Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 10	March 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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 23:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ENav-navigation system[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Dead project without significant (or any) coverage. Icodense (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual product, simply plans and speculation. No independent coverage at all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The product it still not online, but it is not a simple plan and speculation it is my Phd. and in my opinion it is relevant for our society. There are a lot of papers connected to this system. It can Inspired other people to work and researched in similar areas. For these reasons I ask you not to delete this page. Dzenan Dzafic (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atticus Capital[edit]

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

A former hedge fund. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Uhooep (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evaluating the sourcing for these sorts of AfDs is tricky because there are untold numbers of passing mentions and non-independent sources, but on balance I think there's probably enough here for notability even under WP:NCORP's very strict definition of significant coverage. Here's an article in The Times: although it discusses a corporate announcement, it also provides analysis, opining that "Atticus's downsizing is another sign that the era [of] high-profile, aggressive hedge funds, that publicly berated companies' management and flaunted their connections to the rich and famous, has ended". This article in the Wall Street Journal describes the company's history, noting that the fund "angered some investors in March 2008 with how it treated its investment in Deutsche Boerse" and has "received unwanted attention because of" various scandals involving its co-chairman Nathaniel Philip Rothschild. Here's an article from The Daily Telegraph discussing the company's tremendous losses during the financial crisis, and here's another one describing both its "reputation as a formidable active manager" and Lord Rothschild's decision to withdraw his money from the firm owned by his son due to its poor performance. This article in the Financial Times discusses how the fund "helped dictate the course of mega-mergers and corporate strategy at some of the world's biggest companies - and made a fortune in the process", but it also describes its "galling" losses and the fact that its executives will consequently receive no bonuses. I think it's clear that these sources, which come from some of the world's most reliable outlets and which discuss the fund in significant (and often unflattering) detail, are far more than just the routine churnalism that most Wall Street firms generate. The fund is also discussed in these two books published by Wiley, showing that there's coverage from outside the often-ephemeral business press. There are many more sources available in ProQuest and elsewhere, but I think these ones are enough to show an NCORP pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the additional sources identified above, and the fact that they lost $5 billion according to The New York Times. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mannix[edit]

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

No independent sources, just his Sports Illustrated employer. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Sports. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article is written well but the content isn't backed by sources. 182.191.220.58 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not have articles solely sourced to publications of an individual's employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the top links on google are bios from his various employers. Then there are the links that are about a character from "The Hateful Eight". This person has not received enough independent coverage to pass our notability guidelines. Rockphed (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xenotransplantation#History. ✗plicit 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Bennett Sr.[edit]

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

This event may have been historic; it was, of course, the first pig heart to human heart transportation in the world. However, it has led to this article falling victim to WP:BIO1E. As far as I am aware; the previous AfD for the article had many pointless 'Keep' comments; one says "showing that the Wikipedia way is wacky". As previously mentioned in the 1st AfD nom; the WP:CRIME pointer also fails. Case in point; this article violates BIO1E, CRIME, and GNG. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Maryland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xenotransplantation#History. The event is notable, he is not. The only thing that can be written about him other than the procedure is his involvement in a crime, but that is not enough to justify a separate article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; if he was also notable for that crime, a justification for his article could be made. However; he is not. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails ~~WP:BLP1E~~WP:BIO1E— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable, is not a BLP, and has enough info for a page. Thebrakeman2 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, he is not notable; the event that took place was, hence failing WP:BIO1E. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fakescientist8000 You don't fucking decide what I think is notable.Thebrakeman2 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, let's not violate WP:CIVIL, now! Anywho; this article doesn't concern you. It concerns reliable sources, who didn't care about this man until the last 3 months of his life. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 19:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one cared about Boyd Bush until after he died, and both pages are here for the exact same reason. And fucking cut out the little "cheers" thing. It's very clearly some passive aggressive shit. Thebrakeman2 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the frustration Thebrakeman2 but what matters here is the underlying rationale and application of policy. To that end, the use of profanity does nothing to embellish what may otherwise be a valid point, hence would you mind striking the profanity per WP:CIVIL? Promethean (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would seriously advise that you cut out the profanity. It does nothing to prove your point, hell, it even goes against your point that I'm being 'passive-aggressive'. Anywho, I have repeatedly told you to not point to Boyd Bush or Baby Fae or whoever. Doing that actually weakens that point too, per WP:WAX. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 11:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fakescientist8000 I advise YOU to see WP:FuckOff, WP:YourUsingTheEssayIncorrectlyBecauseEveryExampleThereIsALooseRelationWhileHereThereIsADirectConnectionBecaseTheyAreAllOnlyNotableFoTheirHeartTransplantsSoI'mUsingTheConnectionCorrectly, and WP:YouDoNotControlHowIThink. Have a good day, Sweetie... Thebrakeman2 (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Yikes... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 14:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bennett Sr. See also: Boyd Rush, Louis Washkansky, and Baby Fae. 2604:3D09:8879:31A0:C938:42D2:819B:E683 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WAX. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Keep votes are not addressing the clear WP:BIO1E violation. If Bennett is notable for something other than his passive involvement in one event, what is it? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He stabbed a guy. Also, see Boyd Rush, Louis Washkansky, Baby Fae, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebrakeman2 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:WAX. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 19:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xenotransplantation#History per above redirect votes.ZettaComposer (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xenotransplantation#History per 1E. Promethean (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xenotransplantation#History as above. Perhaps over time they will attain a higher degree of notability.Gusfriend (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fandalism[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP for not receiving significant coverage. Only 3 sources ([1] [2] [3]) could reasonably be considered to provide 'significant coverage' of the website. Two other TechCrunch articles ([4] [5]) have it as a topic, but not at a depth to be considered significant. Anything else online is merely a passing mention of its existence. (Amusingly, one mention was from a news article about four murders.) SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the involvement of the likes of Van Halen, this company does indeed fail WP:NCORP. TH1980 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 You Love You. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Precious Weapons (song)[edit]

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

Unsourced and insignificant. Sricsi (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It could be redirected to its album You Love You, as has already been done for an attempted article on one of that album's other songs. It could also be redirected to the band because the song and the band have the same name, and there may be an issue with search terms. There may be a relevant policy on where to redirect, but send it somewhere because the song is not notable on its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if even a redirect is necessary - I don't think anyone is searching for this song. --Sricsi (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Sricsi A redirect is definitely necessary since it's a valid ATD. Besides, a redirect won't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to You Love You. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should then redirect to Semi Precious Weapons#Discography, like with Magnetic Baby. --Sricsi (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cowan (alternative medicine practitioner)[edit]

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

This individual does not appear to be notable apart from being on the board of a relatively unknown foundation. This appears more self-promotional than educational. PureRED | talk to me | 20:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for notability. And the third paragraph in Career is a hot mess, and significantly under referenced, considering the bold claims made there.I was reviewing vandalized version. Withholding judgment until I have time to review correct version. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the text) Wait a minute... the article was nominated for deletion 3 minutes after an anonymous user edited out most of the text and references, and the vandalism continued since then. Please make sure you're voting on a non-vandalized version. @Rsjaffe: I see your vote was made during one such period where edits that were later canceled were on the page. I see there are additional mentions of the topic in recent sources, I'm going to add them. But again, please check the History tab before you comment here, you may not be voting on a stable version. Robincantin (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously fringey as anything but does pass the notability threshold. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough sources to assess that Cowan achieved some notoriety for promoting conspiracy theories. My initial impression was that WP:1E may apply considering that many sources are about 5G and I almost chose "weak keep", but Cowan was already in the news before for other reasons. —Paleo Neonate – 18:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brodkorb[edit]

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

Regional/local political figure is not notable per WP:NPOL. deputy chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota and communications director for the Republican caucus in the Minnesota Senate are not notable positions. Surprised this page wasn't deleted back in 2011. KidAd • SPEAK 20:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the period 2005-2016 a search on newspapers.com turns up 65 articles in the Star Tribune, 42 articles in the St. Cloud Times and 24 articles in the Winona Daily News. I've only scanned a few pages of the results, but I see front page articles from the Star Tribune and front page of the B section (I assume the state politics section). For a period of time, Brodkorb was a high profile, influential player in Minnesota state politics, who then had a spectacular and public fall from grace. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over 300 mentions in MPR News (a regional public radio news source; search here for his name), including a 2019 listing as one of the top news stories of the previous decade: [6]. Kablammo (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7 firefly ( t · c ) 20:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ericteehee[edit]

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

rejected at AFC and moved to mainspace by draft creator clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per point A of WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn. Sources provided at this point indicate that the subject at least meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Petersen[edit]

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

Per a source review and WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. While the article has sources, none of them provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Sources in the article are a mixture of primary sources, (such as Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, the holding company for business firms owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), unreliable sources and passing mentions. Source searches are providing primary sources such as literature the subject has authored, but nothing significant and independent in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject had an obituary written by Thomas S. Monson when he was a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles here; an official obit by the church in the Liahona magazine here; the New York Times stated he was next "in line to succeed Spencer W. Kimball as president of the Mormon Church" here; and his work is quoted and referenced countless times in Mormon/LDS-related apologetics and academia. One of those works is Tabernacles of Clay: Sexuality and Gender in Modern Mormonism by Taylor G. Petrey, who gives just over half a page to the subject's stance on segregation on page 24 and discusses his beliefs and teachings in at least six other instances in the book as well, as seen here. It also looks like he was the subject of a 1977 book called An Appeal to President Kimball: Interviews with Mark E. Petersen and Henry Richards, edited by Ron Johnson, Karen Johnson, and Dennis Michael Bingham (seen here). --Kbabej (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a summary of those sources:

[7] – This is a primary source published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Primary sources are not usable to establish notability on English Wikipedia.
[8] – Also a primary source published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Also, Liahona is a primary source published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
[9] – NYT coverage qualifies, in my view. There are about ten sentences here that are about the subject himself.
[10] – Has only a portion of one paragraph about the subject. Acceptable to some, unacceptable to others, in terms of the depth of coverage here.
[11] – This is titled "An Appeal to President Kimball: Interviews with Mark E. Petersen and Henry Richards". Interviews typically do not qualify notability, unless there is significant coverage about the subject in non-interview format, such as from a reporter or author. Furthermore, this source may not be reliable. No publisher is provided on the Google Books page other than the author names.

