Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 26 January 28 >

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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Turpin

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

I can find no indication that this article meets the person-specific notability policy, including WP:BASIC. The article uses a number of primary sources, and none of the others meet WP:SIGCOV -- they're all brief quotes or interviews with the subject. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree - I honestly have absolutely no idea why this is featured on the front page. Alfolfin (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. Please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. OfTheUsername (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Had I seen this when this was nominated, I would have procedurally closed this AfD as you cannot nominate an article while it is linked from the main page. I did see this 12 minutes for it rotated off the main page, and it was then easier to pull the DYk hook then to close this AfD. Now that the article is no longer of the main page, the speedy keep is moot. Schwede66 00:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: I thought that was the case! However, I couldn't find the policy or guideline that supported it so I assumed my memory was off (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy). If that was incorrect, I apologize. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. Schwede66 08:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When this was created I assumed notability would be met as he had served as a Director at the U.S. National Security Council and senior advisor to a U.S. Secretary of Commerce. However, if the sources cited/available would not be sufficient to establish WP:SIGCOV, I support the deletion. W9793 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Poorly sourced, but he’s a prominent figure on the think-tank / govt foreign policy scene. It’s not plausible to me that sources don’t exist to establish his notability. Llajwa (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG from sourcing showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak): I agree with the nom that this does not meet BASIC due to primary problems, but I think the level of sources for the article make a case for NACADEMIC#7, "The person has made substantial impact (Hoover, Brookings, AEI) outside academia (Politico, CBS, The Hill, ESPN) in their academic capacity." The article does need cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk  21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TimothyBlue: Y'know, I didn't think to weigh this bio against NACADEMIC! Looking at the specific criteria notes, I'm not sure they are "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (my emphasis). Their 2020s quotes were sought out because of their 2010s government positions, not because they were briefly a professor in the mid-2000s (with only a master's degree?). That said, I can definitely see how reasonable people could disagree on that, and the case for notability is closer than I thought it was when I was nominating this for deletion. Thanks for raising the point! Best, Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Kelly

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

I couldn't establish that he meetsWP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep The many trivial details in this overlong article obscurEs the fact that his career has been fairly prominent, and sources for notability can almost certainly be found. Llajwa (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No support for deletion, but also no policy-based "keep"-arguments, just assertions of importance. Therefore we don't have an informed consensus either way here. Sandstein 15:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Israeli Basketball National League Cup

[edit]
2023 Israeli Basketball National League Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon, and draftspace would be fine until the tournament is held and sources eventuate, but creator is unwilling to accept it so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that there is no sourcing, do you mean that there are no notability-supporting references in the article? What is the added value for WP of frustrating the development of sports articles by our sports contributors and, for the general community, of even more AfDs like this one? Don't we have enough AfDs? I have linked this article to Hewiki and cleaned it up a bit. gidonb (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I first came across it, there were two sources to the league. My Before, and in extremely rudimentary Hebrew helped by Google translate found nothing that would establish notability. I have a lot of respect for you as a fellow editor @Gidonb but you know Don't we have enough AfDs? isn't an argument to keep as it can easily be refuted by don't we have enough seasonal articles when they could be covered elsewhere? They're both bad arguments. If there was sourcing I had missed, you'd have added it. What's wrong with allowing incubation until there is sourcing? (I realize you're not the one who moved it over the draftification. Rhetorical. Star Mississippi 01:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you know Don't we have enough AfDs? isn't an argument to keep. Certainly. Just a call for reason. Season articles take a year, cup articles not much less to develop. This cup has been shortened so from this perspective (only) a positive exception. We should not sit out there with stopwatches in our hands waiting for everything to fall into place. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please stick to policy and guideline based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrant effect

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

There is only one academic paper using the term "Tarrant Effect" by SJ Baele, and two additional sources that cite the Baele article. There are a few verifiable "copycat" attacks, but not enough for a separate article. Ben Azura (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was enough copycat attacks for Category:Christchurch mosque shootings copycat crimes to be made, so surely there is enough for this. Also, Tarrant’s influence in particular is significant due to his live-streaming of the attack which was a new aspect and inspiration for others. Genberg47 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose creating a redirect .-gadfium 23:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christchurch mosque shootings Not notable on its own and most of it seems to be original research. Information about the "Tarrant effect" would be better suited to the Christchurch mosque shootings article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since the Tarrant Effect doesn't exist no-one will search. Consequently a redirect will never be used. OrewaTel (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tarrant effect is mentioned in the following sources: [1][2] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus is clear against keeping this as a standalone article, it will be nice to hear more views regarding the proposed Redirect as an AtD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lil Durk. While a merge may not fit, his association with Lil Durk creates a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RondoNumbaNine

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

Non-notable rapper. The article subject was not notable before he was arrested for murder, and he is not notable for the murder under PERP or BLP1E. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think about the ramifications of this merge recommendation. This guy's biography would be sitting in the middle of a different guy's biography, which makes no sense for two different people, or even for two different performers who have a connection. it would be like cramming Stevie Wonder's life story into one paragraph of Paul McCartney's life story just because they once collaborated on a song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It would be a very short section. Mach61 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; merging his bio would be inappropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - His rap career is non-notable except for his associations with other people, and if he is relevant for someone else's song or some other association, such as Lil Durk, he can be mentioned briefly at their articles. His own music is only visible in the usual promotional and self-upload sites and received no significant media coverage when he was only a local rapper. His murder conviction got news coverage as seen in the sources already used, but per WP:CRIME he is not a well-known criminal and his crime was not unusual. Thus, he was a non-notable rapper and now he's a non-notable murderer too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 17:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Neme

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

The last AfD, many years ago, was no cnosensus - hopefully we can now get a consensus. I don't see that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep sourcing is not great but she does seem like a notable figure. Llajwa (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG based on reviews of work posted above by Bridget. An entertainer with reviews of their work at this level would certainly be viewed as meeting GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found a review of Animal Investigators in Publishers Weekly, and at the Wikipedia Library, a Jan 2015 review from NSTA Recommends (National Science Teachers Association) for Orangutan Houdini; a March 2010 Animal Investigators review from Choice via ProQuest 225690255; a March 2014 review of Animal Investigators from Connect via ProQuest 1522744253; the 2009 Burlington Free Press report on Neme and Animal Investigators (ProQuest 439866714) looks helpful (no photo in this version), and ProQuest also has some further coverage/reviews of Animal Investigators (e.g. NPR interview, local news). WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability appears supported by significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mashroom

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

Fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any evidence of notability. Teemu.cod (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Shapes (British band). Star Mississippi 01:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Bybuss

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

I couldn't establish that he is notable independent of the band. It could be merged/redirected to the band, The Shapes (UK band), though I think it could unbalance it. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green star (astronomy)

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

Article recently DEPRODed. There is some coverage online on the topic, but I don't believe it's notable enough for its own article. Besides that, the article covers what "green stars" are in a couple lines in the lead and then talks about background information in depth but with few citations and language that doesn't follow MOS. Merging to Spectral classification could also work. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely convinced that this needs an article of its own; however, the tone problems seem fixable (I made a few edits in that regard), and I'm not sure what the best merge target would be. An article like Stellar classification is pretty intense, whereas this is the kind of topic that might have more casually curious readers. (There's a Feynman story where he uses a math book talking about "green stars" as an example of how all the books he read for the California textbook commission were written by people who didn't know what they were talking about. That seems almost too much like 2004 "In popular culture" Wikipedia to include here, though.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Additional discussion on notability and/or potential merge targets would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not appear to be notable. If someone can show multiple secondary sources with significant coverage I will of course retract this. If delete does win then perhaps it is worth a mention in a more general article such as the visual presentation section in Night sky the part on the "Planckian Locus and its effect on the perceived color of stars" would make for a good part of a section relating to appearance in the more general star article. As for the list of things that are not green stars these would perhaps be best included in appearance section for the relevant pages. I would stress the notability of a topic is not impacted by the current state of the article. EvilxFish (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English for Integrated Studies

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It was deleted in 2009 after an AfD, and has bee in CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on extant sourcing regarding this article's subject would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt Action Five

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the Guardian source [8] is SIGCOV. I don't have access to the Artrocker or NME sources, but if either of those is significant than I would say GNG is met. I don't think the FRINKmusic reference is RS though. Jfire (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Shirley

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

Article only cites two sources, one is dead and the other is an interview. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted per WP:BANDMEMBER. glman (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Yeong-kyeong

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

Only a single source. Does not satisfy GNG. 777burger user talk contribs 22:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shenandoah Valley Governor's School

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

Cannot find reliable sources Elvisisalive95 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Wizardman 22:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Touah

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. She was named the goalkeeper of the tournament at the WAFU Zone A qualifying tournament (1), but I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 01:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Tsung-Che

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

BLP of a diplomat who does not appear notable. Most ambassadors are not notable but this person is not even an ambassador, just a career diplomat. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as requested by the creator per the insufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject does not pass 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. Xie, Ruxin 謝如欣 (2022-06-28). "台宏外交人事牽動 駐巴西代表張崇哲轉調葡萄牙" [Taiwanese diplomats are affected by personnel matters, and Representative Chang Tsung-Che in Brazil is transferred to Portugal]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      This source provides the most coverage about him but is not sufficient to establish notability in conjunction with the other sources, which provide little biographical coverage. The article notes from Google Translate: "Chang Tsung-Che, who loves movies, took office as director of the Taipei Cultural Office of São Paulo in 2018. He took the lead in cooperating with the Film School of the University of São Paulo to organize a Taiwan Film Exhibition, hoping to let the Brazilian people better understand Taiwan through movies. ... Different from ordinary diplomats, Chang Tsung-Che is also a literary and historical worker. During his tenure in St. Paul, he visited Muyi City in the suburbs where the six pioneer Taiwanese immigrant families are located many times. He conducted field investigations on the history of Taiwanese immigration and conducted research on it many times."

    2. Moura, Nelson (2022-11-19). "Interview with Taiwan envoy in Portugal, Chang Tsung-che". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The article notes: "The former official representative of Taiwan in Sao Tome and Príncipe and in Brazil, Chang Tsung-che (張崇哲) was named the "de facto" ambassador of Taiwan in Portugal in July. In this interview, Tsung describes the history of the Taiwanese community in Portugal, the main challenges faced by the community, and possible spaces for cooperation between the island and Portugal in the areas of tourism, technology and business."

    3. I checked the sources in zh:張崇哲 and did not find significant coverage about him. The sources were from non-independent sources like his employer, the government of Taiwan, or contained solely interview quotes from him.
    There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chang Tsung-Che (traditional Chinese: 張崇哲; simplified Chinese: 张崇哲) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    A move to draft will allow the creator, 方志維 (talk · contribs), to continue searching for sources about Chang Tsung-Che.

    Cunard (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote doesn’t make sense. Cunard is saying the sources are inadequate. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry changed. 1.46.159.106 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#L. ✗plicit 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Light (cricketer)

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

Trivial player who only played in a single game. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Wizardman 22:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Tisdell

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marthaline Moore

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ as to whether to keep as is or re-scope and expand. That decision, however, does not require admin action. Star Mississippi 14:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Târnăveni gas field

