Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 05	July 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. This time, can the sources brought up in the discussion find their way into the article? Otherwise, we might be back for AFD3 soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Still appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions, non-notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question 3 sources were raised in the previous AFD, which as a unanimous Keep, User:Iljhgtn. What are your issues with each of those. Nfitz (talk)
Comment/Reply, of those, I would say that maybe one counts. The other is a YouTube short stunt video, and one is a link to buy the book these guys seem to be pushing. Seems to me that AfD did not sufficiently look at the source quality. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, I believe Nfitz was asking you about the sources in the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Canada Party. I've relisted those below, along with a couple more. —siro χ o 08:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources from last AFD ([1], [2][3]) definitely demonstrate this subject meets GNG. There's also more stuff out there like [4], [5] to contribute to GNG, as well as some less independent sources like [6][7][8] —siro χ o 08:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siroxo, looks like plenty of RS material to work with here. (If article is kept I am happy to work on improving it so we don't end up back here in 2026; just ping me.) -- Visviva (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources provided definitely meet SIGCOV. AryKun (talk) 07:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Rouge

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

I can't find evidence that this duo meets any of the criteria for inclusion at WP:BAND. I can't find external coverage, awards, gold records, or even a label they're signed to. They are apparently playing some gigs, but everything I see about that is released by the group. Joyous! Noise! 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have gotten themselves onto all the usual streaming and self-upload services, but like the nominator I can find no reliable media coverage that can support an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak Delete. Support deletion in the absence of anything else being found. I checked Danish Wikipedia to see if that version of the article had anything else, but there's only one other source of some awards they'd been nominated for. I suppose it's possible we could be missing news articles published in Danish? Kalethan (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one potentially viable GNG source found: https://headphonecommute.com/2009/04/10/lulu-rouge-bless-you-music-for-dreams/ Insufficient coverage. Rupples (talk) 03:45, 13 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 Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Brown (author)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no SIGCOV beside passing mentions of his kerfuffle with Linux and MINIX in 2004. He wrote Samidzat, an overall non-influential, discredited, and forgotten book that caused a bit of controversy in its day and not much else. Definitively fails WP:BLP1E. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. It was 2004, we were still working things out - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is source material that primary talks about his criticism of Linux/Linus: tech world, Linux Insider, The Register, Linux.com. The designation of "(Author)" is a reach, but I don't know how else to distinguish him from others of that name. Lamona (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: All those sources mention him in passing, and only relating to the 1E he's notable for. Nothing about him or his life. These sources belong in Samidzat, not in a dedicated article to him. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Festucalex: These articles have more than mentions, they are specifically about him, not as biographies but about his claim regarding Linux. One is titled "Ken Brown’s corporate-funded FUD" so it is indeed about him. That said, if all of this could logically be included in the Samizdat article then that article will need to be more about him. Lamona (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: The Samidzat article should definitely not be about him. Again, this event is literally the only, single, solitary thing even remotely notable about him, and that's what the articles are talking about. The book is notable due to the controversy it caused, but he himself isn't notable according to our WP:BLP1E guidelines. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how the book can be notable but the person who wrote it is not. All of the hoopla is about his ideas; the book didn't write itself. Lamona (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: See WP:INHERIT. The topic that actually has SIGCOV is the book, not the author. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Festucalex: No where is it said that this author "inherits" notability from his book - that makes it sound like the book existed independently of him. As I said, the book did not write itself; he is the author and the book contains his thoughts. The coverage of the book is coverage of a person's thoughts. If anything, I would keep the article about him and merge the contents of the article on the book. Lamona (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely backwards from how WP:INHERIT works - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 30 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!} 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alexis de Tocqueville Institution per David Gerard. I'm not seeing any clear reason to delete, although then again I don't see anything that cries out for merging. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 6 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!} 23:08, 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 merge‎ to Totnes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totnes Times

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

This article is completely unreferenced and only includes one Paragraph, one External Link, and one table which includes 5 sections. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Companies. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG and needs more sources. LemonberryPie (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose that with a lot of work this could be expanded into a useful article, but I doubt it. There just isn't enough there. (I should declare a sort of interest: my parents lived in Totnes, and it's a town I know well. When I had property in the UK it was in Totnes.) Athel cb (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Totnes under a new Media section as an alternative to deletion. Surely deserves a mention in that article having been a mainstay of local news for over 150 years? The newspaper verifiably exists, perhaps not enough to satisfy GNG to have a separate page though. Bit of info. here: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/totnes-weekly-times Rupples (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Totnes as per Rupples. Suonii180 (talk) 12:34, 5 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!} 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as above or keep. I'm pretty sure we could cobble together enough to meet GNG, through mentions in the Google Scholar results. But a m/r might actually serve the encyclopedia better until someone takes the effort to actually expand the article itself. —siro χ o 08:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. I would lean towards keeping because it seems more helpful to the reader, and more likely to attract knowledgeable editors, as a separate article. Newspapers have a lot of encyclopedic value, and from a scan of Google Books and Scholar this one appears very likely to meet the proposed criterion of WP:NME#Newspapers, magazines and journals in being frequently cited by other reliable sources. (I would be surprised if the GNG can't be met as well, although finding those sources might require someone with more specialized expertise; my initial poking around didn't turn up much.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:37, 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 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!} 05:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Weber

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

PR-based coverage, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Astrology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She seems to be the go-to astrologer in Australia, [9], [10], [11] featured all over the place in TV and other media. Does being a subject matter expert with wide coverage meet GNG? Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, though more of a query, really. Is there a policy that being "PR-based" disqualifies a story which appears in an otherwise reliable publication? Meticulo (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Meticulo If you mean disqualifies the source from counting towards WP:GNG, then yes. Sources must be independent as well. If the bulk of the source relies on an interview, or quotes a press release, etc, it may not be independent. This then makes it harder to maintain NPOV (WP:5P2). The source may still be referenced for an article who's subject meets notability guidelines, with care to properly attribute statements, and to not give undue weight. —siro χ o 08:54, 7 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!} 23:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would normally wonder if this might be a borderline case (under either WP:GNG or WP:ENT), but the sheer volume of promotional content here makes it difficult to trust even the occasional seemingly organic mentions in media. (I didn't see any of those that would meet the GNG anyway, but at this point I'd be deeply skeptical of any that seem to.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:24, 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 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 14:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cena Barhaghi

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 29 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!} 23:04, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction Fireworks

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Refs are mostly passing mentions, if they work at all. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the references would meet WP:ORGCRIT and cannot locate anything online that would. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There's not super deep, but fair coverage under its old name Alan Hillary Pyrotechnics. I added the sources into the article. Graywalls (talk) 04:55, 30 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!} 22:58, 6 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. Nothing I can find meets the criteria including the new sourcing added. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunby and Stainby

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

Articles already exist for both Gunby and Stainby, making this one feel superfluous. No valuable content updates since 2016 (adding 2011 census info). Lindsey40186 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The individual articles about Gunby and Stainby cover the villages. The one about Gunby and Stainby deals with the civil parish rather than the individual villages. In some other countries, there's a distinction between a village (a bunch of houses and possibly a business district) and a commune (in the sense of a municipality or government, which usually has a mayor and council. In England, the equivalent of a commune is a civil parish. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both villages were separate parishes until 1931 and I've added population data for those as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep civil parishes (apart from perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) are notable per WP:GEOLAND/WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AryKun (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: civil parishes are notable per WP:GEOLAND. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, it is about the civil parish. Dank Jae 18:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; clear notability despite unclear naming. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:21, 13 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. This is being closed as a procedural Keep. If the nominator chooses to come back to AFD again with this article, please present a BRIEF nomination rationale focused on policy and not details of the article subject and personalities involved. We are not hashing out the worth of Mrs. Globe just whether or not it has notabiilty to have an article on this project and notability can be from good aspects or bad ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Globe

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NOT (clear promotion or advertising).