Thus far, only two usable sources are available, one of which is questionable in terms of the depth of coverage provided. As it is now, the article is essentially mostly a puff piece based mostly upon primary sources, and also has uncited content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Mormon bishops are actually pastors, Quorum of Twelve members are actually probably somewhere between bishop and archbishop equivalents, and thus would be notable regardless of the online sources currently discoverable. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is no presumed notability for religious figures on English Wikipedia. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, which is not a guideline or policy page, and has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. There it states, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.". However, Latter Day Saint movement persons are not mentioned there. Even if they were, there is no presumed notability; it's not a guideline or policy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found a biography about him. Doing a newspapers.com search here, I've gotten references to this person in mostly Utah-based newspapers pretty regularly. Seems like they stretch back into the 1940s. While I am unable to see anything past the paywall, I did see that the first one is an obituary from the Salt Lake Tribune, probably similar to the NYT article. Also got this from the Boston Globe (sorry another paywall), looking to be another obituary. I agree with the nom's rationale that WP:BEFORE search didn't produce enough, but given that the subject lived before the advent of the internet, I can see why there not are easily findable sources online. Rollidan (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a summary of the sources directly above:

The biography you found is a primary source, published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, the holding company for business firms owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). It is not independent, and primary sources do not confer notability.
The Newspapers search you performed is a generic search using the subject's name, and is essentially a list of WP:GOOGLEHITS. The subject's name is rather generic, and thus, it states atop and left on the search page "There are 1,706,431 matches for Mark E Petersen". Despite all of these, almost all of which are going to be about different subjects rather than this subject. The number of hits a subject's name receives in a search engine does not confer notability.
The Boston Globe article just goes to a login page. Cannot access it.
Per the subject's lifespan, you state that "given that the subject lived before the advent of the internet, I can see why there not are easily findable sources online". However, the notion of WP:MUSTBESOURCES comes into play here.

As of yet, we still lack a simple two solid reliable, independent sources that provide objective significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you define the newspapers.com search to "Elder Mark E. Petersen" during 1984, you get 1,952 matches, all of the top ones clearly being relevant. I've included some in my keep !vote below. ––FormalDude talk 21:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd Support what @FormalDude has already said. The biography, while published by Deseret Book, is 100% not a primary source, as the author has nothing to do with the individual. As for independence, one can get into the "Jeff Bezos and Washington Post" argument, but no need to go down there. As far as the search goes, all of the top hits in both my generic search and a narrow search referred to the "Mark E Petersen," making it not an issue of WP:SOURCESEXIST, because they do exist. Rollidan (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might the more than 40 books he wrote make him notable per WP:AUTHOR as a significant contribution to the Mormon mission? Ficaia (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books authored by the subject were published by Bookcraft, a major publisher of books and products for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Deseret Book Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, the holding company for business firms owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Can you provide any evidence that the subject actually meets any of the points of WP:AUTHOR? Even is this is possible, WP:AUTHOR does not guarantee notability. Rather, it states upward on the page regarding the criteria that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:BASIC. Such as:
- His obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune.
- His eulogy in the Salt Lake Tribune.
- Report of his death in the Daily Herald.
- SIGCOV article in Washington County News.

This is honestly much more than is needed for a person born in 1900. But, seeing as none of it is included in the article, I can see how this nomination came about. I'll work on adding these and other good sources to the article. Anyone with a newspapers.com subscription is welcome to help (the subscription is free via request through WP:TWL). ––FormalDude talk 21:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 whether to keep as a standalone or merge, but that doesn't require a relist. There is further no consensus to delete the content Star Mississippi 01:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kornbread Jeté[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP1E, and WP:ENTERTAINER. Lacks significant coverage in quality independent sources. Subject placed 12th on the current season of RuPaul's Drag Race, and withdrew early from the competition due to an injury. Sources are either too closely connected to the subject, not in-depth, or fail because of quality issues per policy at WP:TABLOID. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject with sources revolving entirely around this year's RuPaul's Drag Race reality competition. Nothing to indicate the subject is notable outside of season 14 of Drag Race, and that the subject should have a stand alone article. See source analysis below. 4meter4 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Africa, California, and South Carolina. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
@kornbreadtmfs (January 14, 2022). "🎂• Today I turn 30 years old. 🏳⚧• On this same day last year I started my transition into the amazing woman I am today! I appreciate you all! From friends family and my new family thru @RuPaulsDragRace @WorldOfWonder let's make this year INSANE" (Tweet) – via Twitter.	N	N	N	N	N	Self reported. People in entertainment are not always reliable about self reporting an accurate age. Also fails per WP:TWITTER. TWITTER should never be used to verify content on wikipedia.
Fernandes, Aurelia (December 29, 2021). "'RuPaul's Drag Race': Meet the drag queens all set to compete in Season 14!". Meaww. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	N	?	N	N	An Indian celebrity news tabloid. Essentially a regurgitated press release from World of Wonder provided to the media. Press releases lack independence per AFD policy. Further MEAWW often publishes stories for pay by the subject of its articles and works as a PR platform for money; thus anything it publishes lacks independene and cannot be considered reliable.
"Meet Kornbread TMF Snack Jeté of Kornbread Jeté". Voyage LA. August 10, 2020. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	Y	N	Y	N	N	As an interview, lacks independence from the subject and should be used with caution as a way of verifying information. For notability purposes, cannot be used as evidence for meeting GNG.
Kornbread Jeté and June Jambalaya: Roscoe's RPDR Season 14 Viewing Party with Batty and Naysha. Chicago, Illinois. January 28, 2022. Event occurs at 45:03. Retrieved January 29, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	YouTube can never be used as a source per policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; it's ok to use YouTube as an external link in some instances (see WP:YouTube)
Brown, Kailyn (2022-01-07). "Star Trek Exhibit, Jack Harlow Show, and Other Best Things To Do in L.A. This Weekend". Los Angeles Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-01-07. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	N	N	N	N	Promotional advertisement for an event. Lacks independence and has limited reliability (only proves a future event was advertised not that it actually occurred; we need an independent review covering the actual event and published after it happended to verify it.)
Sheehan, John Benutty,Paul; Benutty, John; Sheehan, Paul (2022-01-08). "'RuPaul's Drag Race' season 14 episode 1 recap: Which queen is sent packing in 'Big Opening' part one?". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2022-02-06.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)	N	Y	Y	?	N	This is a routine WP:TABLOID recap of a television episode of Drag Race in which Kornbread was discussed. As a simple recap as opposed to a critical review, I would consider this closer to a primary source rather than a true secondary source. It can verify content about this episode of show and her involvement, but it lacks significance due to WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS for the purposes of evaluating WP:GNG. )
Nolfi, Joey (January 7, 2022). "The best moments from the 'RuPaul's Drag Race' season 14 premiere". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is a routine news recap of a television episode of Drag Race in which Kornbread was named as a highlight. This is approaching a positive critical review, but it's such a short article and lacks any significant analysis of Kornbread and her drag (merely stating what she did and not really analyzing why it worked and why it made an impact) that it's not really what I would consider a "review" but a PR puff piece for the TV show. In other words, it's a thinly written news story and therefore lacks significance for GNG purposes.)
"This 'Drag Race' Season 14 Queen Just Pulled Out of the Competition". www.out.com. 2022-02-04. Retrieved 2022-02-05.	?	Y	Y	Y	?	Off all the sources in the article, this is the best one. It's independent and Kornbread is the main subject. But is it really significant? A drag contestant getting injured early in the season and having to withdraw does not leave much of a legacy. Certainly, nothing here that shows Kornbread is significant outside of the reality competition and deserves a stand alone encyclopedia article separate from the article on the television series.
"Login • Instagram". www.instagram.com. Retrieved 2022-01-25. `{{cite web}}`: Cite uses generic title (help)	N	N	N	N	N	A link to the generic login page of instagram. This doesn't verify anything, including the content that it claims to verify where it is cited in the article.
"Kerri Colby and Kornbread Jeté Are Making Trans "Drag Race" History". them. 2022-01-05. Archived from the original on 2022-01-06. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Promotional article for upcoming 14th season (now airing) of RuPaul's Drag Race. Essentially boils down to highlighting that this is the first season of Drag Race with multiple trans constestants. Given that there have been many trans queens now on the show in past seasons, this seems to be more of a pertinent fact for the article on this individual season of the show as opposed to providing any significant coverage or notability on Kornbread as a drag artist. What did we learn about her other than she is trans, a drag queen, and from L.A. who is competing on the show? Nothing.
Holmes, Juwan J. "RuPaul's Drag Race will have two trans competitors & a cis straight queen for first time". LGBTQ Nation. Archived from the original on 2022-01-03. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is the second promotional article focusing on the casting of two trans women for the currently airing season (but published before it aired to promote the show) of Drag Race. Again, this doesn't show significant cover of Kornbread Jeté, but significant coverage of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14).
"'Drag Race' Season 14 Queens Say It's Going to Be 'Transtastic'". www.advocate.com. 2022-01-05. Archived from the original on 2022-01-06. Retrieved 2022-01-08.	N	N	Y	Y	N	This is the third article focusing on the casting of two trans women for the currently airing season of Drag Race. Again, this doesn't show significant cover of Kornbread Jeté, but significant coverage of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14). Also lacks independence as an interview.
Currinn, Jonathon. "WATCH: Kameron Michaels Has Released Debut Music Video "Freedom"". Celeb Mix. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Brief name drop of Kornbread in a long list of drag queens who appeared in this music video. Nothing signficant for GNG purposes.
Scarlet Envy- Is It Me? (Official Music Video). Scarlet Envy. September 2, 2021. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	ANother YouTube video; primary source. Not usable on wikipedia per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Orville Peck - C'mon Baby, Cry (Official Video). Orville Peck. February 10, 2022. Retrieved February 16, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	ANother YouTube video; primary source. Not usable on wikipedia per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Spectrum]. Jubilee. July 26, 2019. Retrieved January 17, 2022.	N	N	N	N	N	ANother YouTube video; primary source. Not usable on wikipedia per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Thanks for your assessment of sources currently used as inline citations. Have you also searched for other sources not currently used as citations? I have not (yet), but I'm curious if you've completed a thorough search before nominating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unable to locate any significant coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. I think it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this artist. @Another Believer As you are the primary author and creator of this article, I am surprised that you haven't already "searched" for significant coverage as you penned the article. I would assume that you would have already located and included the best sources available in your earlier work. 4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming. For the record, I appreciate your work here and take no offense the page has been flagged. I will say, though, if editors decide not to keep the entry, I recommend redirecting over deleting because the page serves a purpose as a redirect and the edit history should be preserved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's your assessment of this source: https://colatoday.6amcity.com/kornbread-the-snack-jete-columbia-sc/ ? CT55555 (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really significant. It’s a rehash of her time on the show, and part of the issue here is demonstrating she has notability outside of drag race season 14. Otherwise there is no reason for an article on Kornbread to exist if the pertinent material can be covered in the article on season 14 of Drag Race. We need sources showing WP:SUSTAINED coverage. What we need is a source showing she’s notable for more than just a single reality competition per WP:BLP1E and WP:ENTERTAINER.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants - This February 10, 2022 Out article includes WP:SECONDARY commentary/synthesis, e.g. "Though she had to go home, it's safe to say Kornbread left a great and lasting impression on the fandom. She's currently the most-followed season 14 queen on social media after making history for being one of this season's two out trans women...". This February 4, 2022 Entertainment Weekly article also focuses on her, e.g. "Kornbread quickly won fan affection after January's season 14 premiere, across which the entertainer debuted an incredible talent show performance to an original track, [...] and stunned on the runway...". This February 9, 2022 Gay Times interview has some independent introduction, e,g, "The LA queen quickly cemented her status as a frontrunner for the season 14 crown after conquering the first challenge, in which she performed an original rap track to praise from Lizzo, and by showcasing her inner Oscar-winning diva...". The independent content introducing this February 23, 2022 LA Weekly interview includes, "With conversations surrounding trans issues, as well as the differences in gender and sexual preference, pronouns and presentation, each more prominent than ever, Drag Race is more relevant than ever as a platform for understanding how others live their truth." This January 10, 2022 Queerty article discusses the historic nature of her participation, e.g. "This is a stark change from years past, when Drag Race noticeably placed restrictions on trans contestants. Although many contestants have been open about their trans identities, they were still expected to dress as male during their “non-drag” segments of the show." I think information from some of these sources about the show, including Jeté and the historic changes to the show, can be added to where some information already exists in the List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants article, and possibly to the RuPaul's Drag Race article. Without more WP:SUSTAINED and in-depth coverage, it does seem WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG or WP:ENT notability at this time, but a redirect seems best due to the potential for her career development. Beccaynr (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect is a sensible outcome for the reasons stated by Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're to redirect, RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14) would be a better target. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is better than my suggested redirect target, and information from sources about the show, including the participants, could also be used to expand that article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14) is the better target.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Probably WP:TOOSOON. Borderline case, lots of coverage, most shot term and tabloid - I could be persuaded on this point if people disagree. Merge into RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14) CT55555 (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest a merge due to the quality of the sources and the content in the article. With regard to the them article noted below, the focus is on the evolution of the show, and it substantially reprints content from an Entertainment Weekly interview, including quotes from contestants. In the Jeté article, this source supports the fact of her friendship with Colby, but in WP articles about the show generally or the season in particular, it could support new content related to the commentary in the them article, i.e. the inclusion of openly trans contestants. Beccaynr (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep seeing some other RS about her that push me a bit over the line like this, this and this. Also disagree that the them article is not significant. Rab V (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as well, per Rab V. I'd rather see sources folded into the article, which needs expanding. Also, deleting the page now would just mean recreating in a few months' time. I agree many of the sources used in the current article are problematic, and I would invite the nominator and other editors to remove bad sources and content appropriately. The article's problematic content does not mean the subject is not notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources above provided by Rab V do not demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage as they once again revolve around drag race. Further many of those sources are of poor quality and should not be considered evidence of notability per WP:TABLOID. None of the keep votes have successfully demonstrated that the subject passes WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks as if the subject was getting coverage even before her time on RPDR. Kornbread hosting drag brunch at The Abbey was covered by the Beverly Press here; she appeared in the podcast Listen Sweetie here; and her appearances on the web series Blame the Hero. Then, of course, there's the coverage for RPDR. With that combination, I think the article can be expanded beyond just the RPDR information. --Kbabej (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources aren’t significant coverage. The Beverley Press article is essentially an advertisement about the drag brunch at the Abbey and not about Kornbread; although she was hosting the event. A puff piece in WP:LOCAL newspaper advertising an upcoming event is not significant. Likewise, a podcast and television appearance are not evidence of notability. We would need an independent review demonstrating that her appearance on the podcast and web series was significant. As with all articles involving the people in the arts and entertainment, we rely on independent secondary sources such as critical reviews to indicate whether that work is notable.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment - I think a lot of Another Believer's Drag Race articles could be considered for deletion. From what I can see, every season he seems to knock up a lacklustre, generically sourced and a mirror of every other drag queen who's appeared on the show, with the same sources. Cue *insert drag queen name* began drag in *insert year*. They are best known for appearing on the #th season of RuPaul's Drag Race. Someone should have a look.Riverflat2021 (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, wow, that's not true at all. A lot of the Drag Race articles have been expanded by others but I created the original redirects so one might conclude I'm the original author of many pages. I've also expanded several Drag Race-related entries to Good article status. Sorry to say but your perception of my work is quite incorrect. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Riverflat2021 has been blocked indefinitely by another editor for disruptive editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a bit of a give away a user of one week's tenure knowing what you've been writing about "every season" :) SN54129 19:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 4M4's forensic analysis: an absolute dearth of WP:SIGCOV. SN54129 19:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feena Bonoan[edit]