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

I brought this to AFD because I proposed this for deletion due to how easy it is to demonstrate this subject has no significant coverage. Which is to say, no reliable sources say this natural feature is important. WP:Geoland confers no special status for natural features and they need to meet WP:N to be stand alone subjects. An editor, added some sources that are not significant coverage of the topic and in some cases don't cover the subject at all. In an effort to make the article longer the editor added other subjects that now occupy more space in the article than the original subject. This was because there are almost no sources about the gas field available. The editor then removed the prod tag. None of the current sources on the article, nor any that I can find say this gas field stands out from the rest as particularly important. And, there are no reliable sources that are written specifically about this subject. James.folsom (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I indicated in my summary when I removed the delete template after working on improving this article and saving it from the chopping block, the Târnăveni gas field is a historically significant gas field, which has supplied natural gas to the oldest and largest chemical factory in Romania (the Târnăveni Nitrogen Plant). This is attested in several references that I added, including a CIA report from 1950 dedicated to the factory and the nearby Târnăveni gas field, which supplied gas through a pipeline for running the factory. As I also mentioned in the article, this gas was used to produce for the first time in Romania (in 1922) hydrogen from water and gas. Despite the above (rather ungracious) claim, this is not in an effort to make the article longer, but rather, to add historically relevant context for the nascent natural gas industry in interwar Romania, which by the late 1930s had reached third place worldwide (after the US and the Soviet Union) in natural gas production, with the Târnăveni gas field playing a significant role in the process. Turgidson (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - collectively the refs fully support the article. No one ref by itself gives significant coverage. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How do you still not get this, have you not noticed that none of the sources are actually written about the subject of the gas field. Show me which one specifically says this gas field is an important subject. And, wrong individual sources are what confer significant coverage. They do this by being articles written specifically about the gas field without merely mentioning it in passing. OR they are sources that say something like "this is the greatest most important gas field in ...." You may have noticed none of the sources say this. The name of this gas field never occurs in the title of any reliable source. James.folsom (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nearby chemical operations are more historical and have better sourcing. @Turgidson, why not rename and expand this article to cover them? You've dug so deep into history here it seems a shame to waste the other stuff you turned up. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the chemical factory deserves an article by itself. It has a pretty fascinating history, starting with production of chemical munitions in WWI (for the Central Powers), and pioneering the development of the Petrochemical industry in Romania in the interwar, its role in the war effort in WWII, its further expansion in the communist era, only to be closed a few years ago. But I spent too much time already trying to expand and source these articles on the Romanian gas fields, with even the first and famous one being proposed for deletion, or arguably the top two ones (here and here) being pursued for deletion, while another one, the Zau de Câmpie gas field article, with 20 references by now, is being relentlessly criticized and eyed for the chopping block. So yes, I may create an article of that sort at some point when I get some free time, but not under these conditions, which are not at all conducive to positive development of Wikipedia content. Turgidson (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cherry on the top being this deletion prod, regarding the onshore gas field with the largest proven reserves in Romania, dubbed by the then-PM as "the most important discovery" since the fall of communism, etc, which was characterized (before my work to seriously research the topic, and expand and improve the article) as "Not sustained coverage, non notable per WP:N" by someone who claims expertise in finding references to articles in this topic, deciding what's notable and what is not, what gets significant coverage and what does not, all sprinkled with snide comments like those here and here. All done with some artificial 1-week deadlines, which first were easy to miss, since I only very rarely edited articles on gas fields before, leading to some being completely gone before I could even look at them, especially with mass prods, ADFs, and deletions going on within dozens of articles at a time. Hardly the way to go, in my opinion. Turgidson (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I missed one, big deal. It takes more than one anyway. The goal is to discuss the merits of this article. James.folsom (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to let that personal attack go, but realized I should probably explain for the benefit of participants in the AFD. When I start a WP:before on these stubs, I check the given references for significance and remove any dead ones. If none of those references are significant coverage, I also tag the article so that others can review it. I'm not always perfect on getting it tagged, but I try because it's important to alert others about it. Then I do a WP:before myself, if I find anything remotely significant I move on and leave the tag so that others know to evaluate it. If its extremely obvious that there is no significant coverage I wikipedia boldly propose it for deletion. It's not true that this process doesn't have oversight because the tags are publicized and others can double check me. Turgidson has been removing the sig coverage tags inappropriately because he doesn't understand what significant coverage is. Because of this when I was wrapping up on the Romanian ones I couldn't always tell which were left to be checked. I checked all those again, and where the first time I checked that particular one I had skipped proposing deletion because of that source, the second time I didn't see it.James.folsom (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment So asserting that I have no idea what Wikipedia policies and guidelines on sourcing are (after 52K edits over 17 years of wiki editing), or suggesting I better try shopping a Romania-related article missing from ro.wiki to see how it fares there (!) is not a personal attack, but pointing that out is? Or maybe pointing out this relentless drive for mass deletions of Romanian gas fields articles, without affording me (or perhaps also other editors who may want to join in) a decent amount of time to assess the situation and see whether they can be expanded and properly sourced is a "personal attack"? Or perhaps pointing out the categorical claims in those many prods that there is no recent mention of the topic (that was in the first batch of prods), only to switch later to there is no significant mention, or no notability, or no mention with subject in the title, etc, which most times turned out to be not the case, after a bit of research on my part? Maybe if you tried once (only once!) to improve one of these articles, instead of constantly criticizing them, you'll get a better appreciation of the work involved in creating such content, and become more open-minded about what "significant coverage" means in this context, where history, economy, geography, geology, technology, politics, etc mix in not always the most straightforward way. Of course, a currently highly productive gas field or oil field opened in the last decade or two will have much more coverage than, say, those Transylvanian gas fields that opened before WWI and had their glory days in the 1930s or the 1950s (when there was no internet, and written mentions from those times are almost always not readily available, at least not through a banal Google search), though almost all those gas fields are still productive to this day. Speaking of wiki guidelines, maybe WP:RECENTISM would be relevant in better assessing the situation. Turgidson (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nandeshwar Mahadev Temple

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

does not follow WP:GNG Chilicave (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network. Star Mississippi 01:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXTE-TV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network. Star Mississippi 01:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXER-TV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Radio Philippines Network affiliate stations#Analog. RL0919 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXXX-TV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT! A redirect to Radio Philippines Network is a perfect fit for this delerion. 2001:4454:730:D500:A47B:AE53:431:5A5D (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Global Satellite Technology Services. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXFA-TV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ring My Bell (webtoon)

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

The subject does not appear to be notable. A quick search before the nomination turned up only appearances in "top 10 manhwa"–type lists, none of which have significant coverage about the subject. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Two reasonable discussions of it in Korean: [13][14]. toobigtokale (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale: Thanks for your comment! I'm working through machine translation here, so my assessments may not be wholly accurate, but I have reservations about these sources. Firstly, even though the articles have been published separately, a lot of their content is almost exactly the same, which gives me the impression that there's some paid promotion or press release copying happening. In any case, they don't seem to have any significant coverage of the subject of this article, so my notability concerns remain. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're right; I didn't read in detail but they do overlap and seems like paid promotion. Lean delete now. toobigtokale (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 23:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pâteçassaïé

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

Searching on Google, I did not find any search results other than Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the page stipulated that Hopital de I'Amitie has already existed in 1920s, although the hospital was built in 1988.[1] Hence, it seems that the page is blatantly hoax. Faldi00 (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ndeke Luka, Ndeke Luka. "Centrafrique : des réflexions en cours pour la réhabilitation de l'hôpital de l'Amitié". radiondekeluka.org. Radio Ndeke Luka. Retrieved 27 January 2024.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 15:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Houts

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small voice acting roles and some behind the scenes work. Was created and kept almost 20 years ago, when Wikipedia was a very different place. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing meaningful. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find nothing to support the accolades in the article. The only place I can find him mentioned is in IMDB where he is mainly listed as "additional crew" on a number of television shows. He also did some voice work, as listed there. But I didn't find sources about him, and definitely nothing that would support the current article. I did search the LA Times archive which is about as good as I can get for entertainment news, and the general ebsco stuff. Lamona (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep/redirect:‎

Any editors wishing to rename the redirect or merge any of its content from the page history are free to do so. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino Real (Reed)

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

No indication this satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Armenian Dances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Hounds of Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep Armenian Dances: This is one of the most performed compositions in the literature and is considered part of the core repertoire. Would prefer keeping the other two as well, but there is limited information available online, it seems. Here are some sources:
    • Begian, Harry (October 1985). "Alfred Reed's "Armenian Dances" (Part I): A Rehearsal Analysis." The Instrumentalist
    • Salzman, Timothy, ed. (2003). "Alfred Reed." A Composer's Insight: Thoughts, Analysis, and Commentary on Contemporary Masterpieces for Wind Bands. Vol. 1. Meredith Music. pp. 119–130
    • Gaines, David Alan (Fall 1988). "A Core Repertoire Of Concert Music For High School Band." Journal of Band Research
    • Montellano, Raquel G. (2004). On a Hymnsong of Philip Bliss and Armenian Dances, Part I: A Conductor's Study Guide of Two Popular Works. (MM thesis). The University of Texas at El Paso 
  • Thanks! Why? I Ask (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Armenian Dances per Why? I Ask. Weak Keep The Hounds of Spring, which is the subject of a dissertation [15] and like Armenian Dances, is used as pedagogical example [16]. Merge and Redirect El Camino Real to Alfred Reed, and merge/redirect the other articles too if they end up not being kept. Jfire (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for Armenian dances: I was extremely surprised to see Armenian Dances at AfD, seeing as it is one of the cornerstone works of concert band literature. I've found a couple extra sources in addition to those above
  • Together this should be a clear GNG pass. As for the others, I agree with a redirect to Alfred Reed for El Camino Real (sadly I cannot find anything either). I'm ambivalent on The Hounds of Spring: it's used quite widely in band teaching but I'm not sure the sources above are a clear GNG pass. Consider this a neutral as my gut feeling is a weak keep but I don't have a policy-based reasoning. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 12:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like the "El Camino Real" article will be kept, but if so the title will have to be moved to correspond with disambig standards. It should be "El Camino Real (song)" or possibly "El Camino Real (Alfred Reed song)". See the other music-related items at the disambig page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all pages listed by nominator. Disambiguation for El Camino Real ought to be "El Camino Real (Reed composition)" or "El Camino Real (composition)". It is not a "song". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vought. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vought HVM

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

Non-notable weapon that never left the prototype stage. Sources are extremely weak, and most references online have come from advertising brochures from the company that created it, making them non-independent. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No possible way this will be AfDed: Lots of articles on the wiki are about weapons that never left the prototype stage, and some of them have reached FA. So that's a non-argument for AfD. Neither original source is "advertising brochures" and neither is in any way related to the company or product. The source that remains clearly specifies it's from Jane's. A quick google turned up an article in Interavia, smaller mentions in Flight and AW&ST, and a lengthy article on GlobalSecurity and the original one from Jane's. Using the program name instead, "Advanced Antitank Weapon System Heavy", turns up many relivant hits and several in-depth articles on both the -H and -M versions. This article is an excellent target for improvement, not deletion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Advertising brochures aren't independent of the subject and so don't qualify as a legitimate source. If it were so simple to improve the article (adding a single source) why hasn't it been done in the last 15 years? All those places you mention are routine, insignificant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising brochures Which advertizing brochures are you referring to?
why hasn't it been done in the last 15 years I don't know, why haven't you updated it in the last 15 years?
All those places you mention are routine, insignificant coverage Janes meets NOTE, and is already included via Andreas. If you care to look for it in Google books, you'll find that Janes has many articles on the topic, including one that details the program in some depth (which appears in multiple publications, as was the case for most of Jane's materials). The article on GlobalSecurity also demonstrates NOTE. One finds many mentions of the program's status in both official and trade magazines, and any number of non-insignificant dicussions in places like Flight and any number of books.
As you note, this article is many years old. Based on your edit history, I'm sure you're aware that articles written in that time frame were subject to far less stringent requirements than they are today. We're here to curate the world's knowledge, not delete it because it doesn't meet requirements that were introduced after that knowledge was collected. As I stated earlier, if your concern is that there aren't enough good cites, by all means, tag the article as requiring more cites. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GLOBALSECURITY is a generally unreliable source. Jane's is usually pretty good though.Schierbecker (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or, at best, redirect to Vought. Wikipedia standards have moved on since this article was written in 2007. We need evidence of notability, not just existence. The only source we have here is a 2003 website. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Maury, and the fact that supposedly WP:BEFORE is a requirement for a deletion nomination. This article should be tagged for improvement. WilsonP NYC (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I find a redirect to be acceptable as well. The article has not improved since the AFD was created and what sources have been said to exist that haven't been added, I still see as nothing more than non-independent advertising, and/or routine coverage in military magazines, neither of which give notability.Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Willis

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

Little to no coverage of this lawyer in secondary sources, besides this one New York Post article. The article was created by a WP:SPA back in 2008 and seems to have slipped through the cracks of review. GuardianH (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted. To be the subject in a well-known book, Bringing Down the House, and movie, 21, as Jane was, seems to be cause enough to keep this page active. The movie and book are both significant. In particular, the IMDB profile for Kate Bosworth, mentions her role in 21 (Kate plays Jane in the movie), and the movie is still talked about in gambling circles, making Jane a subject of continues public interest. In New York, there’s general interest in Jane’s marriage to Richard Davey, who is leading Metropolitan Transit Authority (buses and subways). There are many spouses of government officials who have Wikipedia pages, so Jane’s relationship with Rich should factor in keeping the page.   Coolbeans221 (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't based on her, it's based on a team collective. She has no widespread coverage of secondary sources even then. GuardianH (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources featuring Jane: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-one-lawyer-went-from-being-a-shark-at-the-blackjack-table-to-a-shark-in-the-courtroom/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/07/jane-willis-was-member-of-mit-blackjack-card-counting-team/ https://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/04/21-qa.html https://gothamist.com/news/like-byford-before-him-mtas-new-city-transit-chief-starts-in-a-time-of-tumult https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2010/10/11/focus15.html https://www.law360.com/articles/1076426/innovation-economy-drives-massachusetts-powerhouses https://www.law360.com/articles/1078119/massachusetts-powerhouse-ropes-gray Coolbeans221 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat garba heart attack incident

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:EVENT, looks like a relatively routine news event without any lasting or in-depth coverage. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Hoffman

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

Regardless of whether she complies with WP:GNG, unconvinced that her association with her then-husband Charlie Hoffman and daughter Alex Hoffman suffices to save this article from being either redirected (preferably) to Survivor: Nicaragua per WP:BLP1E or deleted. Neither does her book based on her Survivor experiences nor being a motivational speaker. George Ho (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little concerned about the available sourcing in general. See the talk page issue about who owns the ranch, how she came by it. None of the sources actually said she inherited the ranch, but many of the sources left open who exactly did inherit the property. Just about every source I found for her seemed to have a hint of celebrity hype in them. Maybe it's just me. — Maile (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 and Donaldd23: What are your stances on this article? George Ho (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per WP:BIO. This reads like she wrote it herself. I see nothing here but an elongated saga of this individual's personal life. Early life, Career and Family are all personal info, and could be merged into a lot less of a narrative. Survivor was a WP:SINGLEEVENT. Motivational speaking is sparse, Removed her personal page link, which triggered "403 Forbidden error". — Maile (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it's a good idea if someone could please remove the fluff and the items that are poorly sourced and then we make a decision based on whats left. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but what's the value of possible remaining content after removing poorly sourced content? If anything, "what's left" would contain content that may not adequately save the article from being redirected to another page. Honestly, I fail to see the need or value of "what's left" in the article other than overemphasizing her supposed "notability" that's based on primarily one event. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of universities in Nigeria#Federal Institutions. Keep arguments seem to rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and redirection is a reasonable alternative until notability can be established from sources. RL0919 (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal University of Technology Ikot Abasi

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

Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are evenly split between Keep and Redirect to List of universities in Nigeria. Additional views would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. Any recreation should go through WP:AFC to prevent G4 deletion. Sandstein 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Kovacs

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

Not a G4, but factors don't appear to have appreciably changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Kovacs w/r/t his career.