The last time this page was nominated for deletion, it was kept only due to insufficient participation, with the primary defendant being the person who created the page (for promotion/advertising as I'll describe below). I'm going to make a strong case that this page be deleted as it is a) not a notable pageant and b) promotional material for a suspiciously profitable non-profit and c) promotional material for the director.

First, this Wikipedia page was originally created by Australianblackbelt, whose account has since been blocked because of WP:NOTHERE as this person attempted to make multiple pages for Mrs. Globe alone and is likely one of the Mrs. Globe staff or a hired PR rep. The page was also edited by early contributors like Dawn Foley and Dolores Couceiro, people who have won aspects of this pageant in the past per the winners list and are listed as staff on https://www.mrsglobe.com/meet-the-staff. Since this page was initially created by Mrs. Globe staff, it was created as promotional content and not because of true notability.

I attended the pageant finale and was disappointed to see a budget, local event that oversells itself in sleuth marketing but is definitely not a large, high-calibre pageant worthy of a Wikipedia page. A recording of the pageant livestream is available here, where the highest attendance was 67 people around the middle. https://vimeo.com/841104953

I can't say for sure how many of us attended in-person, but it was a banquet style audience of tables in a hotel conference room. I would guess 100-200 guests or so.

The pageant appeared to have 66 contestants across 6 divisions:

Mrs. Globe

Mrs. Curve' (size 12 and up)

Mrs. Classique (age 45+)

Mrs. Classique USA

Mrs. USA Globe

Mrs. Canada Globe

Divide 66 contestants among 6 categories and you'll see what I mean when I say this is not a large, high-calibre pageant. In the smallest category, 3 women competed for Mrs. Classique USA, 4 women for Mrs. Canada Globe, 10 for Mrs. USA Globe... etc. Titles were regional nonsense like "Pacific Coast" "West Coast" "Western Provinces" instead of 1 person for every state or province. As well, several of the Mrs. Globe contestants appear to be Americans representing another country just to give the pageant the illusion of legitimacy. Ex. People like Mrs. Venezuela, Rachel Laguna, who was just Mrs. Virginia a couple years ago according to a Google search of her name. Truly a waste of time and money to watch the finale; not the massive, prestigious international pageant like it's marketed to be.

The WIN Foundation appears to be an oversold front. It claims to be a non-profit but something isn't adding up. The website for the WIN Foundation shows that they only do 1 thing: "Reclaiming Me" zoom classes twice weekly for 90 minutes to teach women about narcissistic abuse. There is apparently a $10 charge for each class. And they run a 4-day "discover the divine" conference in Greece that comes at a hefty pricetag of over $1300 too, so clearly impoverished "women in need" can't afford it. Watching the trailer of that conference, it looks like only 12 women attended in 2022 and at least half of them seemed to be established winners of the pageant. Meanwhile the pageant has People's Choice winners bringing in 50k in each division. Even outside the fundraiser awards, I'm sure the pageant brings in big money from the contestants' many fees and from the pageant's many sponsors. This "non-profit" appears to be very profitable considering how much money it's bringing in compared to the expenses of running twice weekly zoom classes. It's a good way to make the pageant be a big virtue-signal that fools people into paying more money to "help charity", while the director of the pageant probably pockets the leftovers to live a luxurious life off of.

Dr. Tracy Kemble (is she a real PhD or is she as much a Dr as Dr. Pepper?) appears to be using this pageant largely as self-promotion, given that her image is everywhere including the front page of the pageant program book. Everything about the pageant seems to be marketing for her low-selling narcissism books and 1 annual "discover the divine" conference. She is nowhere near as popular or informative as Dr. Ramani's YouTube channel on narcissism though. Perusing through Dr. Tracy Kemble's work, she has some low-budget videos with double-digit views providing superficial fluff about manifesting etc. Example: I cannot find any information about Dr. Tracy Kemble's credentials, where she got her PhD, if/where she is licensed to practice, if she sees any clients for therapy, if she does any research, etc. She seems to have one day decided to call herself a PhD when she started up a pageant and nobody ever challenged it. Her main job appears to be this pageant, which is a highly lucrative fake non-profit.

I understand the pageant used to be run in China, but the sparse information available about that period of the past does not confer sufficient notability for a Wikipedia page. As well, a pageant taking place in China doesn't automatically make it notable. If anything, usually holding this pageant in China is another nod to how low-budget it is, because your dollar goes farther in China and it's easier to fill an audience with Chinese guests and hire a slew of Chinese paparazzi to make the event look bigger than it is. There was nothing special about this pageant when I attended as a guest in America. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are both apparently just self-promotion, most notable thing about these 2 women is that they won this non-notable pageant and previously won a non-notable national title in the lead-up to this non-notable international pageant:

Fixthetyp0 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, Belarus, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this pageant ended 2 weeks ago and the winner was "Mrs. Europe" (not a country, a continent, competing against Mrs. North America and Mrs. Black Sea and other made up non-countries, while also competing against legitimate countries like Mrs. USA and Mrs. Australia). But the point isn't about how the titles are ridiculous. The point is this pageant ended 2 weeks ago and it is so non-notable that nobody has bothered to update the page with the new winner. Every notable pageant I've ever seen, the winner is updated on Wikipedia within the day of the pageant. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI can work both ways i.e. with those creating pages and those seeking their deletion. You say you attended one of the Mrs Globe finals as a guest. You've put down irrelevant information from your own experience to support deleting the article - a kind of original research. The ultra long nomination rationale speaks volumes. I'm putting up a procedural keep !vote as a hold. Rupples (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural holding keep. I believe this nomination needs looking into. Rupples (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination is basically a rant. It includes unsubstantiated allegations about a living person and unfounded speculation about the organisation. There would be no place for this "commentary" in a Wikipedia article and it ought not to have been published here. It should be taken down forthwith. Rupples (talk) 07:08, 13 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!} 23:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seroma (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Article is sourced to a webpage about the school, a PROMO piece by a diesel company and a two paragraph article by an unnamed reporter. A WP:BEFORE search shows that this is the extent of the coverage: any other hits I got were about the school and the individuals behind the company, not the company itself (WP:INHERITORG). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Uganda. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rather weird article about a "corporation" that "started as a small shop". Deckkohl (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to a small business rather than anything else. The sources don't support an article. Fails WP:CNG, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 21:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:22, 13 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!} 23:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diaro Forsythe

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

11 appearances for the Sint Maarten national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramius Stiehler

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

One appearance for the United States Virgin Islands national soccer team. Currently plays both in the U.S. third division and an upstart indoor soccer league. Decently written article, but I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Simione001 (talk) 01:42, 13 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 West Iberian languages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castilian languages

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

The article has been a stub for over a decade with the only two references being databases that seemingly only mention it in passing. There have been discussions on the article's talk page where editors have confirmed that basically no other resources use this term, and I wasn't able to find anything myself with Google.