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

non-notable candidate - the only reason her name is mentioned in any sources is because she filed to run - she is not notable and hasn't won an election and isn't notable for any other reason. CUPIDICAE💕 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She's been a candidate multiple times.

She came in 2nd in her race in 2020 for Hawaii Senate.

She's running a serious campaign.

Suppressing third party candidates isn't something we should be doing here. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I tend to agree with this comment and think that Support is where I come in with this. As a 3rd party candidate for political office it is important to keep this information up and accessible. 2600:8807:406C:F900:1851:20D6:ED24:42F1 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that this article is a work in progress. She received significant coverage in 2020 during her Hawaii Senate run and those citations will be added. Her election results are ALREADY added. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Politicians, Women, Military, and South Carolina. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She hasn't won anything and got 20% of the vote last time. She's at best a footnote. And the marines out golfing is pointless information. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support She came in 2nd in a big race. She's a ballot qualified candidate. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move back to draftspace. If the statement is that it shouldn't be deleted because it is a work in progress, it *should* be over in draftspace, which was done to the article after you created it. In terms of serious campaign, I believe that there are Major elections such as US House and Senate where one of the Major Party candidates is viewed as not notable enough for an article, for example, there is no article for the Democratic candidate in the Oklahoma 2018 Attorney General race. From WP:NPOL.

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[13] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]"

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.Naraht (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be a case of whataboutism. What about the OK 2018 AG race?

Citations explaining her notability, her previous high-profile candidacy, and the high profile of her current race for federal office, do cross her over the threshold of notability. Anthonydorazio (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the WP:GNG. First, there's no presumed notability available under WP:NPOL, since Bonoan meets none of the criteria there. Second, sourcing in the article is dependent on self-published and primary materials. I'm not opposed to the use of primary materials for the verification of facts (eg electoral results, awards etc), but in this case they cannot form the sole basis of sourcing to demonstrate notability. Yet, as I repeat frequently, present content is not a measure of notability. Third, however, searching for actual reliable sourcing reveals remarkably little. The "best" I can find include a podcast interview, a candidate Q&A, shared video of missing cows...all of which fail as sourcing to satisfy the GNG. In six months the electoral contest may heat up, no prejudice against recreating in that case. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates do not get to keep Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates per se — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. The tests that a candidate has to clear are that either (a) she already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, such as already having held a different notable political office (Hillary Clinton) or being notable in a different field of activity (Cynthia Nixon), or (b) a credible reason can be demonstrated why her candidacy should be seen as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (Christine O'Donnell). This demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Obviously an article can be recreated after election day if she wins the seat, since she will satisfy WP:NPOL #1 at that time, but merely being a candidate for a seat does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note copying the following from the talk page, Special:PermaLink/1077218159. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha please do not delete this page. I am real, I am relevant, and I will be on the ballot in November as a choice for all of Hawaii. I would like to start by stating that if I was an R or D I don't think there would be as much of a call for the page's deletion. I welcome critique to make this page more engaging and substantial, but some of these comments are petty and it shows. In 2020 I raised the money, I got the votes, and I even won some film awards while doing it, but I didn't think it was relevant enough for a wikipedia page yet. Now that I am running for US Senate I believe by not having a page puts me at more of a disadvantage than even my 3rd party affiliation. The people trust Wikipedia, and it is the first destination for people searching to learn about something new. I love wikipedia, I believe it is the new Library of Alexandria and our modern Akashic Record. Wikipedia levels the playing field to the access of information and knowledge to anyone with internet access, instead of holding it for ransom behind pay walls and dusty libraries of Ivy League Universities. I will never stop running for office or stop using every breath in my body to be a steward for the people and freedom. I expect the same drive from the Wikipedia community, to never stop curating and sharing knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feenabonoan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Feenabonoan: All Wikipedia articles, no matter who or what they are about, must satisfy the criteria elaborated in the general notability guidelines. The crucial problem is that the editors contributing here do not feel there is enough reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. However, as I indicated above, if the contest in Hawaii grows, and sourcing becomes available that satisfies the criteria (also bearing in mind subjects notable only for one event), an article can be recreated. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bearcat. Wikipedia is not an election guide or a place to enhance someone's political campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton A. Robertson[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing fleeting, short coverage and scant passing mentions. The single listed source in the article is a primary source that does not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get a half dozen hits in the Deseret News, which is I think a reliable source, but they basically just mention his name in passing. He has mentions in GBooks in a Mormon book of saints but I can't open it in Canada (silly copyright). Not sure what else can be found about him. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom on this one. Very unlikely to be sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, especially given that this person was mostly only a local leader for the church in a few specific areas. Rollidan (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not see reason to doubt that the content is true, but the subject seems NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unref'd for nearly a decade, fails WP:GNG with no sig. coverage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaim Chiflik[edit]

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

Notability _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Population 0? It WAS a village? You'll need to provide more context as to why a zero population village is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add Ur to this nomination?! It also has a population of zero!! :) - seriously, though, i added two sources from the Bulgarian wikipedia version.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a geographical location that once existed. I am just not sure if it ever was a village, more like a hamlet. Arved (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Not sure' isn't the best practice for an Encyclopedia. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 16:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A hamlet typically just means a small village, there's no concrete dividing line.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND as a recognised settlement, even if only formerly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Agreed that this location passes WP:GEOLAND. I don't know how WP:GNG factors in here, but we can presume that it is notable. Rollidan (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This is Us. there's a clear consensus to redirect, and CHEAP. A toss up on destination, but her show seemed more likely target than the person who got her there. If the target eventually changes, that can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 01:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Thompson[edit]

