that ITEXISTS. Article is mostly a "book report" laden w/ fancruft. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, previous AFD and attempted PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Another Cringy Username,
In general, AFDs have seen lower participation over the past few months. I don't have the numbers on it but the number of editors who regularly participate in deletion discussions (not just come to discuss one or two articles) definitely seems lower than it did six months ago or a year ago. It's not unusual to have to close discussions like this one where one editor or even no editors have weighed in on whether or not an article should be deleted. But I do relist them because I've also seen 3 or 4 editors pop in after two or three relistings so you never know. But I think this one will not be relisted again. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Any idea why? How would such an AfD close (as in keep, no-consensus, or delete)? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, about 12-15 months ago, AFD was overloaded with AFDs on athletes, dozens and dozens nominated each day, given the newly formed guidelines on sports notability and the sides for Delete and Keep were pretty entrenched. I think after going through the same fierce arguments hundreds of times, most of the participating editors got understandably burned out on the process of coming to a consensus. That would explain lower participation in sports-related AFDs, maybe it had some after effect on AFDs in general. But I wouldn't be surprised if many editors actively participate for a year or two and then move on to less contentious areas of the project like creating and improving articles. One is less likely to run into conflict doing that, I think.
As for how to close a low participation deletion discussion, I've seen a number of different outcomes over the years. The policy most often cited though is WP:NPASR and that offers some guidance. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Adipurush. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial issues surrounding Adipurush

[edit]
Controversial issues surrounding Adipurush (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)

Beyond unnecessary article.

See WP:NOCRIT. It is unsuprising to see that a recently released movie has caused controversy. Do you really think that people will discuss these controversies in the long term? I don't know but for now, we should avoid the articles created in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep as I can add much more information and I oppose this. Well the discussion here is actually opened by an editor who has history of edit wars. Irony. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of more information may not help much, or may even compound the issue. There seem to be all of WP:VOICE, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE issues, and the article itself risks becoming a WP:COATRACK of statements prompted by the release of this film. Also, given the individuals involved, there's a real risk of the article causing WP:BLP problems. I know I'm throwing out a lot of guidelines and such here, but lastly, I think some of the signs of WP:RECENT do plague this article. —siroχo 22:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable subtopics to the main article. This article does not deserve its own page. aggarwala2727 (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper. Violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify.‎. This article will be moved to Draft space where it can be improved as reliable sources are found. I suggest submitting it to WP:AFC for review. If it is moved prematurely to main space without significant improvements, it will likely be back at AFD and receive a different outcome. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmal Selab

[edit]
Ajmal Selab (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 subject is not the subject of significant sourced commentary in reliable sources. The article indicates the person is a lawyer and a politician, but there is nothing notable about his law career and as a politician, he has not held elected office, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Whpq (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SincerelyParwiz ahmadi (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. However, for an article like this, we need independent & reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject of the article, if you are able to provide any. See WP:GNG and WP:BIO for more information. —siroχo 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , I can provide you. please let me provide it. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reliable reference that I add now to the article , You can see "The resistance front against the Taliban has been formed". Industry Information Newspaper. 2021. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have significant coverage about Selab. That article is not about Selab, and just quotes him making statements about somebody else. -- Whpq (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can add other references, please give me time. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD normally is open for 7 days so there is still lots of time to add more references. But I note that you promised to do so since March 14 when you removed the PROD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear @Whpq .I hope you are well and in good health. I would like to express my gratitude for your collaboration. I have found several new references and added them to the article. I am confident that there are more references available, but due to the Taliban's control and censorship in our country, many websites operating with Afghan domains have been shut down. Ajmal Selab is one of the staunch opponents of the Taliban and is working with the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. I hope that upon seeing these references, you will be satisfied and reconsider removing this page. Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely, Parwiz Ahmadi Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly added sources to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - the subject might be notable enough as User:Parwiz ahmadi said but reference quality and coverage is lacking to encyclopedic standards. Needs further improvement but should not be deleted entirely. - Indefensible (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft. Using Google Translate, it seems the entirety of current sources essentially are able to establish that the subject was an assistant of a notable individual Ahmad Zia Massoud, that he was a member of the resistance in Afghanistan, and that he had a hand in constructing a mausoleum for a poet, Haidari wujodi. Everything else is dependent on the subject's words in interviews. SIGCOV can be pieced together from multiple sources. This article would become a minuscule stub based on current sources. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but user Indefensible's idea of a draft seems like the right course for such an article. I've retracted my above !vote —siroχo 05:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • save it. Your criteria should be slightly different for a backward country like Afghanistan, where technology and mass media have a relatively short history. Many media outlets, including those operating with the .Af domain, were blocked by the Taliban, resulting in the loss of most references. In this section, I want to emphasize that Ajmal Selab is a prominent figure in Afghanistan. He has been involved in important government and political positions for years, particularly within the Jamiat-E-Islami, which is the strongest political movement in Afghanistan. He is also closely related to Ahmad Shah Massoud, the national hero of Afghanistan. The Afghan people have great respect for this family. In my opinion, the references I have provided are sufficient for this article. I understand that Wikipedia's criteria may be more extensive, but we should also consider the challenges faced by Afghanistan. We should not compare an Afghan politician with an American politician. I hope you keep the article in its original state. Thank you for your cooperation."