Specifically, I propose it be redirected to West Iberian languages - no need for a merge since the material is basically already covered in that article. HappyWith (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Spain. HappyWith (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see the (rejected) marger discussion at Talk:West Iberian languages and the lengthy discussion at Talk:Castilian languages. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Both this article and West Iberian languages are marked as stubs. If certain sources like to invent these extra layers of classification that are not widely used, that can be discussed within a single article. (As a side note, this article's name is deeply misleading, as some people would assume that it refers to Spanish dialects and varieties given that Spanish is frequently called "Castilian" / castellano, and others would assume it refers to specifically sub-dialects of Castilian Spanish, excluding Latin American etc. varieties. Neither reasonable assumption would accurately match the content of this article. I would set that aside if this was a confusing but accepted term, but it really isn't, it's a rare term almost never seen in sources in this sense, by which I mean "printed books" and not Internet linguistics trees. Printed books that say this term just mean Dialects of Spanish.). SnowFire (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion wouldn't be needed if WP didn't give so much credit to the Tree Model of languages. I don't see much merit in the Castilian languages group, but neither do I in Gallo-Romance, Ibero-Romance, etc. I reverted the conversion to redirect because it seemed to simply ignore all the previous discussions, though the havoc part was a bit exaggerated, yes. So if there is a sound consensus for the deletion, it'll be ok for me. One reason I see not to delete the page, however, is that someone might easily decide to create it again later. --Jotamar (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone went against the consensus and re-created it, we could just undo that or even salt the page if needed. HappyWith (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Iberian languages. The argument that this will be re-created if it were fully deleted is compelling. But it is simply a line in a taxonomy that isn't particularly important. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spanish language per @SnowFire:. -- PK2 (talk) 03:35, 13 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 21:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locus Technologies

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. All sources are press releases or otherwise non-independent. Creator has obvious COI as founder. Previously proposed for deletion, but removed without addressing sourcing issues. – Teratix ₵ 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. – Teratix ₵ 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own search. With $7.3 million in sales (according to getlatka.com, a blacklisted, non-reliable source), this is a little outfit. Also, it's unusual for the CEO of a successful, notable company to edit their company's article - just not on their agenda. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find absolutely nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT an would even suggest to tag as speedy. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable company - looks very local and insignificant to me. No eligible sources found.Onetimememorial (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:24, 13 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. Joyous! Noise! 21:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akron Series in Poetry

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

non-notable poetry series; article created using single-purpose acocunt and the only source is self-published ~T P W 18:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 18:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass the notability threshold - I cannot find any third party sources that are not independent. It can just stay as a mention in the main University of Akron Press article. Qcne (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks third party sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Okoslavia (talk) 16:43, 13 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

97E

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps merge into Military Occupational Specialty or Fort Huachuca. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. On List of United States Army careers a few links to separate articles were circular redirects so I've gone ahead and removed those. 35T has similar issues. Since the vast majority of army careers codes don't have separate articles I think it probably makes sense to delete this one and expand Fort Huachuca a little with its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qcne (talk • contribs) 19:43, 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 keep‎ per WP:SNOW resulting from failure to WP:BEFORE. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) :3 F4U (they /it) 05:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Bong-chool

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and South Korea. UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would the commander of a brigade have the rank of brigadier-general? The article already has a reference to a magazine article, although it is not online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the Korean article at ko:이봉출 Generals are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Eastmain noted there's plenty of detail on the Korean page and presumably more information can be found in other Korean sources so a pass on WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear failure of WP:BEFORE on the nominator's part, enough GNG coverage exists. Kges1901 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close the discussion, the subject is clearly notable based on the sources in the Korean article. AryKun (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seconding WP:SNOW Likely just a mistake on nom's part due to multiple transliterations of name. —siro χ o 12:10, 10 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 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Slam

AfDs for this article:

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

Doubtful notability. Short-lived enterprise that I don't think meets WP:ORG. Some of the events it held got a flutter of media mentions, but the organisation itself certainly didn't get WP:SIGCOV. Article has been orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Australia. PepperBeast (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources are reliable; most are primary. I can't find mention of this outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most sources are primary, as stated by Oaktree b. Doesn't seem notable. Also feels a bit like it was written by Cyber Slam members themselves, with "unfortunately" and such being used a lot. Strong delete. No sources, and last AfD was improperly closed. Was also nominated for PROD but IP removed it. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there's also major mentions of "ShauningtoN", called "an active member of the community", ensuring that this is a niche community that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. I don't know how YouTube managed to stay as a big source for this page for over a decade. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking reliable sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; can't find anything independent to source AviationFreak💬 19:46, 11 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. I see a rough consensus for a lack of significant coverage that would confer notability. ^Complex/_Rational 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody's Mother's Chocolate Sauce

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

non-notable sauce; routine coverage only ~T P W 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% fails WP:GNG. Although their URL, somebodysmothers.com, made me laugh. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's this in the Houston Chronicle [12] but it's paywalled so I didn't read it. I think it might be an ok-ish source. A few more like that one would really help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment News coverage of any significance that I have been able to locate are hyper-local. I did find three pages dedicated to her business and her in Social Media Marketing All-in-One For Dummies, which I put into the article. Graywalls (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any product mention in a "social media for dummies" book is going to be native advertising. It is a "boutique" product -- which means "too unimportant to be the subject of substantial coverage". Walt Yoder (talk) 00:04, 12 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 14:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Resch

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this page for deletion over a year ago and due to little discussion, it ended in a no-consensus. Since then there have been no real improvements to the article and someone tagged it for notability issues. I remain unconvinced about the notability of the subject and am nominating it again. This time hopefully with more discussion. I am of the opinion this article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The references do not provide independent significant coverage of the subject. I also disagree we can use WP:POLITICIAN to say he is inherently notable. Even the current CEO of State Street isn't notable enough for someone to make an article about him after all this time. And by the way, the subject isn't the current CFO and hasn't been since like 2013. - Imcdc Contact 14:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Finance. Imcdc Contact 14:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO sourcing found, [13] this PR piece confirms he got a job. Nothing found since that about the individual, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this "State St CFO to retire in wake of investor discontent"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With only 2-3 articles it does not meet notability. Hkkingg (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:36, 13 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 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of Chile

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single non-WP:IS. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Chile. UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It has remained unrepresented in Parliament, but I think it's relevant enough to keep. It used to be part of the currently governing coalition of Frente Amplio. --Bedivere (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article indicates the party is unrecognized, no independent coverage to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frivolous political party, no notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Frivolous" is just the right word for this party that has no significance in Chile or anywhere else. Athel cb (talk) 16:45, 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. ✗plicit 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politeia (journal)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, eight years after the last publication of this journal. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and South Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it was last published in 2002 seems like a red herring. Either it is/was notable or it isn’t/wasn’t in terms of WP:NTEMP. Park3r (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know why the article says it stopped publishing in 2002; that is straight-up incorrect. It is still live, still published by the University of South Africa [14], and "approved" by DHET. Jlalbion (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks, that is odd. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was added in 2010. Note that the current archive does not go back beyond 2001, so it seems that this is a new website. Indeed, if one clicks the official website link in older versions of the article here, you are redirected to a page that says "This website was recently revamped and the page you were looking for has been removed". Perhaps the old website was not maintained for a while, giving the impression that the journal was defunct. In any case, I have expanded the article with everything that I could find and I see no reason to change my !vote above. --Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added another sentence. The journal is certainly well known to South African political scientists, but I also can't find much secondary coverage and I'll leave it to more experienced editors to assess notability. Jlalbion (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exists, it is a thing, but as others have noted above, its history - at least online - has been somewhat patchy and I can find little/nothing out there that would establish any credible degree of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 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. This is a TNT job. Recreation encouraged by established users with no COI and based on the good sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odrek Rwabwogo

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

Not elected to office, no notability presented or existing for this Ugandan entrepreneur, writer, philanthropist, and political strategist. The article itself, a puff piece, is sourced to owned media, paid media etc. and no RS to pass WP:GNG. We learn that "He once wrote a New Vision article that read like a criticism of President Museveni" - and that's about as notable as it gets. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Uganda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient quality of references to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Very large amount of PR fluff, but I think he's barely notable [15], [16] seem ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep (as AfC accepter) -- I'm not familiar with the nuances of Ugandan media, but I found three sources (Independent, Observer #1, and Observer #2) to be significant coverage in major UG newspapers, with NilePost (1, 2) somewhere on the line, leaning towards notability. OP may have more expertise, but I didn't see anything that suggested owned or paid media from those, and all three are listed here by Stanford. The article could be trimmed, but those five sources give me enough to find notability for a person connected to the president, who has made some attempts to get into politics and whose statements regarding his own ambitions and the role of the exec have him relevant. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly meets GNG and clearly fails PROMO. Needs a re-write and it should be okay. SportingFlyer T·C 19:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as Contributor): The article has a lot of viable information and meets Wiki:GNG to a large extent. All It needs is more contributions from editors to make it wholesome and better it.