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

Thought to CSD this, but was a little unsure. The subject doesn't look like it meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. And a Google search doesn't give too much details about her, and nor are reliable sources found. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added three sources which establish notability, plenty of interviews out there as well. Mujinga (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This Is Us, her only notable role. Fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not add towards establishing notability, and one significant role is not enough to show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that none of the sources added to the article during this discussion consist of interviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Fogelman CHEAP, and definite influence on who got her on This Is Us. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see a 3rd relist bringing additional input. A merger could be discussed outside this discussion Star Mississippi 15:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Method of Equal Shares[edit]

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

This concept seems to fail WP:GNG. Gscholar query for "Method of Equal Shares" gives only two minor hits - a preprint and one paper with a single citation. This has been recently nominated for deletion discussion on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:02:23:Metoda równych udziałów), with a note that the creator of this article likely has a COI (the only other page they created is that for one of the co-authors of the paper cited in the Method., see ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Skowron). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why "Method of Equal Shares" gives only 2 hits is because the rule has been previously called Rule X in the early papers. The original paper has 33 citations. This is the list of papers studying the rule:
- Dominik Peters, Grzegorz Pierczynski, Piotr Skowron: Proportional Participatory Budgeting with Cardinal Utilities. NeurIPS'2021.
- Dominik Peters, Piotr Skowron: Proportionality and the Limits of Welfarism. EC 2020: 793-794.
- Rupert Freeman, Anson Kahng, David M. Pennock: Proportionality in Approval-Based Elections With a Variable Number of Winners. IJCAI 2020: 132-138.
- Virginie Do, Matthieu Hervouin, Jérôme Lang, Piotr Skowron: Online Approval Committee Elections. CoRR abs/2202.06830 (2022).
- Piotr Skowron, Adrian Górecki, Proportional Public Decisions, AAAI-2022.
- Roy Fairstein, Reshef Meir, Dan Vilenchik, Kobi Gal: Welfare vs. Representation in Participatory Budgeting. CoRR abs/2201.07546 (2022).
- Martin Lackner, Piotr Skowron: Approval-Based Committee Voting: Axioms, Algorithms, and Applications. CoRR abs/2007.01795 (2020).

_{User:Motzarcik| reply here} 14:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out in pl discussion, even if the above papers discuss this theory in WP:SIGCOV (which is not apparent from their titles), they are almost all co-authored by one person (Piotr Skowron). There is no evidence of wider recognition for this theory. A short summary could be merged to Skowron's biography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this could be a sentence in Participatory budgeting algorithm. Lamona (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few arguments for keeping:
1. The method is taught at courses at major universities and is described in a book. For example, it is taught at Harvard https://sites.google.com/view/optdemocracy22/schedule (the lecture about participatory budgeting, the name of the rule used there is Rule X), and at the University of Warsaw. It is described in the book being published by Springer (the open-access version is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.01795). There, the method is called Rule X, and is mentioned 50+ times. Springer is a serious scientific publisher; the topics covered in books are those which are considered established in the literature.
2. Analogous pages exist for analogous methods.. Examples include Proportional approval voting, Sequential proportional approval voting, Satisfaction approval voting, and many others. The knowledge of how to implement proportionality in committee elections is covered at Wikipedia. It seems reasonable that the knowledge of how to implement proportionality in the context of participatory budgeting (PB) should be available for common readers, especially given that PB elections are becoming increasingly common.
3. The topic is relevant for many people. Many people participate in elections, and many cities are now considering introducing participatory budgeting or changing their election methods. It is important that the knowledge of how different methods work is available and easily accessible for general public audience. When talking to a few cities, I noticed people where surprised, when they've heard the example with red and blue projects (the one that is mentioned on the page). They did not expect that the used method returns such results and they were not aware that proportionality can be achieved. In a way, why should they, since this knowledge is not easily accessible.
4. Citations. Regarding recognition, pointed out by User:Piotrus, the articles mentioned above are those that define the method, and study their properties. In order to check how often the method is referenced in the literature, one would need to look at papers that cite these works. For example, the query <<"Rule X" Peters Skowron>> in Google Scholar returns 46 hits. Yet, some papers refer to this method not using its name explicitly, so the number of references can be larger. Is couple of dozens of references in the scientific publications a lot (given that the method has been proposed three years ago)? I think that yes, but this is a subjective criterion. For comparison the query "Sequential proportional approval voting" returns 35 hits. Note that WP:GNG does not specify how many times the name should be mentioned.
5. Satisfaction of WP:GNG. Notice that the papers that I have mentioned went through the review process, where their soundness and significance was judged by independent researchers. The fact that there were several papers published on the specific rule in top venues in computational social choice (NeurIPS, AAAI, IJCAI, EC; I recommend looking for "ranking of computer science conferences") means that this research and knowledge is accepted and important for the relevant community. In particular there exist reliable and independent sources for the knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motzarcik (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motzarcik we would still need significant sources to support the article. You seem to know of sources so please list them. Numbers of hits on searches is not sufficient given all of the shortcomings of search engines. Also note that Google scholar does list some articles by the authors you mention (Peters and Skowron) but the number of citations given for them (10, 9, 7, 5, 1, 1) is not very high. Lamona (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All things considered, this is the problem of WP:ITSUSEFUL, I am afraid. The author believes that this is a helpful addition to Wikipedia, as it will educate the readers, alas, not everything that is useful is also NOTABLE... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I believe this is a useful addition. Yet, note that on top of that, I gave evidence of notability in the field of Computational social choice. Please refer to them. Motzarcik (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lamona, I've updated the reference list in the article. I hope this will be now clearer how this is referenced in the literature and how this relates to other concepts and topics (see the "properties" section). The citation numbers for the works that define the method in different settings are actually higher (12, 33, 3, 13), giving 61 in total. This is a lot for papers in Computational social choice. For all the works that are now referenced in the article, these are (12, 33, 3, 13, 86, 39, 220, 7, 51, 66, 81) (I put the numbers in the order in which they are used in the article). Motzarcik (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Motzarcik I looked at all of those I can access but do not see "method of equal shares" in them. If this is a named method, I would expect to see it in them. Taking this one for example, if you search on "equal shares" you get zero hits in the source. That would make the statement: "MES with adjusting initial budget, PAV and Phragmen's voting rules can all be viewed as an extension of the D'Hondt method to the setting where the voters can vote for individual candidates rather than for political parties" original research because that conclusion is not reached in the article. Three of them have information about Rule X. At best, this article could be titled "Rule X" and only those sources that describe Rule X would be referenced. Lamona (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lamona, thanks for the comments:
    Let me first explain the issue with the name. In this Wiki article, there is the statement "In early papers the method has been also referred to as Rule X", provided as footnote 1. Indeed, in paper [2], in the version that has been published (https://openreview.net/pdf?id=5rm0b_fsNZ) the authors wrote that they decided to name the rule "Method of Equal Shares". Indeed, in the original paper that first defined the rule ([3]), the authors wrote "which we give the preliminary name Rule X", suggesting that this is a temporary choice. Note that "Method of Equal Shares" and "Rule X" is exactly the same rule, and the authors of [3] are the superset of the authors of [2], thus the authors who initially defined the method are those who decided to change the name. I've seen three papers in review which are using the name MES already. Indeed, we can use in this article the name "Rule X", but I think it would be better to respect the decision of the authors, also given that the name "Method of Equal Shares" is more informative (intuitively, "equal shares" appear twice: first, each voter is assigned an equal share of the budget, and second, once a candidate is selected, each voter who voted for the candidate is burden with an equal share of the cost of the candidate). Perhaps, saying that the method is also called Rule X in the first line of the article (not in the footnote) would avoid further confusion. What do you think?
    Regarding the D'Hondt method: in [3] (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.11747.pdf), Proposition 2 says that Rule X (MES) satisfies priceability, and Theorem 3 says that priceability implies the fact that the method behaves as the D'Hondt method in the apportionment setting. This is exactly the same interpretation as the one taken in [12]. Thus, the statement "MES with adjusting initial budget, PAV and Phragmen's voting rules can all be viewed as an extension of the D'Hondt method to the setting where the voters can vote for individual candidates rather than for political parties" is not original research, but has been proved in independent sources. However, you are right that I did not add the mentioned reference in the right place, which I am now correcting. I hope this is now clear. Please let me know. Motzarcik (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - We still need sources that refer to this as the "method of equal shares". I didn't find any, so if you have some, please link to them here. Lamona (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sigh That article nowhere has the term "method of equal squares" or even "equal squares". To have an article that is presumably about a method called "equal squares" you need sources that call it "equal squares". That article does mention Rule X but is not significantly about Rule X. Lamona (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - That seems wrong on two counts. Excluding sources because they happen to use the old name for something seems like a daft idea, that would have serious impact upon some countries, for starters. ☺ And for an article that supposedly isn't about Rule X, it seems to devote a fair number of pages, and an entire appendix, to proving multiple theorems about Rule X. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Uncle G, you misunderstood me, perhaps because this thread is so long. We need some evidence that MES is the new name, and that needs to be shown in sources. So it's not because it's the new name, it's because we don't have evidence that it is the new name. I'm suggesting that unless we have such evidence, the article should be called "Rule X" because that is what the sources listed are about. It is possible that there are sufficient sources for Rule X, I really don't know, but the article appears to have a fair amount of WP:OR, which would need to be removed. Also, the article that Motzarcik lists as evidence that Rule X has been changed to be MES and they are the same, actually says: "Recently, Peters and Skowron [2020] introduced an aggregation rule for approval-based committee elections that they called Rule X. In that setting the rule satisfies a combination of appealing proportionality properties. Here, we extend it to the more general model of participatory budgeting, that is, to the model with arbitrary costs and utilities. We will call this rule the Method of Equal Shares (in short, MES)" which sounds to me that they are not one and the same, but one is derived from the other. So I ask: cannot the MES article stand on its own, without being sourced primarily to articles about Rule X? Given that the cited article that coins the term "MES" is from 2022 it may be WP:TOOSOON. Lamona (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Lamona: Rule X is exactly the same as MES. The paper that you refer to has also its arxiv version, which is older (2020), and where the authors use the name Rule X: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.13276.pdf. The two articles contain definitions of the rules, so you can check that this is indeed the new name that is used by the authors (I guess, the authors got a feedback, that the name Rule X is not informative and decided for a change). The authors write that they extend the rule to the setting of PB, because if costs of projects are equal to one this is exactly the setting of committee elections, and the two definitions are then exactly the same. This is common that the same object is referred to differently in different literature. For example, Turing machine was first called "a-machine" in the original work. Sequential proportional approval voting is sometimes called greedy proportional approval voting or reweighed approval voting. Still we use sources using both names. Of course, we can call the article "Rule X", but I do not see a clear reason why we should change the name that was suggested by the authors. Lamona, what is the criterion for using the name? If I write to the authors with a question, and if they decide to update the first article in ArXiv (the one that uses the name Rule X) to use the new name, will you be satisfied? Motzarcik (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lamona, I've changed the page to include the following explanation in the first sentence "(in early papers the method has been also referred to as Rule X[2,3,4], but since 2022 the authors started using the name "method of equal shares"[1])". The link to [1] is indeed the link to the version that uses the name MES, and that says that this is indeed Rule X. For the paper which you say only mentions Rule X (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.11747.pdf), note that except for introducing the definitions, Theorems 7, 8, 9 are purely about Rule X. Proposition 1, Proposition 2, and Theorem 3 are about the axiom of priceability, which is satisfied only by Rule X and Phragmen's sequential rule (Proposition 2), so these results are also about Rule X (in particular, Theorem 3 implies that Rule X extends the D'Hond't method). Theorems 4 and 10 show that welfarist rules (like Proportional Approval Voting (PAV)) do not satisfy some of the axioms of proportionality. Only Theorems 5 and 6 are about PAV. This paper is very much about Rule X (it introduces the rule, and introduces axioms, by which it compares Rule X to PAV---and more generally to welfarist rules---and to the Phragmen sequential rule). Motzarcik (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the references are sufficient to show notability. Even though the same author - Skowron - appears in most references, there are still many other authors from different research groups. This is sufficient to show that the topic has general relevance to the field. Erel Segal (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bagnall[edit]