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ahmad (politician)

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

Notability is questionable. While he may have worked at Napster, notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the sources here are all unacceptable for establishing notability: Three are obituaries and the other is a Huffington Post Contributor blog, which is specifically noted as unreliable per consensus under WP:RSP. BEFORE didn't show much much more then the obituaries. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Don Bradman#Family life. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bradman

[edit]
Nick Bradman (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 grandson of sporting legend Donald Bradman. His only claim to fame is for getting an entrance exam score of 99.95 which is close to Bradman's test average of 99.94. Fails WP:N as notability is not inherited Jupitus Smart 02:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just can't imagine anyone ever searching for this person. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Arzán

[edit]
Lucas Arzán (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 appearance for the Puerto Rico national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Washington

[edit]
Alex Washington (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)

Two appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Nicholas

[edit]
Dante Nicholas (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 appearance for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The discussion went back and forth a bit, but rough consensus in the end is that, even taking into account the newly-added sources, the organisation isn't notable. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Unitarian Conference

[edit]
American Unitarian Conference (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)

notability, no sources, organization no longer seems to exist UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Now have multiple citations. CastJared (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked WP:CIR issues. scope_creepTalk 22:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So 3 references got to do with the name of the organisation, which is WP:PRIMARY, 1 around the trademark, which is the name again, and one Ref 1, which comes from the organisation itselfs. 4 routine references and a WP:PRIMARY ref. None of these reference are independent and they fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS. They are absolutely junk and don't prove the organisation is notable. scope_creepTalk 23:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 is from The Chicago Tribune and mentions the setting up of the organisation here, reference 3 is about their opposition to gay marriage,ref 4 is about the organisation changing their name which is obviously relevant. Not great coverage but it is independent and relevant imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best you say about it, is that it verifies it existed, but the coverage is routine. Establishing an organisation and changing their name have been considered to fail WP:SIRS for about a decade. Its routine coverage. And its an affiliated news story for the Tribune. scope_creepTalk 23:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm with scope_creepTalk on this one. These reference don't prove the most important part of notability - significance. My vote doesn't change based on these sources. SilverAnsible (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't get all the keeps. The reference being held up as the best one is just a passing mention. The entirety of what the Chicago Tribune says is this: Two years ago, dissidents formed the American Unitarian Conference, saying liberal politics had overtaken the church. The conference's president, Virginia attorney David Burton.... The entirety of the Bangor Daily News article says David Burton of the American Unitarian Conference, a group calling the church to return to its theological roots, said Unitarian Universalist is a religion that does not have much religion left in it. Both of these then have a quote from Burton... and that's it. No information about the church other than, effectively, it's mission statement. The other two real sources cited, the Spokesman Review and the Gadsen Times ... are the same AP article. So it changed its name. That's clearly the best source of the bunch in terms of depth, and it's a pretty routine announcement that was published because the UU is notable, not because the AUC is notable. It merits inclusion in the UU article, not the creation of a separate one about an entity we can say almost nothing about. My own search for sources found a lot more copies of Wikipedia than anything else. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches if there's anything relevant to be merged. Otherwise delete. Sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, consider sources added and the suggestion to Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other refs: the shorter AP article from the Spokane Spokesman-Review doesn't add much. The Chicago Tribune article does a good job of covering the theological issues but is not about this organization. danielharper.org is a blog.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., thank you @Eastmain! A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches after closer reading of the AP article. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Gadsden Tiems ~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president Yes AP No Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president ✘ No
Bangor Daily News Yes Yes AP No Entirety of coverage consists of "a group calling the church to return to its theological roots" ✘ No
Spokesman-Review ~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president Yes AP No Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president ✘ No
Chicago Tribune Yes In paper's voice Yes Chicago Tribune ~ Discusses formation and a single belief, with short statement from from group president ~ Partial
Yet Another Unitarian Universalist No Cites this Wikipedia article No Personal blog Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment It appears that editor @Siroxo: has made a source analysis table that shows that there is no valid sourcing on the article, but not actually made a comment or a !vote in support of the table entry. Bit odd I think, but I guess its ok, as the intent is there. scope_creepTalk 16:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant to leave a comment but got caught up making the table. Merge seems appropriate. —siroχo 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the SECOND "Final relist". I should not have relisted this discussion again. However, I don't know how to revert a relisting so I'll just apologize and promise not to let this happen again. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even after considering new sources, the article does not have reasonable enough sources. Merging the article could happen as suggested (really it seems as though a number of Unitarian stubs could be combined into a singular article about Unitarian conferences/groups/organisations but that feels a but a bit off topic).
I think the article would need a significant amount of information added by new sources to be a constructive addition. Pedantical (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would need to pass NCORP and it doesn't even approach it. I agree with Siroxo's source analysis. I don't think that there is meaningful content to be merged. List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches does not mention this topic so a redirect would make sense only after the fact, i.e. after someone has hypothetically added it to the list, but it's questionable if it should be included in the list in the first place, when considering WP:CSC -- considering this AfD, as this is now provenly a non-notable organization, and if the list is a CSC-type-1 list (every member notable or a promising red link), which appears to be the case, it should not be included in the list. Therefore the article should not be redirected. Or merged. It should be deleted.—Alalch E. 08:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to EMusic. This is not a strong consensus but I don't think relisting the discussion another week will bring in more participants. I'm not sure about this but I think after a Merge is done, the article could be moved to Draft space rather than be deleted so that it could continue to be improved if there is an experienced editor who wants to take that on. I've never closed a discussion with that Merge, then Draft/Redirect option but if this violates Wikipedia policy, I'm sure someone will tell me. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chasan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mark Chasan (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)