JMProfessional (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Greetings fellow Wikipedians! Indeed despite not being elected to office, the subject is active on the Ugandan political scene - directly through party politics and indirectly through his behind-the-scenes works in relation to his connections in the current Ugandan administration. There are multiple sources that show his entrepreneur side, his stake in politics (not just the New Vision source) and his personal life.

As a new article, I urge everyone with knowledge on the subject to contribute accordingly to make it better. Afterall, Wiki is a joint effort. Niitwe (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created the article and have a declared COI with the subject!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 13 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) 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Tong Wong

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Biographical portion is only sourced to a single source that may not be IS. Remainder is sourced to catalogues. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, China, Taiwan, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the article could be expanded with text translated from the corresponding Chinese article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 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. Zeng, Yongyi 曾永義 (2022). "黃輔棠" [Fu Tong Wong]. 酒党党魁經眼錄 [The Eye Records of the Leader of the Wine Party] (in Chinese). New Taipei City: Linking Publishing [zh]. ISBN 978-9-57-086499-1. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "黃輔棠 (一九四八–)，筆名阿鏜，廣州人。美國KSU音樂碩士。他「轉益多師」，集小提琴演奏、作曲、指揮於一身。曾任臺灣藝術學院實驗樂團首席、臺南應用科技大學教授。代表品是《神鵰俠侶交響樂》與歌劇《西施》。為其《神鵰俠侶》指揮過深圳、廣州、湖南、亞美尼亞、昆明等地之交響樂團。"
  From Google Translate: "Fu Tong Wong (1948–), whose pen name is Ah Tong, was born in Guangzhou. Master of Music at KSU, USA. He "transferred to many teachers", integrating violin performance, composition and conducting. He used to be the principal of the Experimental Orchestra of Taiwan Academy of Arts and a professor of Tainan University of Applied Science and Technology. Representative works are "The Condor Heroes Symphony" and the opera "Xi Shi". He has conducted symphony orchestras in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hunan, Armenia, Kunming and other places for "The Legend of Condor Heroes"."
2. Ng, Gwai-lung 吳貴龍 (2017). Cheung, Pui-ji 張佩兒 (ed.). 金庸的光影片段（新版）: 亦狂亦俠亦溫文 [Jin Yong's video clips (new version): mad, chivalrous and gentle] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book Company. ISBN 978-988-8488-31-5. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "黃輔棠 (一九四八年– )，筆名阿鏜，音樂家，美籍華人。早年在廣州接受專業音樂教育，經歷「文革」，後赴美國取得音樂碩士學位。小提琴師承馬思宏、馬科夫等，作曲師承張己任、蘆炎、林聲翕等。他創作的歌劇、樂曲、歌曲曾在世界各地公演。《神鵰俠侶交響樂》一九七六年開始醞釀，從構思、寫作到製作 , 歷時二十八年完成，並製成影碟，分為八個樂章 : 一、反出道觀 ; 二、古墓師徒 ; 三、俠之大者 ; 四、黯然銷魂 ; 五、海濤練劍 ; 六、情是何物 ; 七、群英賀雇 ; 八、谷底重逢。影碟封面為王在元的油畫作品 , 並由金庸親筆題字。"
  From Google Translate: "Fu Tong Wong (1948–), pen name Ah Ting, musician, Chinese-American. In his early years, he received professional music education in Guangzhou, experienced the "Cultural Revolution", and then went to the United States to obtain a master's degree in music. The violin learned from Ma Sihong, Makov, etc., and the composer learned from Zhang Jiren, Lu Yan, Lin Shengxi, etc. His operas, compositions and songs have been performed all over the world. "The Legend of Condor Heroes Symphony" began to be conceived in 1976. From conception, writing to production, it took 28 years to complete and was made into a video disc. Divided into eight movements: 1. Reversing Taoism; 8. Reunion at the bottom of the valley. The cover of the DVD is an oil painting by Wang Zaiyuan, and the inscription is written by Jin Yong himself."
3. Jiang, Lirong 蔣理容 (2007-09-19). "《音樂與文學的對話》　阿鏜的古詞新唱" ["A Dialogue between Music and Literature" New Singing of A-Tang's Ancient Ci]. Merit Times [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "在「新故鄉台灣」，友人們所熟悉的阿鏜印象，是一位質樸、誠懇的人，無論開口說話或執筆為文，都流露出一股文人氣息，待人親切又常常笑意盈盈，很難想像他曾經歷過大陸的「文革」災難，相對於今日的寧靜淡泊，大概是阿鏜人生的另一番境界吧！阿鏜，就是黃輔棠，一位知名的小提琴家、作曲家、教育家，一九四八生於廣東番禺。與他的同鄉前輩馬思聰一樣，在文革期間曾冒殺身之險，遠涉重洋到了美國。"
  From Google Translate: "In "New Hometown Taiwan", the familiar impression of Ah Tong to friends is that he is a simple and sincere person. Whether he speaks or writes, he always exudes a literati atmosphere. He treats people kindly and often smiles. It is hard to imagine that he has experienced the disaster of the "Cultural Revolution" in the mainland. Compared with today's tranquility and indifference, it is probably another state of Ah Tong's life! Ah Tong is Fu Tong Wong, a well-known violinist, composer, and educator, born in Panyu, Guangdong in 1948. Like his fellow countryman Ma Sicong, he risked his life during the Cultural Revolution and traveled across the ocean to the United States."
4. "阿鏜一生感激的貴人" [The noble man who is grateful all his life]. Mingpao Monthly [zh] (in Chinese). Media Chinese International. 2018-06-29. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "筆名「阿鏜」的音樂家黃輔棠，他的代表曲目為《神鵰俠侶交響樂》與歌劇《西施》，亦是十二冊《黃鐘小提琴教學法》創始人，另有論著《阿鏜樂論》等。"
  From Google Translate: "Fu Tong Wong, a musician with the pen name "A-Tong", whose representative works are "Symphony of the Condor Heroes" and the opera "Xi Shi", is also the founder of the 12-volume "Huang Zhong Violin Teaching Method" On "etc."
5. "Chinese and Foreign Gazette article". 中外雜誌 [Chinese and Foreign Gazette]. Vol. 72. 2002. p. 144. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "最近名作曲家阿鏜(黃輔棠教授)聽過陳明律的 CD 後,寫給她的一幅對聯,作為行家對陳明律的樂評:樂評讚美聯芳齡登七旬,美妙歌聲猶勝處子;唱碟選奇曲,陽春白雪高過行雲! "
  From Google Translate: "Recently, the famous composer Ah Ting (Professor Fu Tong Wong) wrote a couplet to her after listening to Chen Minglu's CD, which serves as an expert's music review of Chen Minglu: "Music review praises the couplet when she is seventy years old, and her beautiful singing voice is better than that of a virgin; CD selection" Strange song, the spring snow is higher than the clouds!"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fu Tong Wong (traditional Chinese: 黃輔棠; simplified Chinese: 黄辅棠) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reviewing sources presented by Cunard, WP:BIO/GNG is met. —siro χ o 12:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard; someone needs to add those sources on the article though. - Indefensible (talk) 05:39, 11 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With Every Mistake