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

Seems to be a pretty clear cut case of BLP1E as the only coverage in RS relates to him giving away his possessions on Craigslist. I can't find anything since then. SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see articles about a police officer, a minor league baseball player and a few others that hit on his name. Nothing about this fellow. I'd say whoever paid to have the article created didn't get they money's worth either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, WP:BLP1E applies here. Edwardx (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one thing that gets a low amount of news coverage does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Typical promotional fluff. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron McKenzie[edit]

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

Aaron McKenzie does not fit the criteria to be considered a notable MMA fighter. Wikipedia's criteria to be considered notable are as follows:

1. "Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC" - Aaron McKenzie has never fought for a top-tier promotion

2. "Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization" - McKenzie has never fought in a top-tier promotion, so obviously hasn't fought for the title in one

3. "Been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (Sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (FightMatrix.com)" - As of 11/03/22 Aaron McKenzie is currently ranked by FightMatrix as the 208th Lightweight in the world. McKenzie's peak rank was 200 which can be found here: https://www.fightmatrix.com/fighter-profile/Aaron+McKenzie/104874/ TheJellybaby (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, and Oklahoma. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not close to meeting any notability criteria for MMA fighters and has no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fought twice during a time period where Bellator was not considered a top tier promotion (2015 to 2021) so Papaursa is correct, not even close to meeting WP:MMABIO. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 05:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails notability and has no reliable sources. Timetraveller80 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers RPM characters[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article's writing is in-universe, and there is also nothing that provides out-of-universe coverage to create a stand-alone article. This subject fails to offer any coverage that would allow this to meet the standard at WP:NOT#PLOT. Pahiy (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This material belongs in FANDOM, pretty much. It is not encyclopedic and lacks any context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes this list pass WP:NLIST? I don't see such an indicator, it's a list of minor unnotable characters... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the character section at Power Rangers RPM in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. In this comment to the editor in charge of closing this discussion if this ends with delete, I am asking you to move the character information to the Power Rangers RPM page like how they did with the characters from Power Rangers Zeo, Power Rangers Turbo, Power Rangers in Space, and Power Rangers Dino Thunder also in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with User:Rtkat3. Plus, Venjix showed up in Power Rangers Beast Morphers, so that's got to count for something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazewing16 (talk • contribs)
Delete as failing WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, which requires reliable independent sources for an article to pass our bare minimum policies. I would be open to merge as a compromise, with Power Rangers RPM as the target. But even that target is in pretty rough shape and it's questionable how dumping loads of primary sourced material would make it better. These articles need reliable, independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to do some transfers in the event of the possible deletion @Shooterwalker:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails GNG policy, lacks sufficent coverage. Timetraveller80 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list doesn't justify its existence through non-plot content and sources. Avilich (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Youth Soccer in Niigata[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria, specifically WP:SPORTBASIC. The only coverage I can find for it are from Japan Football Association, which appears to host it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV except for the subject's website, which is a primary source. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources and notability. Timetraveller80 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it isn't really significant.Fulmard (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.( Note:There was a previous AFD for this page but it concerned a different person with the same name). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Carter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional biography for non-notable marketer, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Several citations but when investigating they are either related to subject (employer/university bios or articles he wrote), merely quoting subject and not significant coverage, or are interviews by blogs that don't meet WP:RS. No hits on Google News. (note: previous "Brian Carter" AFD related to different "Brian Carter," not this article.) Wikipedical (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Business, and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR: I'm almost impressed someone with so many books has so few reviews. I found one for Facebook Marketing: Designing Your Next Marketing Campaign [12] (not a pass of WP:NBOOK). And that's it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Voit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Two of four refs are interviews; the third documents the acquisition of a company he founded. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article is poorly sourced, he has an h-index of 31, and has quite a few well-cited articles, as seen on his google scholar profile. Passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Onel: citations [13] are good enough for WP:PROF#C1. Additionally, I suspect Fellow of American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (added after AfD started) may be enough for #C3, although that is cast into some doubt by Voit being at associate professor rank at the time of being named a fellow. (Most scholarly societies reserve fellow status for academics who are more well-established, and are typically at the full professor level.) The independence of the references is not really problematic for WP:PROF notability, as long as we believe them to be reliable enough for what they source. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would help a bit if a reference can confirm he is a tenured faculty member. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's listed as an associate professor on his department faculty page. No reason to believe he isn't tenured. I've replaced the PR department profile used as a reference with his own faculty webpage listing him as associate professor.StarryGrandma (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Amidpour[edit]

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

lacks sufficient in-depth coverage which are independent of the subject. The subject does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavy citations listed in Google Scholar appear to be enough for WP:PROF#C1. Nominator's claim that "the subject does not appear to meet the criteria" is not backed up by an explanation of whether this was even considered let alone why not to count it.

I couldn't find any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources to demonstrate his notability in English and Persian. Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this is a requirement of WP:PROF? It isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. This seems to be a fairly high-citation field, but on balance there's probably enough here for an NPROF C1 pass nonetheless: over six thousand citations, including ten articles with more than one hundred citations each. For the benefit of the nominator, NPROF (unlike the vast majority of SNGs) is widely accepted as an alternative to the GNG, so articles about scholars who meet NPROF are generally kept regardless of whether sigcov exists. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a snowstorm of delete. In addition this list is probably a copyright violation as a straight reproduction of a published list of statistics with a non-obvious methodology. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by electricity price[edit]

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

The electricity price constantly fluctuates (and isn't necessarily the same for a whole country either). A list of the price in countries at a random date is not a notable subject, and a list which is restricted to just 34 countries isn't really optimal either. Fram (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In any case, a gross over-simplification of the hugely complex array of different prices available to different people at different times etc., most of numbers in this table are likely to be wrong most of the time, and what sources are we going to use? And why electricity? We might as well have a list of the prices of potatoes, flour, milk, underpants or roofing insulation in different countries. Elemimele (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elemimele, impossible to maintain, non-notable and useless. Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless they used one standard source, from the OECD or something, this chart isn't much help to anyone. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to what has been said (with which I agree) the war in Ukraine is going to make the information go out of date even faster than it otherwise would. Athel cb (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A German chart with American pricing in a frozen (and pandemic-influenced) moment of time doesn't help anybody and is better covered by day-to-day surveys from multiple sources. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary statistic using one single source to present a particular point of view. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least in the US the price varies by location among other factors and I suspect the same holds true elsewhere. What next List of countries by gas price? Something that is hugely unstable, is at least in a place like the US priced per station, with state and I believe in a few cases even more local taxes playing a part among several other factors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just thought of something else. With exchange rates changing all the time, any comparison of electricity prices in countries with different currencies is going to fluctuate based on both local demand issues and the exchange rate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly this is a case of WP:SNOW close. Dronebogus (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Fei[edit]