Promo article, lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with many of the points made by @BD2412, and now that the subject’s role in the widely covered controversial Hawaii property development is added, the article clears the bar for encyclopedic notability. Coverage includes independent sources such as Billboard Magazine, Business Town, Maui Time, Maui Public Radio and more. To @Lamona’s point: I would agree if the current text of the article was from @Guruvie, however it’s pretty clear that the article has been rewritten and cited reliably since then and that user hasn’t edited the page in over 10 years. It is also worth noting that the result of the first nomination for AfD here was a keep and given the Hawaii section, he has only become more notable since the article’s creation. Editchecker123 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm seeing editors advocating Deletion, Draftification, Merging, Redirection and Keeping. So, no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editchecker123, I disagree that the article has been re-written post Guruvie. In fact, that account, and two other SPA accounts, contributed significantly to the article even after the first AFD. That AFD, btw, was closed by a now-blocked account. Much of the activity on the article has been cleanup, as is often the case, and removal of poor content. The "controversy" in Hawaii is not about him, and he is mentioned in the articles but that is all. His book is self-published and sells for $2.99 - even at that, it is not in the top 100 in a very small category. That saved Amazon page and the info about the book was added by a IPV6 SPA, and it probably had to be done the very day that the book appeared on Amazon. BTW, that page says "Our best-selling new and future releases" and the Amazon page predates the actual sales date by about 10 days. (Amazon page=September 20, 2022, publication date=October 3, 2022. I think it's pretty clear that the book was not a best seller before it was published. Lamona (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading the sources I agree in-part with this, I went back through the entire article today and edited it to make sure the copy was not exaggerating the sources. It feels in a good place now from that perspective. I was also able to find 3 in-depth independently written profiles of Mark Chasan which addresses BD2412 and your other notes above: 1) Business Town from the 1990s, 2) Maui Times from the 2010s, and 3) Troora Magazine from the 2020s. To the point on Maui, many of the articles are directed at both the project and him personally (such as this and this). Overall on his notability, he did found eMusic which was a pioneer in its time according to multiple cited sources listed in the article, he was involved in its IPO, the site is still around today, and we have not debated that fact. It would seem that alone would be enough for an encyclopedic entry, given WP:BIO:
• Overall Criteria 2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" (eMusic in its entirety would fill this)
• Creative Professionals Criteria 2: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" (eMusic streaming vs. CD purchases would fill this)
• Creative Professionals Criteria 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (the controversial property development in Maui would fill this given the amount of Hawaii press it generated) Editchecker123 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to eMusic. I was asked to come here and comment, since I commented on the original AfD in 2009. I don't have a strong feeling about this article, except that it should not be deleted. The best solution would probably be to merge information about him to eMusic. And I do mean "merge information about him", not just redirect. My hesitation to say "keep" is that while the article has many sources, they are pretty much all minor or local; I'm not seeing the major news coverage that would lead me to an undisputed "keep". He gets a mention in a Washington Post article; that's about it. As for the dispute about his proposed development in Maui, that appears to be entirely a local, neighborhood situation that didn't attract much notice even in the rest of the state. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 16:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Grigsby

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

Was redirected to American Idol (season 2)#Top 12 finalists by User:Bgsu98, then restored by User:Jpcase with the rationale: "Has released multiple albums since he was on Idol. I'm not sure that redirecting this is the correct course."

The redirect was restored by User:Onel5969, with the rationale: "Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG".

The article was then restored by User:Aspects with the rationale: "rv redirect that was already contested and per WP:BRD, there should be a WP:MERGE discussion or an WP:AFD."

The previous AfD was closed on largely procedural grounds, due to a rapid-fire nomination of many other American Idol contestants at the same time. The only genuine keep rationale offered was due to a (now inactive) WikiProjects own guideline which never reached the status of an actual notability guideline. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. To participants, please don't just assert sources exist and point to internet search results but provide links in the AFD discussion so that they can be verified as helping provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • (update based on below: Keep) Comment. Here's some coverage, that while related to the show is indeed about the subject:
    • "During his days on the show, Grigsby's style could be defined by two simple concepts: a hat on the head, and the color blue on the body. "He's basically a hat person and he'll wear any kind," says stylist Siggins. "We totally embraced it," adds Banowetz, who says Grigsby's "minimal hair" helped with the hats. "He looked great in them." ... followed by a quote from subject.
      - via DRESS YOU UP. People, 00937673, May2003 Extra, Vol. 59, Issue 17
    • "Fourteen million viewers of Fox's American Idol who called in decided to bounce Charles Grigsby from the competition Wednesday night. Grigsby, 24, a part-time supermarket clerk from Oberlin, Ohio, had sung You Can't Win from The Wiz on Tuesday's movie-themed performances.
      - via 'Idol' bumps Grigsby By: Kurt Jensen, USA Today, MAR 20, 2003
—siroχo 07:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Heldenfels, R.D. (2003-04-08). "'Idol' Contestant Has No Regrets - 24-Year-Old Oberlin Man Who Was Voted off Show Is Thankful for TV Exposure and Business Contacts". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "Charles Grigsby didn't want to audition for American Idol. Now he's very glad his friends made him do it. After all, the 24-year-old Oberlin resident could still be working in a grocery store and making demonstration recordings with friends, hoping for a big break. Instead, he got TV exposure and went farther than most contenders in the talent competition, which continues tonight at 8 on Fox. He expects to sing the national anthem at an Indians game in May. On Monday, he was calling from New York City, where he was taking part in a tour of shopping malls with other American Idol contestants."