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. One single review. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, Social science, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply no evidence of notability for this published collection of articles - no media outside press release/book blogs and no critical review of any weight that I could find. When EVERY mention of the book starts with "This essential collection contains..." you can sense the fell hand of the publisher's publicist. The George Harrison quote, "With every mistake, we must surely be learning." is nice, though. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Whitlock, Nathan. "With Every Mistake". Quill & Quire. Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
  The review notes: "A collection of columns by Gwynne Dyer is a different beast. Dyer, one of the most respected and well-known writers on geopolitics and global conflict in the world, has been doing this for more than 30 years, averaging around 100 syndicated columns in each of those years, and yet he has never before put together a collection. In fact, as he admits in the introduction to With Every Mistake, he “generally cannot remember the topic, let alone the title, of the article I wrote twenty-four hours ago.”"
2. Good, Alex (2005-12-24). "Getting himself out of Dyer straits". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
  The review notes: "Columns on international affairs from South America to Africa to Asia to outer space are included, but it's clear from the outset that Dyer's main focus is on Iraq (a subject he has already covered in two other books: Ignorant Armies and Future: Tense)."
3. Davidson, Dan (2007-04-27). "With every mistake we must surely be learning something". Whitehorse Daily Star. Retrieved 2023-07-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Every Mistake is not just a collection of columns; it is also a compendium of after-thoughts, with Dyer commenting on his own successes and failures as a columnist. ... The columns are short items, mostly under 2,000 words. Park the book in your bathroom and you may find yourself seeking relief more often."
4. Mertl, Steve (2005-12-10). "Book reviews". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
  The review notes: "Dyer's sardonic style is entertaining. There's a jaded, world-weary quality to it, but he creates optimism. As scary as they are, terrorist attacks are relative pinpricks on the continuum of violence compared with the large-scale wars of a few decades ago."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow With Every Mistake to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the 4 lengthy book reviews Cunard cited. Gwynne Dyer is an important Canadian writer.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT.1 after reviewing Cunard's sources. —siro χ o 01:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Cunard. - Indefensible (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon the book reviews and WP:BOOKCRIT.1. I was the initial author for this article, and I only found 1 of the reviews that Cunard referenced. Andrew Sullivan Cant (talk) 18:51, 12 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 as a WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charinya Miyu Kanchanasevee

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

WP:BLP1E, some minor coverage for a rather random Guinness record. Fram (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Thailand. Fram (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do appear to use flowery language [17] this was one of the ones I translated, she met the Tourism Minister at the finish line and it was impressive etc. This is about the best non-PR one [18] and it's just about meeting the Minister. No extensive coverage of the individual, BLP1E for sure. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nominator. She set an odd record in a marathon = BLP1E, routine coverage only Josey Wales^Parley 16:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally, a Guinness record should mean something, but here it's below the threshold, I think. Deckkohl (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a quite in-depth profile in the TCDC's magazine[19], and interview-based coverage in major news sites including the Daily News[20] and Krungthep Turakij[21]. They are all focused on the single event, though, and might not overcome the BLP1E concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:53, 13 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sparke

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

Most sources here are written by the subject, as indeed is part of this article as the subject appears to have been a significant contributor. With multiple issues throughout the article, including sourcing, citations and excessive detail, the main one is that the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. That, along with COI... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United States of America, and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NACADEMIC-C1, given strong citation record. --Mvqr (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are a few citations to RS. The article needs a massive rewrite, though, because it's mostly a glowing summary of Sparke's work rather than information on the individual. Bordering on promotional. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The RS pieces are authoured by Sparke, they're not third party/editorial commentary on his enduring impact on his discipline... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 already discussed above, he has enough published book reviews of his two books to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emerio

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to NTT Communications. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources are primary sources, and there are only three sources. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 00:49, 13 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 14:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Innovation League

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

Coverage is based on press releases/brand posts. It doesn't have the significant coverage required according to WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Literally has no indication of notability. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 18:51, 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 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 14:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antlabs

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

Routine news articles. The company doesn't have the significant coverage required according to WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a PR article for a non notable business. Please point out the 2 or 3 sources supporting WP:NCORP if you dissent. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ US-Verified (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ovolo Hotels

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the company's coverage is related to its founder, Girish Jhunjhnuwala. I don't think this company is independently notable, and it doesn't have the significant coverage required according to WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article include some that are mainly about the hotels, not the founder, including the CNN source and the USA Today source. It's also easy to find more sources about Ovolo Hotels – here are several from the South China Morning Post alone: [22][23][24][25][26][27]. See also the sources linked at the previous AfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:35, 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!} 07:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Seth Hurst

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

No indication of notability or in-depth third party coverage. Created by single-purpose account with likely conflict of interest. MrGnocci (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional sounding article, with some sources being profiles and the rest just brief mentions. Hkkingg (talk) 21:22, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Kaplan

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER, reads like a resume. Did WP:BEFORE and there is an actress named Caroline Kaplan but they are not this person. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Film. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: according to criterion#2 for notability of producers (quoted above; has played an important in the making of numerous films; her exact role in the making of those films can be sourced here). And see this— MY, OH, MY! (mushy yank) — 14:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think she's doing a lot of the creative work on these projects as an executive producer. The first source is just a list of projects they worked on, Variety is a good source but this isn't a secondary source it's more like a resume. Indiewire is also a good source but this article is just saying she got a job with a company and isn't really an in depth article about her. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Executive producers generally don't have a lot to do with the creative process; as the Indiewire article shows, her duties are more about the financing. Also, that article is more of an announcement of her new position. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:24, 22 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!} 06:28, 29 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!} 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She seems to be involved in many productions, but I don't think it's on the creative side, more on the "gets the film made" side/technical or business type jobs. Sourcing found is simply confirmation she exists or does xyz for a film. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an Oscar nomination is not nothin'. The oscars.org official announcement of nominees specifically lists her by name. Ms. Kaplan does not meet WP:GNG as there are many dozens of mentions by reliable sources but there's no in-depth article about her. She still attains notability by item 3 in WP:PRODUCER:

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)…"

Ms. Kaplan's work is covered very thoroughly - see her filmography article.

Finally, a little nugget found while searching. It might be useful for the article (but not establishing notability) -- an interview on The Moth Radio Hour

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed with A.B. CT55555(talk) 01:34, 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 no consensus‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dandenong Football and Netball Club

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

Redirect to Southern_Football_Netball_League#Division_4 contested (courtesy @Nyttend: stating: (Un-redirecting; it appears to be on the same level as other clubs in its league, and ought to be kept or deleted together, not redirected by itself) which makes sense. However I'm unable to find any evidence of notability for this team despite their 60 years of existence. The changing names doesn't help, but there should be something in independent, reliable sourcing. I've been unable to find anything, let alone N:ORG depth. I'm fine with any target as an ATD, but there's nothing reliably sourced to merge outside their date of establishment. Star Mississippi 03:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Star Mississippi 03:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~as they are also a football club, I oppose~~ also support redirect to Southern_Football_Netball_League#Division_4. No coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question If you agree with my rationale, why didn't you nominate a bunch of others too? Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moorabbin Kangaroos Football Club‎. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've PRODed a few other clubs, and will do more. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Personally coming from POV of AfD closer who ends up closing some as Trainwreck, I'm not always in favor of bundles since some may need to be considered individually, and I'm not sure that works well for a bundled redirect conversation. It appears from the template in the Dandenong footer that we have articles for some at each level, and not others so I wasn't sure whether you were speaking from policy or opinion as to whether it should be an all or nothing. Thanks @LibStar @JML1148 for starting the process on the others. Happy to look if there are others that need nominations. Star Mississippi 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can always nominate them separately, or PROD them, as has been done here; no need to assume that "try to get others deleted" involves a multi-nomination liable to a trainwreck. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is support for Redirecting this article but since there also seems to be some opposition, I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 29 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!} 07:22, 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. and lightly salted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Gaffney