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

Totally uncited article (the single citation does not appear to mention the article's subject -- although admittedly that could be a translation issue). In addition, not sure the source is reliable. Regardless, searches did not turn up the necessary in-depth sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG. Was draftified in an attempt to assist the editor's creator, but was simply moved back to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited source (Records of the Three Kingdoms) does mention the subject. It mentions "京兆太守濟北顏斐" ("Yan Fei of Jibei, governor of Jingzhao"), states "顏斐字文林" ("Yan Fei had the courtesy name Wen Lin"), and seems to give lots of other details using the name "Fei" (斐) by itself. A longer English translation is available here. Searching on Google Books and Google Scholar (for "Yan Fei" plus some relevant keywords) turns up more sources in English: [14][15][16]. Searching in Chinese turns up others: [17][18][19]. This is just a sample; more sources are available online, but I think this is enough to show notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: If the subject really is notable, the article needs some work to actually show it. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Draftify - Changing to draftify to aid consensus based on the links above. Gusfriend (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend: What do you make of the seven sources I linked? Are those not enough to demonstrate notability? If not, I can find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources, along with the unsourced text, would have been sufficient for me to vote draftify if the original page author had indicated a willingness to work on the article in draft space. Having said that, in the interest of consensus I have changed my vote to draftify. Gusfriend (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem from my part. I already translated the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~Keep ~~Currently, has lots of assertions that are unsupported. If there are usable references, will need significant work to meet article standards. Best to do that in draft space.~~ Recent changes sufficient to change my vote to keep — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC) revised 11:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yan Fei (simplified Chinese: 颜斐; traditional Chinese: 顏斐) passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline based on Mx. Granger (talk · contribs)'s sources. Thank you, Mx. Granger, for finding these sources. I've added this list of sources to the article:
1. Yu, Songnian (1840). Yi jia tang cong shu. Vol. 2. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
2. de Crespigny, Rafe (2007). A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms (23-220 AD). Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 933. ISBN 978-90-04-15605-0. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
3. Tang, Yan; Guo, Lei-Xian (2016). "Farming space in ancient Chinese cities: Harmonious urban development shaped by agricultural civilization and rural relations". In Liu, Yuan-Ming; Fu, Dong; Tong, Zhen-Xin; Bao, Zhi-Qing; Tang, Bin (eds.). Civil Engineering and Urban Planning IV: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Civil Engineering and Urban Planning, Beijing, China, 25-27 July 2015. London: Taylor & Francis. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-138-02903-3. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
4. 王明前 (December 2011). 张明海 (ed.). "三国两晋十六国南北土地制度的分与合" [The division and integration of the land systems in the north and south of the Three Kingdoms, the Jin Dynasty and the Sixteen Kingdoms] (PDF). Journal of Henan Business College (in Chinese). 24 (6). Henan University: 69. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1008-3928.2011.06.018. ISSN 1008-3928. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-03-18. Retrieved 2022-03-18.
5. 陶元珍 (1989). 三國食貨志 [Three Kingdoms Food and Goods] (in Chinese). Taipei: The Commercial Press [zh]. ISBN 957-05-0054-9. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
6. 萬繩楠 (2002). 魏晉南北朝史論稿 [On the History of Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties] (in Chinese). Taipei: 雲龍出版社. p. 33. ISBN 986-7938-02 -X. Retrieved 2022-03-18 – via Google Books.
I oppose moving to draft as the article now cites numerous reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the improvements made by Cunard.
On the other hand, also a special mention to the now-blocked Ngancheekean whose disruptive editing did this article no favours. MrsSnoozyTurtle

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Crofoot[edit]

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

I proposed the article for deletion but it was removed. WP:NACTOR states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Also most of the article is unsourced and IMDb is not reliable per WP:IMDb. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, Theatre, and Sexuality and gender. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my !vote because of what Ssilvers said. I don't think I can properly determine WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says that he played Barnaby in a national tour of Hello Dolly! and Benjamin in the original US production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, in addition to Tom Thumb in Barnum on Broadway. The problem is that his career peaked in the 70s, so reviews of his performances are probably hard to find online. His Broadway peformances are listed in IBDB (and probably also the National Tour). I don't think we should delete the article just because we are too lazy to find the references at the library. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack a level of sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding a lot of coverage using Newspapers.com. He was profiled extensively in The Dancer Within: Intimate Conversations with Great Dancers by Rose Eichenbaum (available online at Open Library). I'm finding lots of coverage using Newspapers.com. Here are some early finds that are reasonable in-depth: Palm Beach Post 2001, LA Times 1997, Orem Geneva Times 1996, The Desert Sun 2009, and Baltimore Sun 1998. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of his pre-1984 roles can be verified by "Leonard John Crofoot." Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television, vol. 1, Gale, 1984. Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/K1609016072/BIC?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=e38b4986. Accessed 26 Feb. 2022. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the newly found sources, Keep seems logical. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Floyd Abrams consensus is this does not merit a standalone. Content is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge. Star Mississippi 02:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cases argued by Floyd Abrams[edit]

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

I'm not quite sure that this should exist - I can't find anything similar to this on enwiki. The lead sniffs quite strongly of promotion with phrases such as As an advocate of the First Amendment, Abrams' career has put him in a class of prominent legal scholars who have shaped American understanding of fundamental rights found in the United States Constitution. Much of the article is sourced to Abrams' own book. Some of the content may be useful elsewhere, but I can't imagine that a stand-alone page is. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would prefer if the article had inline sources. Seems extensive enough, to warrant more than a subsection in the article about the gentleman himself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This type of info on Wiki is advertorial and not passable as a stand-alone article. Some of the content could be used, in a much shorter version, as a subsection in the subject's Wiki article. But if it remains as a stand-alone article, it could set a precedent for attorneys across the nation to have elaborate self-serving lists of their cases added as Wiki articles. It also fails WP:GNG because of the lack of inline reliable sources and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete – a list of some of the notable cases he has argued might be useful, so a selective merge of those details to Floyd Abrams might be warranted, but most of this information is from a primary source and therefore does not merit inclusion by our notability standards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floyd Adams. If it is listed there, it does not need to be even close to comprehensive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States hypocrisy[edit]

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

I'm sure there's an article to be had about the US incongruent foreign policy but this isn't it - this is largely WP:OR and an essay and otherwise not encyclopedic. I can't see a way that this could be cleaned up to be encyclopedic as opposed to someone's thesis/opinion paper. In fact, I'd say it's largely covered under Criticism of United States foreign policy and I don't know any other articles for "Country hypocrisy". CUPIDICAE💕 14:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a section called Allegations of hypocrisy which itself is a subsection of Criticism of United States foreign policy#Issues and is big enough compared to its other subsections. I am afraid, if we add this article to it too, it would become the length that is out of proportion to the rest of the subsections. I will work on this article some more so that it won't have the issues you mentioned above. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this should even be added to that since it's nothing more than wild WP:OR and a poorly researched opinion. This is at best a WP:POVFORK and in a very bad way. CUPIDICAE💕 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the new articles are poor in their infancy. We'll make it rich together. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just going to support my argument. CUPIDICAE💕 15:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few days and be patient. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious and unacceptable political attack page, as well as an unnecessary fork of Criticism_of_United_States_foreign_policy. Wikipedia is not a rostrum from which to conduct a political campaign. I'm not a fan of many aspects of US policy, but Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral, which from the title onwards, this article fails to be (and I have no confidence it ever will). Elemimele (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and the apt assessment above by Praxidicae. WP is not an essay-hosting site. --Kbabej (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete written like a high school essay, it defines what hypocrisy is. Agree with the above, as well. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He continues to write that when the US government blew up an Iranian civilian plane, they don't punish the accused to Iran, or even punish him for his crimes, but instead awarded him a medal. When someone else blowed up a US airliner— which according to Boyle was a feeble, made-up case against Libya—the US goes to the Security Council to sanction Libya." Yeah, we really don't need an entire essay—er, "article"—of this caliber. Delete as a synthesized WP:POVFORK of Criticism of United States foreign policy (which itself has many problems, although they are beyond the scope of this discussion).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days and I would improve it. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor quality, unencylopedic writing, WP:POVFORK, WP:NOTESSAY Doctormatt (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Elemimele, seems to be a POVFORK and violating NPOV. The Daryl Glaser article Does Hypocrisy Matter? The Case of US Foreign Policy was probably supposed to be the backbone of this article, but the poor conceptual framework of the journal article and the catch-all "hypocrisy" title of this Wikipedia article make it not sustainable. I don't think hypocrisy is a conceptual framework in international relations or foreign policy analysis (although comparing mismatches between rhetoric and foreign policy is interesting), but "hypocrisy in foreign policy" would probably need its own article and not be so US-focused (otherwise it's just seems to go against NPOV). Deletion is the best remedy here. Pilaz (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your neutral comment Pilaz. I can change the title of the article to "hypocrisy in foreign policy", and add some more information from other countries, in order for the article not to be so US-focused. Ghazaalch (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could move the article to draft space until it is ready? Ghazaalch (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you already have a copy at User:Ghazaalch/sandbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that a consensus to delete will emerge at this time. BD2412 T 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Meyer[edit]

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

I initially tagged this with {{Prod}} but it was untagged without explanation by 204.112.130.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

The subject is an American soccer player who has received recent national press coverage after she was found dead from suicide. The article is likely a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM.

All of the significant, third-party coverage of her is due to her death. All the other sources are WP:ROUTINE, except for a high school student newspaper that mentions her involvement in a Nickelodeon reality show. Beyond the single event, I don't think there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and she doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY criteria. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete removing the suicide form the equation, she's just a college level soccer player, not very special either, 50 goals in 44 games isn't a superb athletic performance (that's about what an average player would make, one goal a game). Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that she was a goalkeeper and had not scored any competitive goals (and a goal a game would be considered spectacular at most levels). I think the numbers you're referring to are her NCAA appearances: 50 total, 44 in the regular season. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind at least one of those seasons was significantly COVID-shortened. Rikster2 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Soccer isn't my sport, I read that as I would baseball statistics. Still leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - This is an interesting case. Her suicide has been HEAVILY covered by pretty much every outlet in the US and has been used to draw attention to mental health concerns with American young people. But that is, as the nominator points out, WP:SINGLEEVENT. The reason it is interesting to me is that Meyer was also the subject of a viral video in 2019 of her celebrations after getting the match-winning save on a PK for a national championship, it was even named on a lot of "top sports plays of 2019" lists (example). But I looked for any other coverage - profiles, human interest stories, etc., and can't find anything else significant. Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed. I don't know enough of the subject area to know if there is enough (or any) coverage of her before her death. However, there could be a lasting impact, similar to the cases of Olivia Podmore and Kelly Catlin, albeit they were both notable before they died. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I bring up WP:RECENTISM, because like you say, her passing might be remembered in a larger discussion about mental health but there's no way to know now. As Rikster points out, she did have some notoriety because of her heroics in a championship game, but there's not enough coverage of her overall life and career. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her statistics aside, it almost seems too soon to judge how notable she'll become because of her sad finale in life. She may very well be used to promote mental health in the college population, she may not. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing my !vote. I missed the in depth just womens sports interview on the article. I think there is enough there from the NCAA title that when you add in the voluminous post-suicide coverage she meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I think there's enough coverage not about her death to merit notability. Giant Snowman 22:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a bit disingenuous to say that there were no significant coverage before her death. Her performance in the 2019 College Cup generated quite a bit, some of which were cited in the article already. Seany91 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not disingenuous at all - ~~there are not currently any independent WP:RS about her and the 2019 championship on the article.~~ And I looked long and hard both on Google and newspapers.com because I was SURE I'd find some. If you can find any, please put them in the article because I came up empty. I would be happy to change my !vote if you do. Rikster2 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually the Just Women's Sports interview on the article probably does qualify. I am not familiar with the site so I don't know its reach, but it is independent. Rikster2 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there is significant coverage about her life and soccer career in addition to her death. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feel like she scrapes GNG with the sources now in the article. Did find these sources during a search [20][21][22] and added them to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources added by Alvaldi are enough to remove any doubt that this passes GNG. I can't see any valid merge target either and there's no way that all this well sourced content should be deleted outright. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the nominator and I think I'm leaning towards weak keep now, mostly based on links shared by Alvaldi. Individually, I don't know that they're enough (the first is a "local girl done good" story from her hometown paper and the third is from a Stanford-focused vertical of SBNation so neither is completely independent coverage), but together and in combination with the coverage of her passing, I think they get us to WP:GNG. I think this article is fine, though I wonder if sites like SB and the Athletic with hyperfocused coverage of individual teams end up opening up WP:GNG to more sportspeople who haven't played at the highest levels. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd count the two SBNation articles as one source, and when added to the lengthy Just Women's Sports interview already on the article and the post-death coverage I think she meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG as per above. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was she notable without the suicide? No, she became notable after the suicide and becoming part of the news. ~~If this article were to stand, then her player statistics need to be compiled.~~ KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 16:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Your previous comment -- literally -- just indicated that "she is notable". No? Yet, you "voted" Delete? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I WANT THE ARTICLE IN MY INBOX, SO PLEASE DON'T TRASH IT !