While reviews of games on which he 's worked have been added, I don't see that it establishes notability for Kovacs nor that the award meets WP:BIO. Bringing it here for further discussion. Star Mississippi 15:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, 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);
If edits are being considered in terms of notability the following may be useful for referencing?
Doug's work is considered to be the visual art "face" of the table-top role playing game Dungeon Crawl Classics https://goodman-games.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/MM19_July2014_GoodmanGames1.pdf and has consistently represented the brand since it's inception in 2012 with cover and internal illustrations. A secondary source directly from Goodman Games artist spotlight https://goodman-games.com/blog/2017/10/09/the-artists-of-goodman-games/
He has also worked extensively with Wizards of the Coast on Dungeons and Dragons (https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?artist=Doug%20Kovacs) - this is a simple list of books he has contributed to, I am not certain how to best reference a searched list vs each book individually? Ohheytinyguy (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that the oeuvre described above actually meets WP:NARTIST #3 absent independent coverage specifically analyzing Kovacs' work; meanwhile, the interview with Goodman Games is a scraping-the-barrel kind of source notability-wise and does not bode well for the existence of further coverage. I'm not opposed to work continuing in draft space, but no one has indicated why we should expect additional coverage to materialize. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Derrickson's unrealized projects

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST - no sources discussing the list's notability as a construct. Contains nothing that would not be suitable to be in prose at Scott Derrickson. Intrinsically flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Listcruft, fails NLIST. Bios don't need stand alone lists of projects that were not completed, completely unneeded CFORK. Nothing here that would improve the main, redirect would be pointless, but no objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Half the stuff announced in Hollywood doesn't get made. Some of these are attachment packages just to get further development going, but it can still just go to development hell. If there were a number of projects that he put a lot of development effort into, and that development work also got reported on, then I could see that being a notable list, but as it stands, it seems more of a WP:COATRACK of announcements. For example Guillermo del Toro's unrealized projects has some extensive material on unrealized projects for some entries (good), but it is unfortunately also includes numerous list entries on one-off announcements (bad). This one appears to only include the latter. -2pou (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Szwarc

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is trending to Delete, but it would be helpful to get another view or two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR or GNG. Qflib (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doing a google scholar search, this person is clearly not an academic researcher in the sense of WP:PROF https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Sandy+Szwarc&btnG= (Eco2022 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The source analysis by TimothyBlue is persuasive and has remained unrebutted. Sandstein 15:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Pettus

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

Article has three sources for notability: a deadlink to a local newspaper allegedly saying she ran a schoolhouse and two articles referencing a minor character inspired by her in a relatively obscure play by Richard Montoya. Running a one-room school was not unusual and neither was working as a nurse during the Spanish Flu epidemic (even if there were a reliable source for that claim).

Google searches for Pettus turn up an image of her gravesite on facebook, a local blog post from 2007, more references to the Montoya play and some census records. Pettus's sole even arguably noteworthy attribute appears to have been a minor appearance in the Montoya play. Jbt89 (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google Books search brings up a few references and this person appears to be notable. I'll make changes to the article after work tomorrow. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Took a look and found two (other than cemetery stuff): "REAL NURSING: Every Second Counts!!
    " which makes essentially the same unsourced assertions as the article does, and "Revealed The Kingdom of Locs Nazirite Vow Continues, Volume 2" which copied the passage from the nursing book verbatim and generally seems like it was generated by a web scraper.
    Personally I'd be a lot more comfortable accepting that she's even locally famous other than in connection with the Montoya play if there was a book or newspaper article stating that from before this article and the play were written in 2010, but I'm curious to see what you find. So far the argument for her notability all seems to boil down to that play IMO, which isn't good enough for a standalone article. Jbt89 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dr Vulpes. Expand and improve; do not delete. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific discussion regarding sourcing would be helpful in establishing a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Comment - The only addition I was able to find through Google Books was a Lulu.com publishing, which means self published, and it's recent enough it may have copied Wikipedia. Searching newspapers.com I found a short paragraph in the Los Angeles Times from August 16, 2010 and the Hartford Courant from September 9, 2012, but both of these are in context of the Montoya play. There well may be better but more obscure sources, but I'd recommend a re-list so experts might possibly find them, rather than a keep close at this point. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
Comments Source
404 1. Glover, Mark (2008). "African-American school in Alpine seeks historic recognition". The Big Bend Sentinel. Retrieved 2010-08-16.
Census 2. ^ US Census (1910) Census Place: Justice Precinct 3, Brewster, Texas; Roll T624_1533; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 6; Image: 608.
Census 3. ^ US Census (1920) Census Place: Justice Precinct 3, Brewster, Texas; Roll T625_1781; Page: 7A; Enumeration District: 14; Image: 1071.
One sentence "In “American Night” Kimberly Scott plays an almost forgotten historical figure, an African-American woman from West Texas named Viola Pettus, who during the 1918 flu epidemic nursed the children of whites, blacks and Mexicans.", fails SIGCOV 4. ^ Taylor, Kate (2010-08-10). "American History, With Shakespeare as Inspiration". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-01-15.
404 5. ^ Montoya, Richard; Culture Clash (2010). "American Night: The Ballad of Juan José". OSF 75th Season. Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Retrieved 2010-08-16.
One sentence "Not much has been written about Viola Pettus, but playwright Richard Montoya is as insistent on including her in the annals of American history as she was insistent on treating the sick of all ages and colors.", fails SIGCOV 6. ^ Morris, Steven Leigh (2012-03-15). "American Night: The Ballad of Juan Jose, From Richard Montoya and Culture Clash". LA Weekly. Retrieved 2020-06-23.
Keep votes provided no sources or guidelines to eval.  // Timothy :: talk  06:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ without prejudice to quick a renomination. Most Keep !votes did not adequately address the notability issues the article suffers from. But without any support for the nomination, it should be kept for now. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic International

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

I do not see evidence this company's coverage is of the depth required to meet N:CORP and find no evidence of his coverage in my own search. There has been significant disruption around this article (explicitly not by the creator) and I'm bringing this here for a full discussion following the aborted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic International Company. Star Mississippi 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. Star Mississippi 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's unusual that Majestic International focuses on providing logistics technologies is the only part of the article that actually says what this company does. Usually aside from acquisitions or mergers, saying what the services or products of a company are is the bulk of a business article, not a short sentence tacked on to the end of a paragraph. That's not a vote of deletion, just an observation that this is not your typical article on a company. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my view the page meets WP:NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article), as I see that there is coverage outside the page too, and with such history the company possibly has the required depth of coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to its multinational presence, historical significance since 1981, and notable achievements including recognition as a Great Place To Work. --Nord-We (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:Before helped much. I've extensively researched the Majestic International subsidiaries and added to the page several big companies belonging to it, among which sport division, Majestic Steel USA company and Majestic Marine Engineering. I've included a lot of books and magazines in-depht coverage and see that there are even more when dig into history. The added coverage is from 1990s and 2000s, and also includes many recent features from various occasions. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the entire basis of your view is "sources must exist", please link to some of those sources. Otherwise, your opinion will likely be discarded by the closing admin. This is not a ballot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment semi'ed to stop the immediate disruption. If any admin wants to take it over since I did open the discussion, feel free. Constructive new users are welcome to use the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with new sources added and the scope and scale of the company was revealed. The page lacks style and may look promo, but it's notable now with new refs and sections added - that is why I changed and enlarged a little bit the first entry sentence to correspond the main text. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Opinions are numerically split, but the "keep" arguments are stronger, in that several explain why in their view there is sufficient coverage for inclusion, while these explanations are not addressed or rebutted by the "delete" side. Sandstein 14:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hananya Naftali

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

I searched a lot, but did not find anything special, this person only writes on Twitter, there is nothing else. so basically, failed Wikipedia general notablity guideline. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please state the policy or guideline you are relying on for your view. This is not a ballot, and your opinion will likely be ignored by the closing admin if it is stated without any policy-based backing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k 2001:569:733A:9700:48A3:A084:4365:DDF6 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Alliance, Ohio#Transportation. RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barber Airport

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to primary sources and database entries. I was unable to find any superior coverage searching online and on Google Books. signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ’’’Keep’’’ There are multiple quality secondary sources from a variety of established, respected aviation publications that must not be ignored. There is worth in keeping the article up to be further expanded. At the very least move it to draft space to be edited for a time before being republished, but I don’t think it’s worth even that considering that the article has already been reviewed and approved with the sources it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowtationjet (talk • contribs)
    Which sources? If you're talking about the ones currently in the article, they're not secondary sources, they're database entries with little-to-no analysis of the airport. Meanwhile, the page was marked reviewed by me, because I brought it to AfD; that is in no way an argument against deletion, that's just the NPP flowchart--once something is brought to AfD the review is completed and further decisions are up to the course of discussion.signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SkyVector, AOPA, Flying Magazines, FlightAware, Visit Canton, and Canton Airsports are not databases. They are fully third party organizations/companies that maintain and publish information and articles about airports such as Barber. The only source that could be considered a database is PlaneCrashMap, which pulls information from the NTSB, which itself is a third party, independent source unrelated to the airport. Same with AirNav with FAA information. Slowtationjet (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also added additional notable third-party sources to the article Slowtationjet (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cited sources you refer to are not secondary prose coverage, they're metadata objects (e.g. [20]) that don't contribute to establishing notability. The only cited source that begins to meet this is the Canton Rep article, which is a fairly weak start given that it's a local paper and coverage there is largely dependent on an interview with the owner. Coverage of accidents happening near the airport is not coverage of the airport itself unless the articles in question devote significant attention to the airport's role in the crash or other history. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Keep’’’ Article passes the sniff test, not sure what you're complaining about. Also has had three notable enough accidents, which is good enough justification in and of itself... Windowcleaner4 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Llajwa (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, a merge now includes a redirect by default. No longer a need to write merge and redirect. That's now already implied. gidonb (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Gupta

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

Seems to be a promotional article, with most references self-cited, or even bogus (which do not even mention the individual). Similarly, outlandish claims such as "first woman civil servant" in 1984. Such an accomplished profile but a Google search doesn't return much (or anything substantial). User4edits (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Aldrich

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

Low-level county court judge, I see no indication of encyclopedic notability whatsoever. BD2412 T 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Lack of continuing coverage suggests lack of notability. Though I'm not sure of our standards for notability of state district judges, the lack of any content worth keeping in the current page mitigates towards deletion. Should the subject deserve an article, it would be best to simply start from scratch. Arcendeight (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial National Financial

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

Holding company. Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, unless this one results in additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of the Bibas family