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

Previously deleted [28] - subject still likely to fail WP:NBIO. Not seeing anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV - just a number of non-notable business ventures with minimal coverage. KH-1 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - REFBOMB of mentions that aren't actually about the subject in any substantial way. This reeks of paid advertising - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO, wow. 19 yr old person that isn't notable. There seems to be some scandal with the business/enterprise thing but I can't find much more than PR sources; even then there are less than 6 of them, not even much paid promo. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems very much like WP:PAID work and is heavy on PROMO. Most sources are not directly about the individual he is just mentioned. Not to mention the article is extremely hard to read in a normal manner. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Previous deletion discussion was clear this article should be deleted to prevent us from being in this situation again in a month this article should also be salted.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO & REFBOMB. Tatupiplu'^talk 16:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - I found no good refs. Also, compare the edit histories of the article's two major contributors; both also edit Mary Blathwayt and Emily Blathwayt, early 20th century suffragettes:

Special:Contributions/John.burlington68
Special:Contributions/Ikemike1988
- removed AfD tag from article, falsely claiming "Article discussion has been closed."

The author of the first version, Shyguy125 (now blocked), also removed the tags from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob T. Gaffney

Clearly bad faith editing. Both "Jacob T. Gaffney" and "Jacob Gaffney" should be salted.

Jacob Gaffney is not yet 20; he has a long time left to earn his article here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spotify and IMDB cant be used as a source and the remaining citations are not enough to make it meet notability.Hkkingg (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 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 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!} 06:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G2T Global Awards

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

This article is about an award presented by a Moroccan training company. It is entirely non-notable, has no RS presented and is totally promotional. The website is 'powered by GoDaddy', which already has us in the weeds. Basically, this is borderline hoax - a commercially motivated award of questionable merit and absolutely zero notability. Delete with fire would be my earnest recommendation. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Morocco. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a couple of mentions in Arab News [29][30]. But otherwise not notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:59, 12 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 Doctor Who supporting characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Guardian

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

Minor recurring character who relies excessively on primary sources. Does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of Doctor Who characters unless improved with reception/analysis. Fails GNG as written (WP:FANCRUFT). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect this topic doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV unless someone can find detailed reception. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to settle on one redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 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!} 04:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semajno de Kulturo Internacia

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

Lacks notability. No news, scholar, or any other RS I can find. Three "books" on Google Books but they are all just repackaged Wikipedia contents. NM 04:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 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!} 04:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Gundersrud

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. No SIGCOV whatsoever. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third party independent sources showing notability found. Qcne (talk) 20:01, 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.

Sorry, User:Skarmory, this AFD didn't get wider participation. If you want discussion on the questions you raised, you'll have to take it to a policy talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1301 (disambiguation)

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

Violates WP:TWODAB in its current state. If a link to the SH year is needed, it's best done as a hatnote, but I feel like that sets up a precedent that should at least be handled via wider community discussion. (Some questions: If a hatnote is kept, should there be hatnotes on Julian/Gregorian year articles mentioning the equivalent year in other calendar systems? Which calendar systems? Should there be DAB pages for these? etc.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per proposer. It sets a dangerous precedent to link to too many (if any) other calendars: the Gregorian one is by far the most used.

Godtres (talk) 08:38, 10 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!} 03:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Allen's Hummingbird Webcam

AfDs for this article:

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

Is this notable? No sources provided that note status of website since 2014 Plantdrew (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than the Huffington Post fluffy piece, I came up empty in searching. Even if Phoebe were notable, she's dead by now, bless her heart.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD actually lists a surprising number of puff piecelets, mostly dead links now. Eh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Elmidae said, a lot of puff pieces. It looks like the last AfD made the mistake of equating sources existing with WP:GNG. That isn't WP:SIGCOV even when an entire article in a source is focused on the subject. That's more in the human interest story side of newspapers that's much more WP:INDISCRIMINATE that serious lasting impact and [WP:SUSTAINED]] coverage. We are WP:NOTNEWSPAPER where this belongs instead. KoA (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AryKun (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting coverage or notability. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:44, 12 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. I see a consensus that the coverage on this article subject doesn't reach SIGCOV although this isn't a unanimous opinion. No additional comments after relisting so I'm closing this discussion now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Benbasat

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

Non-notable streamer, there is some coverage in the Jerusalem Post article cited, but that's about all there is for this individual. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A shame so many sources are there in Hebrew meeting reliable Source guidelines, this seems to sufficiently sourced. Passes WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the sources used in the article, the Post article isn't significantly about Benbasat (only mentioned with a dozen other streamers). I don't think the Frog.co.il source is reliable—it looks like a blog-style tabloid focused on teens that started up only a decade ago. The Ynet source may be enough coverage, but I'm likewise unsure of its reliability (can't even find a masthead or editorial policy on their English-language site.) That leaves the Mako as the only one that's enough for a GNG pass, and that's falling short of the multiple sources we require. My ability to search Hebrew sources is weak, but there's nothing in English I can find that suggests they are notable or there are sources beyond what's provided. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hebrew searches concludes he was also a voice actor in The Super Mario Bros. Movie official hebrew dub WP:FILMBIO, also ynet sources looks decent for GNG but added voice acting seems weak to solid keep. Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Checkuser note: Gerblinpete is a confirmed sock of Meegvun, below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fuchs rationale. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Three. Frogi [he] , Mako (website) and Ynet are reputed news portal of Israel. Significant coverage in these publications are enough to address WP:GNG. Meegvun (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Hi Ninja, Can you please have a look at this disruption. This afd is clearly a mess. Maliner (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JPost is a passing mention and frogi.co.il is essentially a repost of the video (90%+ of it is quoting him, and the other 10% is useless). That leaves Ynet and Mako, which are both probably RSs and unquestionably the primary topic. Since it's all not in English, it's pretty hard to find sources. But the quantity right now isn't meeting SIGCOV. SWinxy (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources are not in English that does not mean that article should be deleted. See WP:NEXIST. Maliner (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ynet, Mako, and Frogi are clearly independent and reliable sources discussing the subject in detail. Sufficient to pass Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: some sock free time would be lovely
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 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!} 03:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Lemince

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

12 official appearances for the Mauritius national football team. Also appears to have earned caps with the national beach soccer team (1). I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mauritius. JTtheOG (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Brown (entrepreneur)

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

Created by an editor who only edited on 2 articles. This fails WP:BIO. I oppose redirect as David/Dave Brown is a very common name. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN, does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited either, so this article makes no clear claim to notability. —siro χ o 03:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That Lifehacker is an interview and I cannot find any other sources, so it does not meet WP:BIO threshold. Qcne (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only 2 articles it would not meet notability. Hkkingg (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean sources? LibStar (talk) 23:51, 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 keep‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer

AfDs for this article:

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

I'd like to revisit this one; only coverage of the event since last AfD is that charges were dropped against the officer. Seems to be a sad event, nothing for notability here in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: - factually wrong, charges dropped against the suspect Jason, investigation ongoing against the officer(s). starship .paint (exalt) 09:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[31] Ok yes, I misred the headlines. Trouted as below, accepted. Oaktree b (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the SIGCOV on this is extensive. Article may need a bit of cleanup, but definitely not deletion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Police, and North Carolina. • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least six months of WP:SUSTAINED coverage (December, January, February, March, April, June) in articles wholly about the shooting, was tangentially mentioned in remaining month May, overall covered in four countries (USA, UK, Greece, Hungary) and 11 media outlets. Nominator should be trouted for failing to do WP:BEFORE, a simple Google search produced ~~two~~ three more updates - ~~police stating there was no bodycam~~ one police department refusing to publish bodycam, another police department stating they have no video, and Jason filing a federal lawsuit. starship .paint (exalt) 09:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Duly trouted. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok yes I deserved that. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)11:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: May you live to be trouted another day, my friend 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources on this subject appear to be primary sources, which may not be used to claim notability. Without any significant secondary coverage, it fails WP:GNG. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Uhh, do you mind explaining how the sources are primary? I'm seeing The Independent, the Asheville Citizen-Times, WTVC, and many others, which are secondary sources. It's not like it's all sourced from Kloepfer's personal blog or something. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Festucalex Per WP:RS: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources. I'll ask you the opposite question. Why would they be secondary sources? Primary sources are those that provide new information or raw facts about the subject as they become available. Secondary sources are those that provide analysis and commentary on primary sources. WP:PRIMARYNEWS goes into more detail about how this relates to news organizations, but the vast majority of sources from news outlets are primary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: That doesn't apply here. The coverage is WP:SUSTAINED, and many sources provide analysis of the situation (per A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events in WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Here are some non-exhaustive examples: this source is a deep dive investigative report on the matter. An analysis is provided here and here and here as well. WP:PRIMARYNEWS, as far as I understand it, would apply if all the sources were BREAKING: A MAN HAS BEEN SHOT! which is not the case. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those is an update to provide new information in an ongoing story. They are not retrospective analyses, they are describing the events as they unfold. Your main example of a secondary source is a literal interview, and it even has "new details" in the headline. It doesn't get more primary than that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: This just makes absolutely no sense. Just because these articles add a tidbit of new detail to a month-old story (which is then analyzed and commented upon) makes them primary? Well, say goodbye to 99% of Wikipedia's sources! The perfect source according to your argument would be an article written out of the blue 4 months after an incident with strictly no new information whatsoever, which is just not how news coverage works. WP:PRIMARYNEWS is meant to protect articles from unverified information written in the first moments after an event. As for the interview article, you can see that it was conducted between a reporter and another reporter [who] dug into the relationship between the two departments and what happened that night. It doesn't get more secondary than that. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the only sources are news coverage and no one created additional sources after all the information came out, then it should not have an article on Wikipedia. If an event is notable, then historians or other academics will study it and publish their analyses in books or journals. If they don't do that, it means it was just a news story that has no historic significance and is not notable. That's why we require secondary sources. It would make no sense to have an article for every random event that occurred, got printed in the news for a bit, and then had no further relevance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I disagree that most of the sources fall under WP:RSBREAKING because they do not match what WP:RSBREAKING considers breaking news. It states that our articles does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia … The Template:current, Template:recent death, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event… The shooting was assuredly not a current event, it ended in December 2022 and I think only one of the sources is from December 2022. WP:RSBREAKING further refers to WYNC’s Breaking News Consumer's Handbook, which says that In the immediate aftermath, news outlets will get it wrong ... "whatever you might hear in the first couple of hours after a major news event, you should probably take it all with a grain of salt," Again, only one of the sources was published in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. starship .paint (exalt) 02:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Per WP:USEPRIMARY some of the sources can be considered secondary because they describes, comments on, or analyzes primary sources (in which case, it is secondary). The surveillance video of the shooting is obviously primary source material, and so are police press releases about the shooting, as well as the lawsuit complaint about the shooting. Some of the sources describe/comment/analyse such material, and thus can be considered as secondary sources, I will list such commentary and anaylsis below. starship .paint (exalt) 13:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons, commentary and analysis of primary sources (video, press releases, lawsuit), which means these parts are secondary sources. starship .paint (exalt) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Vima Greek Σοκ προκαλεί το νέο σκάνδαλο αστυνομικής βίας στις ΗΠΑ, όταν αστυνομικοί της ομάδας SWAT πυροβόλησαν εν ψυχρώ έναν άοπλο άνδρα όσο αυτός ακολουθούσε τις εντολές τους και άνοιξε την πόρτα του τροχόσπιτού του στη Βόρεια Καρολίνα. (‘the new police brutality scandal in the U.S. is causing shock when SWAT team officers shot an unarmed man in cold blood…’)
WLOS The surveillance footage released by Kloepfer appears to show a conflicting account of the event.
Cherokee Scout Dramatic video of a Murphy man being shot by the Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT team appears to contradict key details of a press release…
RTL.HU Hungarian A férfi lakásában felszerelt biztonsági kamera felvételei, amiket január közepén hoztak nyilvánosságra, azonban már egészen mást mutatnak. (‘…they show something completely different’) … felesége pedig csak a szerencsének köszönheti, hogy a még mindig érkező lövedékek egyike sem találja el. (‘his wife can only thank luck that none of the bullets that are still coming hit her.’)
The Independent The press release initially shared by the office claimed that Mr Kloepfer “engaged in a verbal altercation with officers” and that he then came out of the home and “confronted” police which supposedly led to the 41-year-old being shot. But the surveillance shows a different version of events.
Smoky Mountain News In an explosive federal lawsuit… After Kloepfer published his video Jan. 18, Smith issued a new press release that downplayed the involvement of the agency he oversees. He stated — incorrectly, according to the lawsuit and supported by public records previously reported by The Smoky Mountain News — that neither he nor Jacobs were on scene and that the information published Dec. 13 was the result of information provided by the CIPD.
Blue Ridge Public Radio According to the initial police account, Kloepfer confronted officers, but private security footage showed Kloepfer and his wife awakened by the SWAT team. The video showed Kloepfer following their commands at the door, and he is shot a few seconds later.
Ashville Citizen Times saying in a news release he confronted officers and engaged in a verbal altercation. But home security video posted by Kloepfer later contradicted that, and the sheriff issued a new statement about the incident.
This source provides no new information about the shooting, but analyses it as relevant to other events. Smoky Mountain News During its April 6 meeting, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Council unanimously approved an ordinance change … The vote comes on the heels of a Dec. 13, 2022, Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT response in which officers fired at Murphy resident Jason Harley Kloepfer…
This source provides no new information about the shooting, but analyses it as relevant to other events. Asheville Citizen Times Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Chief Richard Sneed has signed a law making police videos no longer public records, a move that comes amid a state investigation into a tribal police shooting. … The ordinance was first proposed March 2, less than three months after the shooting of an unarmed Murphy man, Jason Kloepfer, in his home … An initial statement by law enforcement said Kloepfer had confronted officers and engaged in a verbal altercation. But the security video he posted to social media contradicted that.