You will always delete Africa Articles if you think like this but we will see how to improve all that for the people like you ! I will come back soon ! --Wikiourembaya (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation, doing like this, yes this kinds of place will never be notable, this is Africa ! Wikiourembaya (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamandou Koura[edit]

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

Currently just sourced by brief mentions and unreliable sources, searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you help us to link us the unreliable sources, you think ?

Kamandou Koura is in 2 others wikipedia and all are OK.

https://nqo.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DF%9E%DF%8A%DF%AC%DF%A1%DF%8A%DF%B2%DF%98%DF%8E_%DF%9E%DF%8E%DF%99%DF%8A%DF%AB

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamandou_Koura

By the way i improve the link which was posing issues.

Best regards,

Moustapha Kourouma

Wikiourembaya (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure to understand well your purpose. I'm contributor to wikipedia and this page has been created by me as others.

I already mentioned about this difficult for Africa contributors to do think as western wanted, we do not have the same sources.

As you can notice, Kamandou Koura is locality in Macenta and is highly important.

If you want to respect all this details point, you will have less page for Africa.

If you will not delete the mention, i'm affraid for automatic deletion for nothing.

Best regars, Moustapha Kourouma

Wikiourembaya (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please let me know which policy you want to improve, there are at leat 14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

Wikiourembaya (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I improve the page, please have look at it and let me know what you want to improve specially.

Best regards, Wikiourembaya (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There still is not a single in-depth source about this location. Most of the sources are simply links to map locations, which are unreliable sources. The French article is woefully undersourced, and would not pass GNG on English WP. To show notability you have to have in-depth sourcing about this place. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How do you want we source as in america or France ? I tell you Africa is not America, France, etc. The used are not the same. If you want things like in America, i tell you you will always delete Africa articles. Please to learn more about those location, to understand more what we did as i'm doing.

Wikiourembaya (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiourembaya: The issue we have with the article is not bias and writing about a place with a different culture gives it no exception from Wikipedia's article guidelines. The problem is that the sources you are using for the article are other Wikipedia articles, Google searches, and other unreliable sources; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What do you want ? I clean the google sources ? You can also improve the writing, thank you ! Best regards 90.27.179.167 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This place is not shown as notable through the provided sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantial used as a source. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you will not see New york time or France24 as sources of this article. Best regards 90.27.179.167 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Mead (musician)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra Pumps (David Mead album)[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Was redirected to artist, but editor insists on recreating. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Mead's sixth and seventh albums — Dudes (2011) and Cobra Pumps (2019), respectively — were self-released, which means that press coverage and reviews were harder to come by than when he was on labels like RCA earlier in his career. Until January of this year, Mead's Wikipedia page contained few citations, and the same was true of the pages for his pre-2011 albums. I've attempted to remedy that situation, as you'll see in the various pages' "View history" tabs, and will continue to do so, and I created pages for Dudes and Cobra Pumps so that his entire discography is represented. In my opinion, these pages shouldn't be deleted or "redirected" to Mead's page. I promise I'm not trying to be difficult. Addred85 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Addred85[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Mead (musician)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. The sources in the article are primary. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Mead (musician)#Discography. My search found only blogs, user-generated content, and other unreliable sources. This album does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM or the GNG, although a redirect to Mead's article is a reasonable (and cheap) alternative to deletion. I understand that the lack of sourcing may be due to the self-published nature of the album, but coverage in reliable sources is really the only metric we have to gauge whether something belongs in the encyclopedia: without it, it unfortunately just isn't possible to write an article that meets our guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 14:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miraheze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Interwiki redirect to MediaWiki. Vitaium (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lights Out (2016 film). Star Mississippi 15:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Walter[edit]

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

Nonnotable fictional character. The character has appeared in one film only, Lights Out (2016 film). The infobox claims she also appeared in the three-minute short film Lights Out (2013 film), but the character was not given a name until the 2016 film. There is no indication of this character having any significance outside the film she appears in. (She's no Freddy, Jason, or Michael Myers!) —Mahāgaja · talk 12:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Film. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've expanded this some, but I'm still somewhat undecided on whether this could stand alone or not. I'd like more reception of the character, so I'll try looking for that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask if the character has been referred to in other media outside of the immediate film. Is she on top 10 fictional character lists? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any when I was looking earlier. So far a lot of it has been interviews and the like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be any - I did a more vague search and when the film is mentioned in lists of this type it's about the film as opposed to the character. If the sequel had come out then I think that there would be a higher chance of the character appearing in such lists but the sequel seems to have gone into development hell. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's this. It's not a top ten list exactly, but it does refer to the villains listed as iconic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge based on my own search engine test which does not seem to indicate that the fictional character warrants their own standalone article. I think there are two reasons to have standalone articles, one being that the character was standout in coverage (Anton Chigurh comes to mind), or the other being that so much is written about a particular character that it warrants being a sub-article of the film article. An example of that would be Long Duk Dong; he wasn't particularly standout at the time, but retrospective coverage have assessed the character critically. Here, I'm not finding Diana to be that kind of standout character or to have substantial enough content to warrant their own article. Also, if this article happens to be kept, I think Diana (Lights Out) would be the better article title since "Walter" doesn't seem used by many sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is a reception section but it seems too superficial to warrant a stand-alone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I haven't been able to find anything to show that this character is notable on their own. There are a handful of sources released in the years following the film's release, but not really anything that would firmly show that the character is considered to be independently notable. Mostly they're tongue in cheek, like saying Starlight from The Boys could instantly defeat her. (Which I mean, would absolutely be the case given her powers.) Anything that's in here could be merged into the respective sections on the film and short articles. I'd recommend redirecting with history to the main film article - although I would also recommend a name change per Erik's suggestion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notability is solely WP:INHERITED from the film. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources put forth in the keep have been countered, and having survived since 2008 is not a reason to keep. Star Mississippi 02:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuhin Sinha[edit]

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

The refs are all either book reviews (mostly brief ones at that) or subject's own articles and interviews. Since he's a spokesperson of a major party, there are a lot of search hits but the coverage is limited to quotes only. Journal hits are a different person. Note that he was a columnist for Times of India, so ToI refs need additional scrutiny. Hemantha (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. What to apply? WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL? The entity fails in both. Possibly WP:TOOSOON case. -Hatchens (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as the article has survived since 2008. There are enough citations to support the article. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have plenty of coverage, especially for #3 of WP:NAUTHOR ("multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" of a work or collection of work). Here are some of his books that have articles and/or reviews:
- Of Love and Politics - The Hindu review, "A mix of politics and love" - The New Indian Express article (via ProQuest), "Tuhin's 'Of Love & Politics' an insight into India's pol history" - United News of India review (via ProQuest), "A stuttering tale of love" - DNA review (via ProQuest)
- Edge of Desire - The Hindu review, News 18 review, "Women empowerment, focus of Tuhin Sinha's 'Edge of Desire'" - United News of India article (via ProQuest)
- When the Chief Fell in Love - "Tuhin Sinha's new book aims to add new perspective to Kashmir issue" - United News of India article (via ProQuest), "'When the Chief Fell in Love', to release tomorrow" - Indo Asian News Service article (via ProQuest), IWM Buzz article
- India Fights the Dragon - Republic World review
- The Legend of Birsa Munda - Entertainment Times review
- Daddy - "The New-age Father" - The New Indian Express (via ProQuest)
Otherwise, there are also sources that seem suitable for GNG:
- "Bestseller author Tuhin Sinha becomes new Mumbai BJP spokesman" - Business Standard
- "Loyola alumnus comes up with fifth thriller - The Edge of Power focuses on crime against women, will hit stores on Christmas-eve" - The Telegraph (India)
- "Writer's corner: Of love, politics and grist for the literary mill" - DNA (via ProQuest)
- "Loyola lad's second take on love" - The Telegraph (India) (via ProQuest)
- "Old boy sets bar for youth" - The Telegraph (India) (via ProQuest)
- "Turning Pages on Road Safety" - The Telegraph (India) (via ProQuest
  - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a long list of hits from ProQuest search. Have you looked through them? Some of your links are so blatantly inappropriate that I'm not sure if this wasn't WP:REFBOMBing. Still, let's go through.

On sources you claim cover NAUTHOR #3

IWMBuzz isn't even considered reliable for Indian films, their main coverage area.
Republic is a deprecated source.
This ToI review literally has "micro-review" in its head. It can't possibly be WP:SIGCOV. Note also that WP:NFSOURCES (while not applicable directly) has wording that specifically bars these "capsule reviews".
All the UNI (a wire agency) reports are credited to the same author. The article on When the chief fell in love is clearly not a review. The one on Of Love & Politics uses identical words (Aditya Samar Singh aristocratic, Brajesh Ranjan overtly nationalistic agenda) as TNIE and is mostly made up of dialogs copied from the book instead of any significant independent content. The one on Edge of Desire uses same lines from the book's blurb. Neither appears to have been carried by any WP:RS. Combined with UNI's unknown reliability, there is enough to doubt the independence of these articles.
Beyond Of Love and Politics (which itself can be argued with, but I haven't looked in detail), none of these books could be considered significant enough for Wikipedia. The current state, where none of those books have articles on them, reflects it.