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

Hamas has abducted over 250 individuals. The article does not state why the individuals are notable enough for a specific article. نعم البدل (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point still stands, whether it's an individual or a group, their notability is still attached to the war. If the war didn't take place, there would not be an article on them, if they were kidnapped, for instance, by regular criminals. The article only seeks to emphasise on their kidnapping because it was done by Hamas and that doesn't warrant an article. It could easily be mentioned in an already existing article, if need be. نعم البدل (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@نعم البدل The story and its notability are almost the opposite of that. They were held by "another group" (not Hamas or Islamic Jihad), that is exactly what makes this case notable. That is why they were not released with the other women and children, whoever they were held by was not involved in the negotiations. It is very ambiguous how much control Hamas had over the situation, but the IDF did believe the story that Hamas didn't have them and thus were not able to release them. Irtapil (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree we shouldn't create pages for every hostage kidnapped by Hamas, this is clearly a notable case that has received significant coverage in global media as the above links show. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNot only that this case has a significant coverage in media, it’s also a specific case where Hamas denied humanitarian freeing of infant abductees 85.250.157.199 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is notable because it includes the abduction of the youngest hostage in Gaza, Kfir Bibas. He has become a symbol for the hostage crisis and his abduction is notable. Many newspapers such as the New York Times and the Wall Street journal have written articles about this family. [24]https://www.wsj.com/articles/my-cousin-kfir-1-is-hamas-hostage-kibbutz-israel-the-hague-5070924e https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/world/middleeast/bibas-family-israel-gaza.html Sivanadames (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Markowitz
The sum of all human knowledge (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Strike out per WP:ARBPIA WP:ECP. You must have 500 edits to participate here. Marokwitz (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently all the articles on individual Hamas kidnapping victims are being nominated for deletion on the same specious grounds. No, the fact that 200+ non-notable persons were kidnapped by Hamas is not grounds for deleting articles on notable kidnap victims. Evena cursory review of the article indicates that there is ample basis for having an individual article on this particular set of widely written-about Hamas kidnap victims, and I am puzzled that the nominator fails to notice that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep this has significant coverage in the media in world news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Strike out per WP:ARBPIA WP:ECP Marokwitz (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Another notable kidnapping widely covered in the press without clear reason to have it delete it. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Their story is different to most of the others. It is notable for multiple reasons.
  1. youngest hostage
  2. held by the mysterious "another group"
  3. not released in the hostage exchanges (negotiated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad) that released the other civilian women and children.
There are still some gaps in the story, and there are likely to be more unusual aspects to it. But those three already make their story unusual enough to be covered separately. They are well documented (referenced in the page last time I looked?) and unusual. Irtapil (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 00:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Yarden Roman-Gat

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

Hamas has abducted over 250 individuals. The article does not state why the individual is notable enough for a specific article about their kidnapping in particular. نعم البدل (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are only examples, as this story has been covered globally. These are not passing mentions, but full features about this incident. It is also clear that the topic has enduring notability, for example it was mentioned in The New Yorker earlier this month, providing additional evidence this is a story with enduring historical significance. [37] (Article creator). Marokwitz (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Even in the context of the war, these individuals aren't really known, nor were they notable when they were even in the spotlight. They were merely (and I don't intend to soften their event of being kidnapped) individuals kidnapped by Hamas in a war, they weren't specifically targeted. For them to have been mentioned in the news, was to essentially prove that Hamas did in fact kidnap people, not that they were notable people, and that follows here as well. نعم البدل (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are misapplying the policy, as this is an article about the kidnapping, not a biography. Marokwitz (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep based on the media coverage detailed by Marokwitz. I agree with Hogo, MaskedSing and Elad that removal is unjustified based on the degree of coverage and the fact that GNG is met. FortunateSons (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nobody except the nominator supports deletion, even if many of the "keep" opinions are rather perfunctory. There may be a case for a merger, but that discussion can and should be had on the article talk page. Sandstein 14:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hersh Goldberg-Polin

[edit]



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

Hamas has abducted over 250 individuals. The article does not state why the individual is notable enough for a specific article about their kidnapping in particular. نعم البدل (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The event under discussion clearly meets the notability criteria set by WP:GNG due to its extensive, global coverage in numerous reliable sources. This is not just a passing news story, but a subject that has been continually covered over an extended period, indicating its significance and impact. The kidnapping of the individual in question has been the focus of detailed reporting by major news outlets, which goes beyond routine news reporting and demonstrates enduring notability. For instance, recent articles like the one from The Times of Israel, [38] highlight the ongoing relevance and public interest in this case. Such sustained coverage underscores the historical and societal importance of the event, aligning perfectly with Wikipedia's notability standards. Marokwitz (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as there is a significant degree of coverage unique to that person. While the main article is good for the encyclopaedic purpose of covering the event, individual kidnappings may still meet the requirements for inclusion. To over-exaggerate, if a movie star had been kidnapped, a separate article may have been created to allow for full coverage; while this is obviously an exaggeration and some kidnapped persons are definitely not notable enough for separate article, this one clearly is. FortunateSons (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, as this page has 20 good sources and has coverage that has spread worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Strike out due to WP:ARBPIA WP:ECP Marokwitz (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Cunard's in-depth analysis of the sources went unchallenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Cewe

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

No more notable now than she was when the previous article about her was deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Christian). Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I figured I'd try since a) the 2006 article [39] missed a lot of information/sources, b) she was/is notable for her hospitalization for which she received dedicated mainstream coverage, c) I thought being a finalist in the first ever AI season could be intrinsically notable, I wasn't planning to do any other finalists.
I might be wrong on whether these things matter, though, since you're right she hasn't really done anything major since 2006 except the book she wrote, which only received dedicated coverage in local/niche news. JSwift49 01:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating this excellent article, JSwift49 (talk · contribs). Christina Cewe meets Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time through coverage in Gehrke-White 2005, Rushfield 2011, and Smolowe et al. 2005 as the sources were published years after her 2002 appearance on Season 1 of American Idol. Since she has received sustained coverage, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary applies and she is notable even if she has not received significant coverage more recently. If you have the time and interest, I encourage you to continue creating articles like this for other American Idol contestants who have received sustained coverage. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Gehrke-White, Donna (2005-04-18). "After Idol". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03.

      The article notes: "Before there was Nadia, there was Christina. In the first season of American Idol, Christina Christian captivated fans by belting out sultry tunes in her distinctive Sade-esque style. Three years later, she's still belting out tunes, but now she's writing them, too. She's done a little acting, appearing in a episode of her favorite TV show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. She has traveled to Africa and Europe as a result of her Idol fame. Today Christian, 23, is living in Pembroke Pines with her husband of just over a year, Nicholas Cewe. She is again working toward her bachelor's degree in sociology - the Idol show and subsequent traveling interrupted her college studies. This month, she finished a real estate course."

    2. Rushfield, Richard (2011). American Idol: The Untold Story. New York: Hachette Books. ISBN 978-1-4013-9652-7. Retrieved 2024-02-03 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The following night, in what still stands as the most awkward results show in Idol history, Christina was eliminated in absentia. Seacrest and Dunkleman read the results and looked into the camera, informing the singer in her hospital bed that her journey had ended. Christian's elimination came to the audience as something of a surprise, as she had been an early favorite, and given that Cowell's punching bag, Nikki, remained, the decision sparked the show's very first flurry of conspiracy talk. ... The theories tied to Christian's ouster were hazy and unfocused, but many alleged that the combination of the hospitalization and the surprise verdict were somehow too much to be believed. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote, "Conspiracy theories abounded last week when judge fave Christina Christian was the latest contestant booted from American Idol. Add to the mystery that Christian wasn't even present to receive the news, cited as being ill and in the hospital" and Entertainment Weekly fumed, "Something is rotten in the state of Hollywood. How gullible do the producers of American Idol think we really are? Does anyone really believe the sultry Christina Christian got booted off? Yeah, right, like she got fewer votes than Nikki or RJ. I don't think so. Sorry.""

    3. Gonzalez, Erika (2002-11-11). "'Idol' Mindset - Promise-Premised Reality Hits Denver With Live Roadshow". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03.

      The article notes: "Six months ago Christina Christian was a University of Florida senior and part-time mortgage consultant, trying to get through school while planning her upcoming nuptials. Today, she's an up-and-coming pop star negotiating her first record contract while touring the country in fast-selling arena shows."

    4. Tanasychuk, John (2002-08-10). "Not an Idol, but Pines Woman Maintains Winning Attitude". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03.

      The article notes: "On Tuesday night, Christian performed Glory of Love as part of the show's Big Band theme. More than 10 million viewers voted by phone. Christian lost. ... Christian became an American Idol almost on a whim. Last May, she was a full-time student and a full-time mortgage officer at SunTrust Bank. She heard about the audition in Miami, drove down and the rest is history. ... Christian's parents divorced when she was 14, but rather than differentiate between members of her blended family, she says she has two brothers (Earnest and Eric) and two sisters (Ashley and Nyxie)."

    5. Cohen, Howard (2002-11-16). "South Florida's Hot Shots". Billboard. p. 59. Retrieved 2024-02-03 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "In terms of exposure, you can't be more exposed these days than young Christina Christian, the supple-voiced singer who charmed audiences this summer on the explosively popular American TV series, American Idol. Christian, 21, grew up in North Miami Beach and currently lives in nearby Pembroke Pines. She's on the road these days with nine of her fellow American Idol finalists on a lavish tour. She's also one of the 10 vocalists to lend her pipes to the recent RCA album American Idol: Greatest Moments. That's Christian singing Bill Withers' '70s classic, “Ain't No Sunshine," arguably the best track on the disc."

    6. Smolowe, Jill; Lipton, Mike; Helling, Steve; Rizzo, Monica; Atlas, Darla (2005-01-17). "Life After Idol". People. Vol. 63, no. 2. EBSCOhost 15587688.

      The article notes: "Christina Christian. Age: 23. Hometown: Gainesville, Fla. After doing a post-Idol tour through Europe, Christian became the first in her class to get hitched when she wed Nicholas Cewe, 24, her boyfriend of six years, last January. Christian appeared on Idol twice last season and covered the prior season for the TV Guide Channel. These days, she's writing songs, working on an album and dodging recognition. "I'm not a big fan of fame," she says."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Nobody supports outright deletion, but opinions are split between merge/redirect and keep. Sandstein 14:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xehanort

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

I don't see a single reliable source that talks about the character mainly, except a recently announced game starring "Young Xehanort", but not about the character. Most of the sources at reception were game reviews and listicles. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using that tool you showed me in discord and found several articles focused on Xehanort. Added at least three of them to reception for now. Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need more than three to keep the article up? Matthew Cenance (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? There are several scholars besides video game journalists discussing the character and his multiple incarnations so I'm lost Tintor2 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed every single review of the games and DLC, leaving only articles that focus on the character.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More explicit analysis of extant sourcing would be helpful in determining notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel the reception could use some touch-ups in places (As there are quite a few details I'd expunge) but there definitely seems to be some sign of notability from a quick perusal. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rearranged the reception and removed some spammed images. Honestly, I don't know what else is needed considering the section already talks about his amnesiac incarnation, his antagonism with the main characters, his original elder characterization, his confusing plans, his relationship with a childhood friend, his death and whether or not the next villain in the franchise will live up to his legacy. No reviews used at all.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All can be merged to an under-section about Xehanort in the redirect above. Conyo14 (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Noa Argamani

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

Hamas has abducted over 250 individuals. The article does not state why the individual is notable enough for a specific article about their kidnapping in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by نعم البدل (talk • contribs)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Ritchie (rower)

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

The article subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources cited in the article, Row2K and Inquirer are trivial mentions. Bates, Team USA, another Bates, Temple are not independent because they are bios from employers or teams of which she is a member. Brattleboro Reformer contains significant coverage, but it is highly promotional and appears to be run of the mill reporting. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Phillips

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

Absolute spammy article with no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. SergioM32 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist unless we get additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per S0091. The Business Insider piece is maybe an RS source, but at the bottom of the article there is an email to send in your own business/fashion tips to be written about so this could also just be a work of churnalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Juice

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

This bizarre WP:ONEEVENT story was a media WP:SENSATION a few years back and, with the benefit of hindsight, I think it is clear that this is all it was. Sure, it was picked up by a buncha newspapers who laughed and tut-tutted about the ridiculousness and encouraged shock over the horrific health outcomes of it all, but, in sum, this is a story about a woman with a kinda of personality disorder who drummed up a small following on the internet and ran afoul of the FTC. Wikipedia, ultimately, is an encyclopedia. This is not encyclopedic and there is no decent way to discuss this and other similar snake oil flashes in the pan.