    2. Macias, Chris (2004-08-24). "A few votes short of an 'Idol' - Charles Grigsby joins talent-show finalists on tour". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: " Now that he's a member of the exclusive "American Idol" finalists club, Grigsby gets to be showcased again. He's part of the American Idols Live! tour, which will play to screaming, Glow Stick-waving fans at Arco Arena on Thursday. "

    3. Knific, Melissa (2003-07-11). "Ohioan Living Dream Through Tour". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "After the tour, Grigsby, who says he eats, sleeps and breathes music, will continue his pursuit of a career in music. He also has considered acting. Since the second season of Idol began, he's collected names of producers, managers, directors and actors. He hopes the tour will allow him to continue networking. Growing up in a small town didn't keep Grigsby from seeking opportunities."

    4. Washington, Julie E. (2003-04-01). "Life after 'Idol' far from idle". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "Charles, who is 24 and lives in Oberlin, was the second Idol voted off the Top 12 island on March 19. His voice had bothered him all week, so he picked what he thought would be an easy song, "You Can't Win," sung by Michael Jackson in "The Wiz." ... But Charles passed through to the next phase of the competition, which brought with it a whirlwind of promotional fun - a Coke commercial, appearances on "The Today Show," "Access Hollywood," "Entertainment Tonight" and "Inside Edition," plus an interview with People magazine."

    5. Sheats-Johnson, Jamie (2003-08-08). "American Idols Live". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "Charles Grigsby, 24: Grigsby, the youngest of seven children, is a self-taught singer who's own American idol is Stevie Wonder."

    6. Gatta, John (2009-11-06). "Boss at The Q, American Idols in Lorain". The Morning Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "Oberlin native Charles Grigsby and Shaker Heights native Scott Savol will appear at the event today along with the group, the Croonerz. Since his days on Idol, Grigsby released a self-titled album, ..."

    7. Maglio, Lou (2016-02-17). "Charles Grigsby: Journey from Northeast Ohio to American Idol". WJW. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.

      The article notes: "He has performed locally and around the world since leaving Idol. He currently lives in Chicago where he joined a church and was baptized. Grigsby says “knowing the Lord” has made him a better person."

    8. Margolis, Kim (2010-05-05). "Ohio's former 'American Idol' hopefuls". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Charles Grigsby: Was a Top 12 finalist in Season 2. Performed on air in 2003. Resident of Oberlin, in northern Ohio. Worked at a grocery store at the time of his audition. Had a self-titled release, “Charles Grigsby," in 2005."

    9. Compton, Josette (2003-04-16). "Charles Grigsby Isn't the 'American Idol,' but He Is a Star". Call and Post. ProQuest 238517727.

      The article notes: " Charlie Grigsby, the humble 24-year-old singer from Oberlin, was one of 12 finalists on the much-watched television show, "American Idol 2," which has become more famous than it's season premiere last summer. ... Now that Grigsby is no longer a part of the American Idol entourage, he and Vanessa Olivarez, along with four finalists from last year, will enjoy a mini-concert tour sponsored by Coca-Cola starting Friday in New York. ... Like many driven Clevelanders who have become national celebrities, Grigsby says that he also understands that he must leave the Midwest to make his dreams come true. Appearing on NBC's "Today" and CNN is just the beginning of his journey to the top."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Charles Grigsby to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_2&oldid=1164613098"