(3) In light of (1) and (2) above, this article satisfies WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. starship .paint (exalt) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Starship.paint's source analysis, this passes GNG and is not merely a non-notable news story. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 12 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. The consensus is Keep (even if I don't understand the arguments for keeping this page). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Greene

AfDs for this article:

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

This disambiguation page isn't serving a purpose. Two of the pages don't exist, and the others are links to other disambiguation articles. I've never seen a disambiguation page with so few links and no pages with the same title being disambiguated. The void century 02:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As another editor wrote 10 years ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Greene , "this dab page disentangles two redlinked people of the same name who are mentioned in WP articles, and two others mentioned in articles, and thus helps readers and future editors. The encyclopedia would not benefit from its deletion." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Fortune (band) doesn't redlink the name anymore. The void century 04:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid, useful, dab page, as above. PamD 05:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several valid entries, all meeting MOS:DABMENTION or MOS:DABRL. If someone is looking for a Larry Greene, this will be WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with a SNOW close if you'd like. The void century 12:11, 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. ✗plicit 23:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Care

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

A senior care provider that exists in Oregon and has a few facility but not particularly notable to the point of justifying a Wikipedia article. Media coverage on the company is mostly routine stuff. I am not finding multiple, significant and reliable independent coverage on the company as expected by WP:NCORP. Also the article was created by a single purpose account as far as I can tell from looking at the edit history Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the additional sources added since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Name of the outfit is rather common, I get hits on all kinds of medical facilities. There are some awards and the USA Today story that seem to be in RS in the citations, but I'd not consider them substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, taking edits since nomination into account as well. Deckkohl (talk) 20:56, 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 keep‎. Good luck to those editors wanting to improve this article! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hobie Cat

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

Not seeing notability for this boat builder, the only decent source is the obit for the company's founder. The rest of the sources appear to be hobbyist websites. There are none found in RS that I see either. Not meeting CORP. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not a yachtsman but I've heard a lot about these. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing asking for input pro or con. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Following the lead right above me, I've also placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California. This might take a little time to find the sourcing. Hobie Cat Company Information can easily been found with a search, but it's own site is on some sort of WP blacklist and can't be saved on an edit. It's a notable company, definitely, based in San Diego, CA. You might even call it a hobbyist success story. The company has been in business over half a century, which is incredible. But the trick will be to find the sourcing.— Maile (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think sheer volume of the 7,969 search results through California Digital Newspaper Collection are pretty impressive. Some are company ads, but it appears the majority are articles focusing coverage on competitive racing, etc. Even if some coverage is the mention of one or more Hobie Cat entries, non-notable institutions would not garner this amount of coverage. "Results 1 to 20 of 7,969 for Hobie Cat — California Digital Newspaper Collection". cdnc.ucr.edu. Retrieved 6 July 2023. — Maile (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that the boat(s) are well-known and influential (through innovation). It seems to be easy to find reviews of these boats by yachting journalists, for instance [32]. Regarding the blacklisting of a source (above), you can get blacklisting removed or modified for a particular article, presuming you have a good reason. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it needs pointing out, but there is a brief account of the company and their boats in the boat review link given immediately above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search will show that this company is one of the world's most prolific boat builders and there are many refs available. The article needs expanding, not deleting. - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm hearing a lot of keep votes based on name recognition and assertion that WP:SOURCESEXIST. Would like to see more concrete examples.-KH-1 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedia Library also turns up a large number of feature articles on the company and its boats. There really is so much coverage that it will take days to sort through it all and choose the best of the best – time that would generally be better spent improving the article first. (Will try to circle back with some examples before the week is up but also trying not to overcommit.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep with revised lede'': Hobey Cats are a major class of recreational boats, with a worldwide sailing associations and championship racing. [https://hobieclass.com/]. However, the article lede needs to be revised to reflect the article's contents which are NOT about the company, but about the boat classes. For example

''Hobie Cats are a range of over a dozen classes of sailing catamaran, generally small, notably used for competitive racing. They are manufactured by the Hobie Cat Company which also makes surfboards, sailboats, kayaks, stand-up paddle boards, and pedalboards. The company was founded in 1961 by Hobart Alter, who originally manufactured surfboards." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep'': Why is the largest catamaran brand in the world with literally 10 of thousands of boats produced and multiple world championships held in there equipment ever nominated for deletion. Yachty4000 (talk) 22:31, 12 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 01:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of orchid species

AfDs for this article:

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

A dreadfully incomplete attempt to apparently list every orchid species by the broadest geographical area to which it is endemic. There are ca. 28,000 orchid species, and the geographical areas with section headers are fine-grained enough to include "Canadian Prairies" (so possibly thousands of areas). An article is not a reasonable way to organize this information Plantdrew (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rethink per nominator's comments: "dreadfully incomplete" … "28,000 orchid species" … "possibly thousands of areas". To which I would add "haphazard". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We would not dream of trying this with birds, which have nearly complete coverage on WP and 1/3 the number of species. You cannot organize tens of thousands of entries in this way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I must say, I do respect the bravery of this infeasible endeavor. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But for users, so often, something is better than nothing. Might it be better to merely prefix the article title with "Some", or suffix the title with "(Incomplete)", or some other editorial action that makes the title reflect the article better?

And, sure, it might indeed be ideal to have a page or series of pages that has every orchid, rare or common, arranged more systematically. But in what way will deleting the article cause that ideal to be achieved? I kinda don't see how it is logical to condemn an existing article by referring to a preferable imaginary one? If that is an allowed method, most of Wikipedia should be deleted! :-) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick Jelliffe: the way to tackle the classification of this large a number of entries is via categorization. And indeed we have a well-populated Category:Orchids by location. It seems to me that this essentially does the job you want done. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, duplication is a good reason to delete it, rather than mere incompleteness. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant, and has the most bizarre categorization I've ever seen: apparently sees Sundaland, New Guinea, the Philippines, and Taiwan as a coherent geographical area. AryKun (talk) 06:38, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mars (Doctor Who)

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

Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Article existed for 14 years before it was redirected in 2019. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Astronomy. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect Picking up from the RFD discussion, people aren't going to use this as a search term, and there isn't meaningful coverage at the redirect target. It certainly has no notability separate from the series. I don't see the procedural value in shifting the discussion here, but here we are. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: The article was restored as a result of consensus at RfD, and the page is no longer a redirect; thus deleting the redirect is no longer a viable option. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in case the guidelines aren't clear, there aren't enough sources to support this as an article, and it should be deleted. There is no value to the redirect either, since it's an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the bad title makes it sound like this is about something called “Mars” unique to Doctor Who, which might exist but almost certainly isn’t notable. The subject of the planet Mars in Doctor Who is not notable either. I don’t even know where this would redirect to, and it wouldn’t be a useful redirect anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather WP:INUNIVERSE the way it is structured, and seemingly non-notable in and of itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are absolutely no sources indicating that the depictions of the planet Mars in various Doctor Who media is notable enough to even bother being mentioned at Mars in fiction, let alone have an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if any good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if possible; ping User:TompaDompa on whether Mars in fiction can get a mention of Doctor Who, which would allow us to save this as a redirect? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not as such, no. It might be possible to shoehorn in a link using a lower-tier source (which is not to say that we should—there are plenty of other works that are currently not mentioned in the article where the case for shoehorning them in is way stronger), but nothing substantial enough to motivate a redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as User talk:CycloneYoris said.MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 17:45, 12 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!} 00:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Parsons

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

Subject isn't particularly notable and I haven't been able to find much coverage on him at all. Sources used in the article seem rather poor. Dawnbails (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Dawnbails (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the cited sources are self-published and/or not independent of the subject. The guy does have a (very cursory) entry on AllMusic, but I think the consensus is that site isn't reliable for biographical information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic bios are considered reliable by the wikipedia music projects with some dissenting voices in a minority at RSN, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in Gnews for this person, has bandcamp and last.fm hits, but that's about all. Sources used are red or orange per sourcebot, so no help for notability there. Looks like a delete but I'd support a redirect or merge to one particular band (unsure which is the more pertinent one in this case). Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His work does not appear to be notable. As WeirdNAnnoyed mentioned, most sources are self-published which raises more of a red flag for me. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 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.