The article is pretty poor because it does not do much more than scoff. And rightly so. The subject is asinine on the face. This is why I think Wikipedia ought to exclude it as a subject. It's not a particularly popular fad, it seems to have no staying power, and I think those who were involved in keeping the article up were hoodwinked by tabloid journalism and train-wreck fascination. jps (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems well sourced, interesting historical curiosity I suppose. Article could use a rewrite to focus on the investigation and shutdown of the product, but that's not really for AfD Oaktree b (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are some quite in-depth reliable sources on the topic (e.g. the 4 mentioned by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång), and the fact that it's still getting referenced by RS in 2023 as an interesting historical example of an alternative medicine health scam means it's probably going to continue to be an interesting/notable "historical curiosity" (as Oaktree said) into the future. (Also, less important, but WP:ONEEVENT is about BLPs, so not applicable here). Endwise (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Gråbergs and Oaktree. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lucchesi, Emilie Le Beau (February 1, 2020). "Cure or Con? Health products touted on social media are slipping by regulators". ABA Journal. Retrieved August 11, 2022.
  2. ^ Subbaraman, Nidhi (March 17, 2018). "Here's How A "Poop Cult" With 58,000 Followers Set Off A Facebook War". Buzzfeed News. Retrieved November 12, 2019.
  3. ^ Schwarcz, Joseph (June 1, 2018). "The Right Chemistry: Beware of self-proclaimed health experts". Montreal Gazette. Retrieved January 5, 2020.
  4. ^ Rahhal, Natalie (October 7, 2018). "'Poop cult' leader 'can't be held accountable' for followers death". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved January 5, 2020.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. From this discussion, I get the impression that we do want to cover the topic of how the decoration of Catholic churches changed after Vatican II, but not in this form and not with this title. There is no consensus on how to proceed, though. I recommend that interested editors work together to find consensus for a restructuring or merger; failing that, a renomination is possible. Sandstein 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckovation

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

The article is about a rarely used derogatory slang term in the context of the Catholic church. There is already a Wictionary item on the same topic, so there is no need to move the article there. The Wikipedia article has the following two problems:

Notability not proven (WP:N) - the article does not cite any direct source about wreckovation. See also WP:NOTDICTIONARY, point 3.

The content of the article is not coherent and has no clear connection with its theme. Therefore I suspect that Wikipedia:No original research and possibly neutrality (WP:NPOV) are violated. Jan Spousta (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A quick before yielded primarily blog results, with few RSs using the term. Except in blogs or mirrors of Wikipedia, definitions are not provided. I think that a good article on "Post-Vatican II architecture" or "Modern church architecture" could be made using academic resources with splitting from Architecture of cathedrals and great churches and Church architecture, with "Wreckovation" a redirect to a section on criticism of such changes. However, "wreckovation" is a specific enough term that it is unsuitable as a redirect to either of those articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect, or keep, but not delete The article is terrible, so starting over isn't a bad idea. But I found plenty of journal articles using the term, and I'm quite surprised that Google's book search isn't finding hits (it's certainly producing tons of obviously bad matches). The reality in English literature on the subject is that the stripping of decorative detail in the reordering of churches (primarily Catholic, but the Anglicans got hit with it too to a lesser degree) after Vat II was extremely controversial in the day. If you think the attack is rarely used, well, in the day, it was used all the time by opponents of the changes being made. Probably a stand-alone article is not the right solution in the end, but the name needs to point to somewhere in WP discussing the reordering and the massive negative reaction against it.
Notability needs a significant coverage, not only the usage of the term in NYT, WP:SIGCOV. --Jan Spousta (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more cites. Here is a summary of all the references:
Books
Non-fiction books
  • Origins of Catholic Words: A Discursive Dictionary
  • Environment and Art in Catholic Worship
Fictional book
  • White Smoke, Black Fire
Secular periodical
  • New York Times
Religious periodicals
  • La Stampa
  • Crisis Magazine
  • The Priest
  • AD 2000
  • Catholic Key (official diocesan newspaper)
  • Today's Catholic (official diocesan newspaper)
  • Liturgical Arts Journal
College student research
  • Delft University of Technology
...plus one misc. (USCCB), one blog, and three primary sources (Church documents)
Many of the citations added are from within the past six months, and in many I included a quote that specifically mentions "wreckovation". Michaelmalak (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. But it looks like you proved that the word is used in the described sense (which is something I have no doubts about) and that there are many cases where it may be used by some people. This would be more than enough for Wictionary. But the Wikipedia notability of a slang word needs to show that somebody wrote significantly about the word itself, not only about its meaning. For example there is no doubt that some people use the term "simoleon" and that there is a good deal of literature about one dollar banknotes, but that is not enough to have an article about simoleon here. --Jan Spousta (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article recounts the history. It does not merely define the word and demonstrate that it is used.
2. Two references are about the phenomenon, not just the word: The one from Crisis Magazine and the one from The Priest.
3. Since my last response, I have added a reference to an entire book on the phenomenon, though it uses the word "wreck" rather than "wreckovation". There are many such books that could be referenced. Michaelmalak (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article recounts the history of the liturgical reform (albeit in a very partial and unsufficient way) but it does not explain the history of the term "wreckovation" which is what the article should be about. There is no discussion about the encyclopedical notability of the reform of the liturgical space itself: it is clearly notable, but it cannot be explained under such a derogatory title - the article about it should be as neutral as other articles in Wikipedia (WP:NPOV) 2. I do not see Crisis Magazine mentioned in the article and the reference from The Priest is only an anonymous essay about boys in the church which mentions a wreckovation only in one sentence, not as its main theme.Jan Spousta (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just now:
  • Added some of the timeline of the term usage
  • Added a parameter to the Crisis Magazine cite to clearly identify it
It is common for even racial slurs to be the titles of Wikipedia articles. But if you mean the article body, I did just now remove a usage of the term that cast it into a positive light. Michaelmalak (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also just now rewrote that problematic introductory paragraph from the Background section. Michaelmalak (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment @Jan Spousta:, your approach to this discussion is puzzling. I don't agree with how you insist such an article be written, but what concerns me more is that you give the impression of being unaware of any controversy in the first place, though any student of Catholic liturgical reform in the USA and its architectural fallout in the latter decades of the 20th century cannot justifiably be unaware of this. Those of us who were interested in it and around at the time couldn't miss it. You are coming close to saying that the criticisms behind the word can be dismissed, which is untrue: those criticisms are amply documented. That is why I think it makes more sense to merge this to some place discussing the changes and the reaction to them. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: The discussion about contemporary Catholic liturgical space has not only taken place in the US, but also here in Europe. Many books have been published about it, and it would be good to have an article about it on the English Wikipedia. But the article needs to be neutrally written under a neutral title. Wreckovation is slang, not a term for serious discussion. Slang words can be subjects of Wikipedia articles as words - who uses them and why - but they cannot serve as a starting point for describing what they refer to. See WP:NPOV. Jan Spousta (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine,and I said above that I think its mention in an article on the larger issue make more sense. But the mere fact that it is pejorative isn't reason to avoid mention of the slur. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the slur should be proven notable (WP:N) - not everything is worthy to be included here.Jan Spousta (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom Change of !vote to Weak keep if title is changed. See rationale in "Note" below. Opening lead states, "Wreckovation is a portmanteau disparagement term used since at least 2002...". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The first source I randomly picked, a 2008 article titled Before and After: St. Mark's in Peoria, Illinois, did not even give passing mention to the offered "portmanteau". The word just did not take off in society. Wikipedia is written for the general audience and not just a specialty group, or a "student of Catholic liturgical reform in the USA". The article might have merit but the title does not. A few people can use a word but that does not mean the word became common or mandate an article be created. The word, as used, only describes the "wrecking" of traditional church style and renovating to some non-traditional style. It does not encompass the re-renovation or reversal "back" ("reform of the reform") to the original style. Over seventeen years after the creation of the new word, it still lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and WP:independent sources to advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ctrl-F on the References section shows quotes of references that use the word -- and I just now added some more quotes to the already-existing references.
    The reversal of renovation, and the costliness of it, gives justification to leveraging the word "wreck".
    It is true the word "wreckovation" has not gained footing outside of Catholic publications (other than perhaps the cited college thesis by Bas Nijenhuis), but neither have Catholic-specific words such as "St. Teresa of Avila", which has its own Wikipedia article. Michaelmalak (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not underestimate St. Teresa of Avila, Michaelmalak. See Teresa of Ávila#Portrayals. And do not overestimate "wreckovation" which has probably no single relevant Catholic publication under a title containing the word. That's a big difference from Teresa. Jan Spousta (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly rename to a less controversial name like "Post-Vatican II liturgical design" with a section on controversial renovations. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, Bill (September 20, 2000). "St. Pat's Protestors Make Demand". Sentinel Tribune. pp. 1, 8 – via Newspapers.com.
Gregory, Marketta (January 20, 2005). "Protestors reflect on efforts and are glad". Democrat and Chronicle. p. 15 – via Newspapers.com.
The problem is that this article is too one-sided (WP:NPOV) and also lacks even the basic information needed to understand the changes in Catholic liturgical space caused by the Second Vatican Council. It makes no mention of the debates and documents of the Council or of subsequent papal instructions such as Inter Oecumenici. There is an article in the German Wikipedia called de:Liturgiereform (Reform of the liturgy) which is quite good, explains these things in context, and would be great to translate into English. But I don't think it would help us to keep this POV text.Jan Spousta (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, depending on whether people feel the existing content is worth salvaging or that it would be easier to start from scratch on a previous commenter's suggestion of a "Post-Vatican II liturgical design article". The current article seems like WP:CRITS to me. — Moriwen (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no consensus yet. A reminder, if you are advocating a Redirect or Merge, you need to name a proposed target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I'm reading the process, if no consensus is reached after 7 days, the article is not deleted -- not that it is "relisted" (which Ctrl-F turns up 0 matches in Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Articles for deletion) Michaelmalak (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there is (almost) consensus that the article cannot remain in this form. But there is no consensus whether to delete, merge or rename it. I think it would be best to delete it because the standard of the current text (NPOV, quality of sources, explanation of context...) is so far below the cited German Wikipedia article that it would be better to take inspiration from the Germans and start all over again.Jan Spousta (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change of !vote above with title change. See "Note" below: No title change= !vote to delete.
Note: There are options to relist. It can even be relisted more than once. I am struggling with a agreeable solution. There are issues. The entire concept, actual subject, is notable. NPOV issues and the article is "not coherent and has no clear connection with its theme" is valid.
The renovations actually caused somewhat of a schism. The article title, a blend of words, did not actually gain enough notability to become a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not a job description of Wikipedia to advance word acceptability. The title-to-subject disconnect, along with the apparent article presentation, is problematic as validly mentioned above. The Nom referred to "rarely used derogatory slang term" and as such the title is not notable. The content needs a total rewrite but that is not an AFD concern. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a neologism it's not particularly "neo". And seriously— angels on pins? There's nothing abstruse about the issue: many older churches, especially Roman Catholic buildings, had their interior decoration and architectural detail stripped in the name of updating the space for post-Vat-II liturgy (or its Protestant equivalent). It was widely decried at the time and in the years that followed, and eventually some changes were reversed where possible. It was attacked both as artistic vandalism and as a repudiation of Catholic values and principles. It may be of little interest to people who are irreligious or indifferent to artistry, it's hardly neutral to privilege the opinions of such people.
I agree that using the pejorative word as the name of the article is the wrong way to handle this. We do need to mention it somewhere, though, because it was widely used by opponents of the changes, and every time I come back to look at this it keeps coming back to "we don't want WP to admit of the controversy at all." Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the phrase "Post-Vatican II liturgical design" found only 2 pages in Google. It is probably even much less notable than "wreckovation" (17 ths. pages found). Jan Spousta (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A topic doesn't need to be in verbatim quotes for the overall subject to be notable, though I'd prefer "Post-Vatican II liturgical space design" (so as to avoid confusion with the, say, Mass of Paul VI). If you'd like some articles about the actual subject, I'd suggest you read "The Council as Shibboleth: The Rhetoric of Authenticity and Liturgical Space after Vatican II", "Archi-liturgical culture wars", and Architecture in Communion: Implementing the Second Vatican Council Through Liturgy and Architecture. There's quite a good number of sources out there that talk about the thing (liturgical space design post-V II) in a substantial way, and that is what makes this pass the WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I do not object to the notability of something like "liturgical space after Vatican II", but "liturgical space" (space distribution of people and objects in the church) and "liturgical design" (the aesthetics of the church and its furniture) are two different things and the later has not much to do with the council. And I do object to the neutrality and quality of the current article.Jan Spousta (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the "pure", simple Modernist and later International Style churches started to emerge already in 1930s (for instance St. Wenceslas Church (Vršovice), 1929-1930), years before the Council. And this architecture then influenced even the rebuilding of older churches. The Council accelerated the changes (because of its demands on the liturgical space) but it was not the primary source of the "aggiornamento"/"wreckovation" movement in the church design - the source was the modern aesthetics as formulated by Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and others.Jan Spousta (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Second_Vatican_Council#Controversies. The "Related renovation controversies" section is emblematic for the article. IgelRM (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahil Ahmad Fourmoli

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

Despite a handful of caps, I could not find any significant coverage in his native language (his name translates to احمد رحیل فورملی) or otherwise. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 being met, which is the bare minimum requirement. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide at least two reliable sources showing in-depth coverage of 'bro'? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Nikolai

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; no RSs and would seem unlikely any exist; promotional; created by blocked user. Cabrils (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa (rock band)

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

The second and fourth sources are some kind of coverage (first and third are not) - this seems very thin ice on which to build an article. Notability seems doubtful so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Malaysia. Mccapra (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note the amateurishly Photoshopped pic in the infobox, which makes me suspect that someone affiliated with the band tried to create an image of various recent members for illustrative purposes. But on the other hand, how hard should it be to just get everybody into some chairs and take a real group photo? This is not relevant for notability but it may indicate a self-promotional effort for a band that is not in a stable state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They've apparently been around for a long time, and there may be a challenge with translation from the band's native tongue. Since this article includes no information on how their name may appear in other languages, there is no way to conduct a wider search and we will have to assume that the band is being promoted internationally under this name anyway. So a search for "Melissa" in conjunction with "Malaysia" plus various member names and other strategies will have to do. And even with some creative searches I can find nothing reliable and significant. The current footnote #2 is to an article explaining how the band decided to continue after one member's death, and footnote #4 is to an article about member Keff Melissa's solo career. Otherwise all I can find is social media posts and self-uploads. Perhaps they are disadvantaged by a shortage of rock media in their country, but maybe someone with sharper searching skills will find something. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle-to-cradle design

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

Vast amount of unsourced content, possible OR in some parts. RGW- and appeal to nature-toned. Needs academic citations. Very little improvement over the years. Unsuitable as a reader-facing article. Janhrach (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (Christian apologist)

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

I doubt the notability of this per WP:GNG, most sources on this article are either self-published or trivial mentions let alone significant coverage. A quick look yieled no presence of three reliable sources with none of them consisting of sustained coverage, in my findings I acknowledge that Mr. Wood had contributed in a book but this seems to be published by a self-publisher and I deem it to be subject to WP:USESPS. I had initially applied the {{Notability}} tag before it was reverted due to this being a "long-standing article with numerous sources", I disagree with this per WP:NEXIST and I would appreciate if another consensus is gathered on this. NAADAAN (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. for an odd reason the past nominations were not on the talk page's history, I still stand that a new consensus is needed since the first AfD that was concluded dates from nearly 13 years ago and there hasn't been any sustained coverage since and the 2nd AfD voted primarily for delete. NAADAAN (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete. I'm normally an inclusionist, and have some doubt about my ability to be impartial in a case where someone's sole purpose in life seems to be spreading religious intolerance, hence the qualification "probably". But I fail to see any particularly noteworthy facts in this article—being arrested for disturbing the peace seems to be one of his chief accomplishments, and that's not particularly noteworthy in itself, even if he got an apology and compensation. Someone has gone through and sourced this article very thoroughly, but almost entirely with sources that are either self-published, promotional, or which cater to a narrow niche of like-minded viewers. I'm not sure that this individual veers over into "hate speech", but I can't see what the justification for this article is. What is his source of notability, besides appearing in videos touting his miraculous conversion from juvenile delinquent, criticizing Islam, and peddling intolerance? All of that sounds very ordinary to me, and being ordinary on tape doesn't make it more noteworthy. P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course a banned YouTube-creator on a topic that is not bon-ton in establishment circles in Western countries won't have much of articles to go by. What a disingenuous point to make. Anyone online who is even somewhat outside the establishment right probably recognizes him, however. This deletion discussion (with VERY few participants) looks like a blatant attempt to get him a bit memory-holed with a veneer of "due process". He is very notable within the anti-Islam scene, which is all that should matter. Furthermore, caring that Islam is a "minority" relgion is a hideously Western-centric view. There are tons of users of English Wikipedia in Muslim-majority countries. 78.22.113.217 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NMO, I don't see how he wouldn't be in "bon-ton [with the] 'establishment'" as you said. Your remark regarding "VERY few participants" can be explained by the fact this was started yesterday. "He is very notable within the anti-Islam scene" WP:YANARS, there nonetheless is a general criteria for people to be considered reliable enough to warrant an article independent of any 'scene' they're in. I agree with your assertion about concerns of Islam supposedly being a "minority" religion but this is off-topic. NAADAAN (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd perspective. Precisely what does this have to do with "the establishment" or its supposed circles? If you mean that he's only known in a small niche community consisting of like-minded people, that hardly demonstrates notability. He could certainly be notable as an anti-Islamic bigot, but nothing in the article suggests that he's particularly notable: there are lots of notable hatemongers, but just giving interviews to niche sources, attending protests, and self-promotion doesn't make one notable.
You claim that he's "very notable within the anti-Islam scene", but what's the evidence of this? What about this makes him notable to the general public? What does this "scene" consist of? Surely not everyone who has a negative view of Islam. If this is someone whom the general public might be expected to recognize, why are the only mentions of him in non-specialist sources about being arrested for disturbing the peace? Lots of people make the news for negative reasons without being particularly notable.
The point about the discussion having "VERY few participants" suggests that you're unfamiliar with AfD. Most discussions only attract a few participants, especially if the subject is little-known but not obviously a hoax, and in the first couple of days. I only saw the AfD because I was notified as a member of WikiProject West Virginia. Attracting four participants within the first day of discussion is reasonably good. P Aculeius (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure being known in anti-whatever circles gets you notability. He appears to have little to no coverage in any sources we'd use for notability. He's mentioned many times, but always about getting arrested or about what he said, not really about him. And to be honest, most AfD discussions get very few participants, it's seen a drop in the last few years. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources in the article arguably aren't the greatest, but they are certainly not mainly "self-published or trivial mentions" as claimed by the deletion nominator. The sources in the article are mainly Christian media and local newspapers, which qualify as WP:RS, and even gives detailed information on his personal background (not very "trivial"). There are a few references to self-published sources, but not to the extent of the main content of the article. The article's content also seem to demonstrate notability. Thismess (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to this, I have compiled a breakdown of every source on the article that you are free to verify by your own care and refute:
    • [1, 4, 5, 6, 17, 19, 24, 31-38] Self-published and/or WP:ABOUTSELF;
    • [2] A passing mention on a local newspaper, most of it directly citing the Acts17 website (self-published);
    • [3] A Google search, WorldCat, and a search on the Wikipedia Library yielded nothing so I am unable to verify it, making me think this could be fabricated;
    • [2, 7, 8] Interview which fails to be independent;
    • [9] A translation of [7] which is a non-independent interview;
    • [10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28] Passing and/or trivial mention (mentioned twice or less) notwithstanding reliability concerns in some sources;
    • [11] Article written by Mr. Wood which fails to be independent;
    • [13] Opinion piece which are "rarely reliable for statements of fact" but could be a suitable source if reliability is proven;
    • [18] "The Religion of Conquest" doesn't seem awfully reputable and it seems to be a website advertising Mr. Wood's show, raising COI concerns;
    • [21] Dissertation written by Mr. Wood which can be "considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" per WP:SCHOLARSHIP;
    • [24] I deem this to be reliable, but it doesn't have much relevance in of its own and raises concerns of WP:BLP1E notwithstanding that Mr. Wood is not the main focus of the article;
    • [29, 30] Self-published per WP:NEWSBLOG;
    Please note that per notability is defined per WP:BASIC as there being "significant coverage in multiple (at least three) published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" which I am afraid this article doesn't fulfill. NAADAAN (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, I just added seven new reliable sources to supplement the article, just to establish that he has been covered multiple times in WP:RS. Thismess (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here isn't so much that the sources aren't reliable—it's that they're not sources that tend to demonstrate notability, and nothing that you've cited them for is particularly notable. Even if we suppose everything in the article to be correct and proven, there's still not much basis for concluding that this person is in any way notable. The fact that the only thing cited to non-specialist media merely indicates that he was arrested and later compensated in connection with a protest, tends to underscore his lack of notability. P Aculeius (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His personal life and Islamophobia seem rather trivial. Many people have similar stories or views. What about these things makes this person notable, besides the fact that he's publicized them in niche sources that only a small number of people watch? P Aculeius (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That follower count sounds impressive, but I don't really know whether it is, much less how significant it is. If that's the most noteworthy thing about him, I still don't see how notable he can be. Surely there must be some coverage of him in non-specialist media, beyond the mere fact that he was arrested at a protest, and then compensated after suing the city. If not, it's hard to see how notable he could be. P Aculeius (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference against the claims that he is not notable in any way, it should also be mentioned that he has a total of nearly 200 million views on YouTube, and even his Wikipedia page has close to 500 daily views (that is 44,000 views in 90 days), both of which are very significant numbers. He is clearly a notable person in any normal meaning of the word, who attracts a lot of public interest. Thismess (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of contention isn't that he lacks total notability in any way, it is that he does not meet the general notability criteria for having a page on Wikipedia. If you take a look at WP:NYOUTUBE, you can see previous consensus and precedent of content chreators who have tenfolds as many numbers as Mr. Wood and still were not deemed notable enough to warrant an article. NAADAAN (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but they probably didn't have any coverage in third party reliable sources, which Wood indeed has. Thismess (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't good sources—nearly all of the ones that aren't self-published or promotional are obscure, niche, or fringe sources, or are being cited for things that don't go toward demonstrating the notability of the subject; for instance, the discussion of an Islamic community center proposed in lower Manhattan. Wood may have had an opinion about that, but having an opinion about something doesn't make anyone notable! Nor does being acquitted of inciting a riot, which isn't even cited to a specific author or publication, but to "Associated Press re-print", an utterly worthless citation as it supplies no details that could be used to locate the source or assess its value (although if all it does is say he was one of four people who were acquitted, it wouldn't demonstrate notability anyway). Nor does the fact that various movements or organizations that Wood is supposedly involved in have been called "hate groups" by the Southern Povery Law Center. Unless they have something substantial to say about Wood, they don't go toward proving his notability! P Aculeius (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've heard you already. How many times are you going to rant about the same thing over and over? Thismess (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who keeps repeating that he's notable because there are reliable third-party sources in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I just added three more journal/book sources that describe him and his work. That's in addition to the two SPLC sources and the seven other references I recently added. There are now around 30 third party reliable sources in the article. Thismess (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give an update on my improvements to the article over the last several days. In order to more firmly establish the notability of the article, I have now added around 20 new sources to the article, making the total of third party reliable sources to around 35 sources. The new sources include some commentary on Wood's work by prominent individuals/journals/organizations, and a couple new stories, which was a key issue. I have also removed several unnecessary and undue self-published sources, leaving only some that provide a few sentences of supplementary information. I believe my improvements to the article now firmly demonstrates the notability of the subject of this article. Thismess (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to examine new additions to the article since its nomination. But please, do not count sources, it's quality that matters, not quantity. Having 30 or 37 mediocre sources will not convince editors to Keep an article while 3 high quality sources can be enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, a lot of these look like passing mentions NAADAAN (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be known for being a sort of a "loudmouth", in getting his points across. I don't see much of any extensive sourcing in RS in the article; guy gets arrested and says stuff people don't like, but doesn't seem to have enough coverage about him as an individual to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disliking Wood's style or hating his guts as the first "delete" vote on here is not a valid reason for deletion. Thismess (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, it's the paltry sourcing I can't see as useful. There just isn't enough of it for doing whatever it is he does. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stupid reason for deletion. One couldn't have brought a weaker case than the one listed by yourself. Because you find someone a "loudmouth" shouldn't have any bearing as to whether they should have a wikipedia page or not.
    Based on the weekly page views, a following of over 700k as well as hundreds of millions of YouTube views, it's difficult not to say he is notable. Especially with his affiliations with various well-known companies such as the Babylon Bee, Jay Smith and other well known individuals and organisations, the sourcing has greatly improved.
    One paragraph from yoursehas full of opinion has no validity in the overall discussion. Leftistman (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment about the sourcing above, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is purely based on faulty sourcing, not numbers. There have been previous consensus of influencers with more views and a bigger following than Mr. Wood getting their article removed purely based on sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe for you, but this user also admitted a problematic personal bias against Wood for deletion, same as the first delete vote. Thismess (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, he's a subject matter expert in his field, we still have no sourcing about him, doesn't change my point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ThisMess. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it: I'm with Oaktree on this one. 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:31EE:3361:AE9B:AA57 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being this user's first edit ever on Wikipedia, with no argumentation whatsoever, I'll assume it does not hold much weight. Thismess (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the rush? If/since this page has some documentation, but if so non-noteworthy, won't it just die a normal death? I vote leave it on for a year and see how many people visit this page. Isn't Wikipedia for the public? I don't think the footprint is costing us that much space. Why not let public interest prove its usefulness long-term?Feeblemind57 (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)FeebleMind57[reply]
  • Keep. Source 4 and Source 5 has established that he is a notable Christian apologist. Both sources are not self-published. Source number 19 showed notability but as the journal is likely to be biased it may not count. The fact that he is noted in 13 shows that he has notability. Source 13 didn't see Wood in a good light, showing that this particular source is not WP:ABOUTSELF. Source 20 is quite reliable, and mentions him by name as an example of Christian apologetics, showing that he is notable as one. Source 22 also shows notability as he is mentioned in a journal that is not related to Christianity. In short, I see enough notability to keep this article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Hard to find any noteworthy elements in the profile of a typical alt-right YouTube personality. Perhaps he might be in the future, as of now, there is a dearth of appropriate WP:RS and
WP:IS sources and I strongly support its deletion. Otherwise, this could potentially lead to a proliferation of similar requests for countless other relatively famous (or infamous) YouTubers, which will set a counterproductive precedent StarkReport (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why him allegedly being "alt-right" has anything to do with his notability. I don't see him as "typical" either, given that he has a PhD in philosophy and has received praise from prominent scholars/philosophers for his work, as noted in the article (and criticism by the SPLC). He has also been noted with noteworthy and controversial public activism. The article is also full of WP:RS (including high-quality sources), contrary to your claim. Thismess (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who have praised his work, such as conservative Christian newspapers and other far-right political bloggers, hardly meet the WP:IIS:

    An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective

    and the purported "full of WP:RS" appears to be WP:NOTRELIABLE.
    Again, he might merit an article in the future, akin to Pamela Geller, but as of yet, there is a clear insufficiency of significant substance to warrant coverage. The only viable option is deletion. StarkReport (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not a single "far-right blog" or "conservative Christian newspaper" that has praised his work in the article. Scholar Michael R. Licona has, philosopher William Lane Craig has, theologian Scott Ventureyra has, and author William Kilpatrick has. The SPLC has criticised his work. All providing notability in one way or another. And your claim that the article has no WP:RS for other coverage of Wood's activities is a blatant lie. Thismess (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article as shown in NAADAAN's source eval, and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Article has been refbombed, but if someone finds WP:THREE sources that meet WP:IS and WP:RS and have WP:SIGCOV which requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject, ping me. Please don't list a dozen sources, the three best sources will do to demonstrate notability.  // Timothy :: talk  06:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be a misunderstanding about notability where mentions of a name are assumed to confer notability. I waded through as many of the refs as I could (and some were not readily available to me) but nothing that I could see got close to WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll address the latest comments with more concrete points on some sources that can not be deemed "trivial":
Ref 4 and 20 gives non-trivial summaries of Wood's YouTube/online work in an academic journal and a news magazine (quoted in the article), giving him notability as an apologist
Ref 9 is an in-depth local coverage of a debate with Wood and an atheist, noting his arguments, which also intertwines with his background story as he notes
Ref 6, 13 and 14 are non-trivial academic discussions in books/article discussing Wood's background story in relation with his field of Christian apologetics, showing it has notability itself
And we have the 4-year lasting coverage of numerous news articles about his activities in Dearborn, which has been noted by even deletionists to have notability. Thismess (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Osuru Lino

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

This is a recreation of an article that existed at Franco Lino which is salted. Article was draftifed‎ at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco Lino and deleted/salted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franco_Lino_(2nd_nomination). Rather than try and work on the article in draft at Draft:Franco Lino the article creator has sought to bypass the salting. The current article as it stands is not adequately supported by reliable sources and should be deleted and salted. The only editing that should happen should be on Draft:Franco Lino until such time that it fit for mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 13:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travel in Taiwan

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to discuss the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schminnte [talk to me] 12:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solagran

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

Non-notable corporation, the page is full of promotional material. Broc (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Helm (lawyer)

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

I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the subject. Bilby (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Thalore#Educational Institutions. ✗plicit 11:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepthi Higher Secondary School, Thalore

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP: NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify or else Redirect per Rupples. I think drafitify may be a better option in this case as the page is a new creation, having been started on 13 January. Indian schools can be vexing - I have said it elsewhere - as it can be hard to find the level of sourcing required in English language sources. Nevertheless, per Rupples, the sources on the page do not pass muster and neither can I find much elsewhere. I did, however, discover a bit more by also searching for "Deepthi HSS" and "Deepthi HS, Thalore". Still no secondary sources, and what is on the web is all quite recent. I wondered if the foundation date was right, and found this page [48] which suggests it is not. That gives a date of 2002 for the establishment of the school. Also the numbers seem inflated, as sources I found suggested 300 students. It could have grown though. All the same, as it stands, there are significan concerns both about notibility but also about the reliability of the information. As such, this is not ready for mainspace. It may just be TOOSOON for the school, although if it has been around for 20 years (at least) and is really as large as claimed, it may be secondary sources will come to light and an encylopaedic and accurate page can be written. As such, I would encourage the page creator to develop it in draft space. Alternatively we can redirect it until such a time as information comes to light to fix and expand it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy: I had earlier tried to draftify this article before taking it to AFD. But it was of no use, as the article creator had reverted it. Maliner (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. In that case updating my !vote to redirect per Rupples. AfD can still specify draftification, but in view of the fact this would likely be ignored again, and the page moved back to mainspace, let's go straight to redirect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland Zoo

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

Fails WP:GNG: neither source is independent of the subject. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I have added other sources.--Roadrunnerfromhell (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Skelton (artist)

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. No obvious good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Seliger

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

Can't find sufficient sources to prove notability. Think WP:NACADEMIC; it doesn't seem like they meet any of the criteria given. toobigtokale (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect‎. Which I will do manually following move suggested Star Mississippi 01:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Surat

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The grouped hospitals must be notable together for some other reason than simply existing in Surat. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2024 (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 05:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: to Surat#Hospitals, after moving to Hospitals in Surat (this will be more useful than "List of ", two entries is not a list). A two entry list, only one has an article. Both are already mentioned in target, but I added a section for hospitals so it was easier to find (see edit summary). The reference was not in the article before I moved it.  // Timothy :: talk  15:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amicus International Consulting

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

It looks like most of the sources are actually press releases published on other news sites and podcasts. LinkedIn and the company website don't count, and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up replacement sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. per consensus. Passes GNG and independent coverage. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inffinito

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

Seemingly routine coverage of events by the organization, no WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG to denote for notability. nearlyevil665 04:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@Nearlyevil665: the page was created (by me) in a rush in order to make decisions there clearer, would you please consider withdrawing until the other Afd is closed? Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skillpointe

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

A lot of search results but it doesn't seem like there's any sigcov, mostly just press releases and non-RS. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Love

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

I was unable to find any sources beyond those covering the subject's passing. Fails WP:GNG. nearlyevil665 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - on the simple basis that the subject was conferred a Member of the Order of the British Empire by HM the Queen. Needs to remain while other sources are gathered and further notability established. There's a video interview with him at [54] and another short one at [55]. This would be a hasty deletion, IMO. Ref (chew)(do) 08:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obituaries are independent reliable sources. Decent-sized articles in BBC News, Belfast Telegraph, The Irish News. I don't see the problem. Toughpigs (talk)
  • Keep: Notable broadcaster in NI with a lengthy career, and independent sources to back that up. As well as being an MBE he was also recognised by the Phonographic Performance Ireland. This is Paul (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While an MBE is not usually sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO (that would need a CBE or higher), if awarded to a public figure like a broadcaster it usually is. And the obits confirm his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLHO-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 05:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUOT-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is the article should be improved, rather than deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy

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

Some of the article's sources talk about joy but some talk about happiness. Should the topics be separate or should this be turned back into a redirect to Happiness? If this article was kept, it would need to basically be remade from the ground up, but I don't know if it needs to be a separate page. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a mess. I won't fight very much, but surfing for "joy versus happiness" indicates that there are two very different concepts, the short-living emotion and the long-term state of mind. Unfortunately the two meanings are getting mixed up. Rather than merging them, can't we work on discerning them more clearly? LucSaffre (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made improvements to the page, by reworking the lead, adding a citation for "joy vs. happiness", and information and citations about the psychological and health benefits of experiencing joy. I could find multiple reliable sources (such as one from The Conversation and another from Washington Post as well as scientific journals) on why joy is very good for us, but finding citations for the distinction between joy and happiness turned out to be a lot harder. I can find several on Psychology Today, but I also tried to find other sources, keeping in mind Wikipedia's policies about sourcing. When in doubt about a site I was not sure about, I searched on Wikipedia to see if other articles used the site as a source. I have started a discussion at RSN for Impactus and Learning Mind. I have citations for "joy vs. happiness" from both sites, and if they turn out to be reliable, I will add them. Seckends (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many similarities between joy and happiness as expression and feelings but there are also many big differences when it comes to the state of the person. I am just finishing a lengthy study on this very topic of joy and happiness, and hope to contribute to tis article shortly. And just a note to BD2412 T they are distinguishable enough to have a separate article. Happy Ship (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Éditions CEC

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

Non-notable book publisher. Page appears like a LinkedIn profile; zero reliable sources; WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Onouye

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Khamis

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

Non-notable Sudanese "politician" whose position is Acting Mayor of Juba city council. Seems at best WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does the subject meet WP:NPOL or are you suggesting that the subject meets GNG? - Enos733 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think under “Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage”. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 05:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus Kilian

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

Non-notable South African soldier. Article contains 1 citation and would seem unlikely to have others. Appears WP:1E. Fails WP:GNG,WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Leidig Building

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. WP:GEOFEAT makes clear that buildings on national heritage registers can be presumed to be notable. There is not such presumption for those on a state list like this one. <Edit: this building is not on the state list, it was simply nominated 22 years ago> That means WP:NBUILDING requires WP:SIGCOV - here there is the application for state listing, plus two single line mentions in other local sources. Melcous (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Pingray

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

Non-notable "semi-professional" card player, promotional, created by blocked account: fails WP:GNG Cabrils (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Parkes Building

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria: WP:GEOFEAT applies to buildings on national historical heritage lists, this has been nominated to be on a state list, which means WP:NBUILDING applies and WP:SIGCOV is required. I do not believe the application for state heritage listing plus brief mentions in a coffee table book and in a local newsletter meet the standard for significant coverage in independent sources. Melcous (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallo Brands

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

This company doesn't seem to meet NCORP, I can't really find much actual news coverage of them. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's tough to find a lot of news coverage for smaller companies. But we shouldn't solely judge their significance based on news. The lack of extensive coverage doesn't mean they aren't impactful. While it's reasonable to be cautious about notability, we should also weigh factors like how long they've been around, their profitability, and the impact they've made on the industry or community. These aspects can offer valuable insights into their notability. Trimmer56 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, notability for Wikipedia when it comes to companies IS solely judged based on news. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Tekken series or List of Tekken characters, both of which are viable options for this article. Star Mississippi 01:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Xiaoyu

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

Look, I'm not opposed to using lists in articles. If they can say something tangible and of substance, they're worth citing. But that isn't the case here: the article overall is refbombed, with the vast majority of these being short references that aren't saying anything before quickly moving onto the next subject. Couple that with some review quips, and its definitely a mountain out of a molehill situation. It has all the hallmarks of Niemti's wikipedia work. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of the Tekken series. There's a reference or two here that could be nice, but the bulk of this article is basically as nom describes. There's nothing substantial really being said about the character here, especially given how minor a lot of the commentary is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this a notable character with multiple reviews and featured in multiple popularity rankings [56] [57] [58] [59]. Even if the reviews are not in-depth analysis on one character alone, they are definitely not passing mentions of just the names either, and demonstrate much more popularity than the average among those 80+ characters listed in the 'List of Tekken characters' article. It is also well-referenced and by itself consistently garnered an average of 4000+ monthly views for the past 8 years. [60]. And if we need real-life influence, this character seems to be popular for cosplay activity as well, examples [61] [62]. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:PeaceNT Regarding the last two, there's no indication from that article she's a popular subject of cosplay, just that one highschooler commenting on her briefly for the whole article. The second is a professional shoot for a Tekken commercial, and also doesn't highlight her specifically.
Now as for the rest
  • The Redbull list has...two sentences about her gameplay.
  • There's no indication Dread Central is a reliable source, the article is by someone called "Foywonder", I can't find a staff page, and the article is dictating the events of the film?
  • PSU is probably the one source with any discussion and it's barely saying anything...
  • The MSN list is a listicle that is not saying anything. "They ranked her 20th out of gaming's hottest women" means nothing.
No offense, but if this is the best it illustrates my point in spades.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Does not reach WP:SIGCOV but some of this can be preserved at the list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Tekken crowd. Just the usual meaningless listicle and fan-poll parade in reception with only the GamesRadar citation being of any significance. Definitely all the trappings of a Niemti article, but today sizable behind-the-scenes and cosplay (ugh) content does not notability make. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable character in the franchise and i believe there is a lot of information about her that is needed for a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batud1991 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvolo (Software Company)

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

I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV or even many reliable sources at all on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies: Can you find some examples of sigcov? I can add them to the article myself but I couldn't find any. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 02:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hamilton

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

The subject does not pass WP:BIO. The current sources are almost all WP:PRIMARY or not WP:INDEPENDENT. The rest are not WP:RELIABLE such as WP:BLOGS or written by contributors (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). When doing a before I mostly discovered that he wouldn't say the N-word when Samuel Jackson told him to which is a WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E concern. I also found a couple WP:INTERVIEWS. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2024 (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 02:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Healy

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

Doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. The only citations provided are reviews for the first book in a series, and most of the information on the author page is about his first book, Tommy Storm and the accompanying series. I have looked for other sources for reviews of the other books, as well as sources discussing Healy, but haven't found any. If sources can't be found, I recommend redirecting to his one notable book, Tommy Storm. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Hadden, Lauren (December 2006 – January 2007). "Child's Play. At 37, Alan Healy has tried hishand at many things –globetrotting, investment banking,even opening a brick factory in South Africa. His latest endeavour may prove the most successful yet. Lauren Hadden speaks to the self-published author" (PDF). Image. pp. 71–72. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.

      The article notes: "Against the advice of the careers department at UCD, he decided to travel the world for a while. After globetrotting fromAmerica to Australia and lots of places in between, he came back to Dublin with a loan to pay off. ... He went from a poverty-stricken life of travel to earning “almost immoral” amounts working for investment bank Goldman Sachs in London. ... He stayed on for two years though, saving money and gaining important experience. ... After his adventures in Africa, Healy returned to Dublin in 1998 to try his hand at venture capital and thedot.com boom, getting involved in “various vaguely entrepreneurial things”. After September 11, things changed and he lost interest. He remembered his promise to himself about writing a book. He’d started writing a murder mystery in South Africa and half-heartedly sent it to a few publishers, but it wasn’t the finished article. In March 2002, the writing bug struck again."

    2. Smith, Andrea (2008-03-22). "'Brother, You're on the Write Lines'". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.

      The article notes: "The Healy family was a small and close-knit one, because when Alan was five and Ronan was two, their parents' marriage ended, and father Michael left the family home in Deansgrange and emigrated. He is currently based in Thailand, and maintains a good relationship with his sons. ... After school, Alan completed a B Comm, and took a job as an analyst in mergers and acquisitions with investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs, in London. Although it was a very well-paid and prestigious job, he knew it wasn't going to be a perfect fit for him long-term, and left after two years. He then entered what he describes as his "idealistic phase", where he went to help start a brick factory in one of South Africa's townships for two years. His adventures there included being held up at gunpoint during a robbery on wages day, a detail he only casually mentioned to his family when he was home for Christmas two months later."

    3. McBride, Louise (2015-02-07). "A pioneering Irish firm will make the world a better, warmer place". Irish Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.

      The article notes: "Tommy Storm, which was written in 2002 and self-published by Mr Healy in 2006, ties in with the Dubliner's ambition to make the world a better place. Another was his decision to set up Exergyn, along with Barry Cullen and Kevin O'Toole, about three years ago. ... Mr Healy has tried his hand at many things over his working life - from investment banking in Goldman Sachs, London to setting up a brick factory in a township in South Africa, to business consulting,to writing Tommy Storm."

    4. Marsden, Shelley (2008-04-29). "Intergalactic Adventure". The Irish World. Archived from the original on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2024-01-27.

      The article notes: "I meet quietly-spoken, Dublin-based author Alan Healy on a torrentially wet day in a hotel off Bond Street. ... I realise the writer of teen sci-fi adventure Tommy Storm is younger than I imagined. The fair haired writer is 39 (and married, with a 13 month old girl) but for some reason I expected him to be older. Perhaps it’s hearing about all the jobs and experience he’s had in that time. He stays at jobs for such little time that he assures me no bank manager will ever give him a loan. After travelling for a year, then earning big bucks in Goldman Sachs, Healy went to Africa to set up a brick factory in one of the townships, helping locals build homes."

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

    Cunard (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I've searched for reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and School Library Journal, as well as general searches on Google and Google Scholar, and haven't found any sources to meet notability guidelines. I would suggest redirecting to the author's page (A.J. Healy), at least for now. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to author as suggested. The only thing I found in Wikipedia Library was a routine book announcement in Publishers' Weekly: "Tommy Storm debuts with Tommy Storm and Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights by A.J. Healy ($8.99 each, 9-12)." Definitely no NBOOK in sight. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep per Cunard's excellent finds below, which give us the 2+ reviews we need for NBOOK1. Thanks, too, for adding material from these to the article! (Also, on reflection, a better alternative to deletion would have been a merge to Tommy Storm, but that's beside the point now.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2024 (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. "A right royal a scandal". Sunday Mercury. 2009-10-18. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.

      The review notes: "The second book in the series from Irish writer AJ Healy starts just after Tommy and his four knight friends have been captured by gangster Nack Jikilson - and when they escape he follows them across the galaxy. ... Tommy Storm is not a particularly likeable character, and although this book is riddled with intelligent crossreferences meant to amuse, it just comes across as though it's trying too hard to impress. Billed as a comedy adventure, it's not that funny and the adventure is confusing. However, being confusing means that it's unpredictable to the end, and it is heart-warming in parts."

    2. Thompson, Mary Shine (2009-11-14). "Gems of gloom and global warming". Irish Times. ProQuest 309197507.

      The review notes: "Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights (Quercus, £6.99) is a sequel (but of course) to Tommy Storm, and its narrator helpfully advises readers that they can skip the generous footnotes and information boxes. The book is crammed with characters with names such as A-Sad-Bin-Liner and the kind of smart-alec ripostes, puns (there's a Straddlevarious violin) and exclamations that many youngsters find hilarious. You will get the drift if I tell you that Tommy and Co outwit a monster and mount an offensive against chocolate terrorists to save the universe."

    3. The author's websiteInternet Archive notes: "The Sunday Tribune included Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights in its Top-Ten list of "the best crossover reads" - being "books that parents can sneak a look at while the kids are doing their homework. Fables that work on one level for kids, and on a mythic level for adults. Books that engage on the kind of emotional plane that some adult novels can only aspire to. And so, in the wake of the Potter and Twilight sagas, here are 10 of the best books to get all ages squabbling this Christmas over who gets to read them first." Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights is, they say, "an enjoyable romp, full of fizz and humour.""
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Vladimirovich Kovalkov

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

An advert of a Russian dietarian. Tagged since 2016. All references are advertising. - Altenmann >talk 01:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Turner Classic

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[63]] and [[64]] Absolon S. Kent (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Absolon: The sources you've cited don't come close to being SIGCOV of the Joe Turner Classic. I have an open mind, but we need far better than that if we are going to keep this. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscan Bowl

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shulk

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

Shulk, despite being basically the poster boy for Xenoblade Chronicles and and a major character on his own, doesn't seem to meet general SIGCOV thresholds for me. All of his Reception is sourced to reviews of the game- which, while not unusable, requires some sourcing beyond just the reviews- and to his Smash appearance (The latter of which barely classifies as commentary, with a lot of it boiling down to "He is a strong character") and the only other source I could find was an admittedly solid book source, which I'll link here. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Posthumanism_in_digital_culture/jjYTEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Shulk%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT115&printsec=frontcover Beyond the book, there is very little significant coverage of Shulk as an individual character. I feel a merge to Xenoblade Chronicles may be the best AtD, given most of the sourcing in the article is straight from reviews of that game. I'm unopposed to a future recreation, but Shulk as it stands right now is very lacking in terms of what's needed for a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator (though I wasn't notified?) Beyond the source already mentioned in the nomination, there's significant coverage literally in the article. Here's an entire lengthy article written about him. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies about the issue with the pinging. Didn't realize that Twinkle was sending it to the wrong person. In any case, I'd argue Shulk's coverage is a bit lacking, as it doesn't really illustrate that the character is notable himself. It's basically all tied to reviews of Xenoblade Chronicles and Smash, which as mentioned is pretty lacking. The reviews give good coverage to him, I agree, but it doesn't really illustrate why he should be a separate article, given how they're all focused on his role in that specific game. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see the source you linked when I replied, sorry about that. Either way, the article doesn't seem to be too much in terms of significant coverage, since it's just a summary of Shulk's appearance in Xenoblade with some admittedly solid developmental info. I don't think it's enough to salvage the article entirely, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? We've got multiple detailed sources, and an article that is 100% sourced. That's all we need here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify what you mean by multiple detailed sources? Do you mean in terms of conception, reception, or both? I'm just making sure I don't misinterpret your argument by accident here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator admits that the Posthumanism in digital culture source is solid. The engadget article is clearly independent and specifically about the character. A well-sourced article. Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Engadget source may be about the character, but there's not really much being said in the article. It's basically just a summary of Shulk's appearance in Xenoblade Chronicles rather than any form of commentary of analysis. I don't believe it really qualifies as an independent source for SIGCOV in this case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make any sense. Every aspect of the Engadget article is about Shulk, and it's not a short article. It's the definition of SIGCOV. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is about Shulk, but it's not SIGCOV. This is a plot summary article, and I don't see any meaningful commentary or analysis in here. If I'm wrong and missed something, feel free to correct me, because I'd be happy to count it if it does. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally a third party source discussing the subject in significant detail. That's what the GNG requires. Whether or not you found the commentary personally meaningful is completely irrelevant. Sources detailing subjects is what we need. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it can be verified as existing does not mean it is inherently notable. There needs to be some form of impact shown via the character, whether that be via outside discussion or via a real-world impact. Something like the book source above does that: It's an outside source that actively discusses the character in a meaningful context. The Engadget source is merely a plot summary. While it's an outside source, it doesn't provide much for the article. Where would it be used? It can't be used for Reception. At most it would sub in for a source used in Conception. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the article. The reviews fall under a similar issue, as they analyze Shulk's role in the context of the game exclusively. The book source discusses Shulk's actions in the game, but uses these actions to analyze beyond the work in question. I'm not against plucking from reviews, as they can be used to great effect in an article if there's enough coverage on them. But if the only sources are reviews with only one additional source, then the subject is better off being covered as a part of the work being reviewed, not as a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misapplying these concepts. The WP:GNG does not require any if that of its sources. It simply requires sources to cover a subject in significant detail, which it does. The rest of what you're saying would apply to a short stub or article highly redundant to its parent article, of which this article is neither. And the irony of it all is that your source - the one that ties the subject to transhumanism, is probably some of the best evidence that he is discussed outside of the scope of his respective games. Sergecross73 msg me 06:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have apparently missed the excellent "Conception and creation" section. Simply repeating "it's not SIGCOV" is not helpful. Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely agree that Conception and creation is definitely the highlight of the article, but it definitely doesn't justify a split given the lacking Reception. Shulk isn't someone like Varan where the massive amount of behind-the-scenes information justifies the article's existence. There's some good stuff, but I don't think it's enough to justify a split from the main article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Varan is a fine article, but it's something to aspire to work towards, not the bare minimum bar to clear for a subject to have its own article. There's substantial content here - two detailed paragraphs of development/creation info, specifically about the subject, that is entirely reliably sourced. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep To clarify leading into this, I'm going with "Weak" because I'm spread thin and did mainly a cursory look online. However, this article from Paste magazine discusses his role in the story with some thoughts, VG247 also gives some thoughts, as does this other article from Engadget, and some thoughts from Edge. I feel with the book ref above (which seems to be in scholar also under two papers?), there's enough here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not the strongest article, but the sources already in the article, as well as the sources Kung Fu Man found, have demonstrated that it passes WP:GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by Kung Fu Man, I'd say, in conjunction with other sources, definitely show to me that Shulk is definitely worthy of a split, thus I'll be withdrawing this nomination, given all votes thus far have been keep ones. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ludvika. Owen× ☎ 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorensberga

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

A school for ages up to 13. Previously prod-nominated with the stated reasons being WP:MILL and failure of WP:GNG. Sure, it exists, but a level of detail beyond mentioning it in the article of the city seems excessive. Though the school has been involved in the political situation in the city, Ludvika, which is a haven for the far right. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renate Da Rin

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion; see edit summary in Special:Permalink/587416055, which restored the article per WP:REFUND/as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prafulla Moharkar

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

A WP:VICTIM, notable for only WP:ONEEVENT. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 21:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Four or five articles in RS published after his demise, but I'm not sure his military career was very notable. Soldiers will sometimes pass away on duty, not all will be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Supergrass. As he has not been found to be independently notable Star Mississippi 01:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Williams (record producer)

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Maybe a redirect to Supergrass is in order? BuySomeApples (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, this was until very recently a Mark_Gardener#The_Animalhouse redirect. Maybe a little better, idk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am editing this article to bring it into line with Wikipedia's community standards. I'm not sure if I've done everything correctly, and will continue to make changes in order to ensure that it's all in line with Wiki's requirements. If I've got anything wrong in terms of links/citations etc, please let me know and I'll go back in and make the necessary changes. Hari Teah (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not do everything correctly, see [68]. You're welcome to present the best WP:GNG-good sources you know of here, if they are good enough, the article may be kept. WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a number of sources of Sam William's Talk page. There are many more. The ones I have posted purely related to the proposed changes to the opening two sentences of the article. Would it help to post all the sources available here? Or would it be better to wait for feedback on the article's Talk page? Hari Teah (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed sources can be seen here:Talk:Sam_Williams_(record_producer)#New_Article_Content_Establishing_Notability. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoërskool Oosterland

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, mentions, mill news, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Created in Jan 2024 so would prefer not to close as soft-delete, relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_January_27&oldid=1204063774"