On the sources you claim suitable for GNG -

Business Standard is actually from IANS, a newswire, but also carried by other newswires like ANI. Without a by-line or a credit, this routine announcement is indistinguishable from a press release.
The three Telegraph pieces ([23], [24],[25]) are all book launch announcements, by the same author who has reused the same general structure and even identical bio blurbs (Before penning books, Tuhin also used to write screenplays for Hindi daily soaps. ... Finishing school in 1995, Tuhin then went on to pursue graduation in commerce from Hindu College, Delhi. He also holds a diploma from National Institute of Advertising.) since his first book release in 2008. The rest of those articles are made up of author quotes and they are basically interviews. The extreme similarity of the article on "Have a Safe Journey" launch to other articles covering it (similar lines on author lists, road safety awareness, Minister's foreword, CEO's message - all in that same order), brings into question the independence of these articles.
The remaining Telegraph article actually covers a speech he made and is full of quotes from that speech. It has nothing at all about him apart from Sinha, who is a novelist, a BJP spokesperson in Mumbai and an advisor to the ministry Hemantha (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Certainly passes WG:GNG, also there are SIGCOV. The article needed to clean up. UphillAthlete (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 albeit weakly. I don't see a further relist changing this Star Mississippi 02:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sindi Buthelezi[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and none of their roles is significant enough to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, and South Africa. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain keep/question I did a quick google news search and found a couple of articles about her death, which included references to her work. It seems that she was notable, although I'm not confident in my analysis of South African press. So I'm willing to walk this back if people who can assess the media better object, but on the face of it, it seems she is notable. CT55555 (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak keep I've nominated a Generations walk-on actor for deletion previously, however the subject of this article seems to have had a regular part and credits on other well-known shows, but it's really hard to tell because of how quickly SA sources seems to be disappearing from the web. For what it's worth Times Live, which is the website of the Sunday Times is a WP:RS and The South African also seems to be. The show is/was very popular, and if she played a significant part, she's likely to be notable.Park3r (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and none is unlikely to form with poor access to Swedish language sourcing. No arguments to delete, but no assessment of whether the sources meet GNG leads us to the NC. Star Mississippi 02:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Wendt[edit]

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

Not notable. Article created by a single user who mostly just made this article. Edible Sphere (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm seeing a number of articles on Wendt in the Swedish newspaper archive: "Cybersymfoniker uppträder i Lund" (Sydsvenskan, 2000, around 200 words), "Tonsatt Edda uruppförs av Karlskronakompositör" (BLT, 2009, around 600 words), "Mats Wendt medverkar i Wagnerfestspel" (BLT, 460 words), "Mats Wendt uruppför cyber-Eddan" (Sydöstran, 2009, 700 words), "Wagnerhändelse och dröm för svensk cybersymfoniker" (Sydsvenskan, 400 words), a piece in Sveriges Radio P1 2010, "Hur klarade tyskarna fem timmar nordisk mytologi?" (Dagens Nyheter, 2003, 200 words), "Tonmonument med lådorkester" (Svenska Dagbladet, 2000, 400 words) etc etc. I'll take a closer look in a few days when I don't have a pressing deadline, but these are numerous articles and not just one event. /Julle (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, how do I check the Swedish newspaper archive? Edible Sphere (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edible Sphere: It's a paid subscription to Retriever Mediearkivet. Most Swedish university students and staff should have it, maybe normal libraries too. I have one through Wikimedia Sweden. There's also the Royal Library's newspaper archive, but it's a) very inaccessible and b) very incomplete, even if it has far older articles than Retriever. /Julle (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a number of citations to the article, expanding it somewhat. /Julle (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is what I have gotten via searches to save others' time: 1) NYTimes = 0 2) Washington Post = 0 3) Ebsco = 0 4) Google Books = 1 (listed as composer on a piece being cited, no info about him [26] 5) Google scholar = 2 (1 is a self-published book, supposedly a mention but it doesn't show in the preview, one is a bachelor's thesis (in Swedish) in which Wendt is thanked in the acknowledgements). I know that English-language sources are not required, but having none at all will make it hard to assess this article. Lamona (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue not having any English sources is perfectly normal for many notable topics (biographies, locations, events in history), just as there are sources in any language but English for many of the things we write about.

All the sources I've added are newspaper articles rather than anything academic, yes. Julle (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Maxwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated some time after being deleted in 2007 at the first AfD, so ineligible for PROD. Gaelic football is distinct from association football and is therefore not governed by WP:NFOOTY. ~~GF does not have its own SNG under WP:NSPORTS, so we have to rely on GNG, which the subject does not meet based on a search.~~ Have been unable to verify if the subject meets the actual SNG for Gaelic football, WP:NGAELIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. RE: "GF does not have its own SNG under WP:NSPORTS". Actually there is an established criteria under WP:NSPORT for Gaelic footballers. In WP:NGAELIC. Which suggests that Gaelic footballers who have played senior inter-county football (in the league or championship) may meet the notability criteria. I haven't investigating to see whether this player has played in either competition at the required level (yet). But it's not entirely accurate to say that NSPORT doesn't provide for Gaelic footballers... Guliolopez (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guliolopez you are correct and I apparently need my vision checked. I've struck that part of my argument. I haven't been able to verify whether he played at the SNG level; the only Gaelic Football stats site I could find was FinalWhistle, and that only shows 2021 for some reason: [27]. I did find some coverage of him in the Irish Examiner, but it's fairly routine game/injury reporting so I'm not sure he hits GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have found and added a number of refs which appear to confirm that WP:NGAELIC is met (Gaelic footballer who has played at senior inter-county level [in league or championship]). A claim to notability under WP:GNG is weaker. As there are limited independent/biographical sources of which the subject is the primary topic. But there are a few/scant examples. Like this (RTÉ) or this (Irish Examiner) which are at least contributory. Guliolopez (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NGAELIC - and even the last AFD found that the subject themselves was notable, just the article needed sourcing (which does seem to violate WP:ATD - but the statue of limitations on that. Nfitz (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Fernando Cifuentes[edit]

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

This page was created by a paid editor on behalf of the subject. As far as I can tell, they don't pass WP:NPROF (does not hold a named chair or equivalent). Their google scholar profile shows they have only around 20 citations. The article did not go through the AfC process, and was created directly in article space. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed the article, his personal web site, his cv, and his LinkedIn page. Meets none of the WP:NPROF criteria.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia librarians, I am really very surprised and disappointed by the conclusions you have reached regarding the article on Dr. Luis Fernando Cifuentes. He is a prestigious Colombian doctor who in 1997 made a valuable scientific contribution by correlating the relationship between ascorbic acid or vitamin C in the creation of nitric oxide from saliva. He has also made other important contributions in the use of analgesics in the fields of osteoarthritis, neuropathic pain, neurostimulation, among others.

He is a very prestigious scientist who is a member of world-class organisations such as the American College of Clinical Pharmacology, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the International Association for the Study of Pain. He is also an member of the National Academy of Medicine.

I really find it hard to understand that because the subject of the article has decided to pay an editor to create the article since he does not know how to do it, one can already draw the conclusion that the article lacks neutrality. I would like to know where in the article there is a glimpse of bias. The conclusions you have reached are really incomprehensible. The article was published a year ago and was in force without any problem until it was declared to contain paid contributions. And with only that element, you guys come to all these conclusions and consider that the article should be eliminated? Please be more serious!

This is an interesting article for Wikipedia because it has scientific rigour and is encyclopaedic in nature, which is the basis of the content to be published on this platform. Please I ask you to remove the tags that have been added and that the article continues to be valid as it has been until now, providing interesting information from scientific studies 100% verifiable by the references given and with valuable findings for the subjects under study. Thank you very much!— Juanma281984 🗣️ 17:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Juanma281984 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Carefully read WP:NPROF to see why the article has been put up for deletion. Nothing you have mentioned is a defense against deletion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPROF/WP:GNG. Woodroar (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtra News[edit]

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

Has insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its notable, and have been referred from notable cite news and book sources. All conditions of Wikipedia criteria are met and popular news source in limited region. 2409:4051:4E02:6F41:104F:9A00:721C:7143 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing substantial that helps it pass WP:GNG, and also the subjective criteria WP:NWEB is too far from being met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 13:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG. No coverage in reliable media. Promo coverage does not count. Venkat TL (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Muntinlupa local elections[edit]

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

This article contains the assertion "Local elections were held in Muntinlupa on May 13, 2022"...

That could simply be re-written as "Local elections will be held in Muntinlupa on May 13, 2022" (please see the Commission on Elections (Philippines) countdown - "59 days before the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections".

In my opinion, that would be quite inappropriate for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

pure speculation about an election that has yet to happen
un-referenced speculation about living people who may contest that election

This article could be moved to a notional Draft:2022 Muntinlupa local elections until they happen. That would appear to me a way forward. I would argue that wait from 10 Mar 2022 to 9 May 2022 is too long to retain WP:CRYSTALBALL-ing about living people.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or withdraw the nomination and stop wasting our time. Unless Putin or Xi Jinping invades the Philippines, 2022 Philippine general election will surely happen. Campaigning for national positions began last month, and campaigning for local positions will begin in March 26. I've also added a reference about the election and made some clean-ups. I suppose a withdrawal of the nomination is in order? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if I have understood the nomination correctly, or if the nomination cannot be understood. The nominator appears to be objecting to advance articles about planned elections in constitutional democracies. Wikipedia has many articles about planned elections in constitutional democracies, such as 2022 gubernatorial election in Maryland, which is six months later. Is there a problem with a verb tense? So fix it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Howard the Duck and Robert McClenon. To be honest, I clearly don't understand what the nominator's said behind the reason for deletion as it basically almost like a discussion on a talk page (although the last part is 18%-ish reason but the rest isn't either). CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination is literally negated by item 1 of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also issue on grammar can be boldly fixed. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

84th Bucktail Regiment[edit]

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

Contested PROD; No assertion of notability nor sources at all. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a notable unit, lacks sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few results at Newspapers.com, but none of them are significant coverage for purposes of the GNG. No alternatives to deletion seem to be appropriate: a merger, for instance, would be a poor idea because the content is entirely unreferenced. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baithakji Hajipur[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. A search for reliable sources wasn't fruitful. The word "Baithak" can also mean meeting, in Hindi. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NRELORG and WP:GNG. No independent coverage of the temple. No evidence of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Technologies[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, all coverage is press releases by the company itself and release notes of their own products hosted on their own site. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was only able to find mentions of this company's technology, but nothing substantive. Lamona (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pioneer in client-server databases and 4GL GUI development in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since they pre-date the internet, references will come from old fashioned on-paper research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gupta was a big name in databases. Scans of Computerworld and Infoworld issues visible in Google Books show that the company and its products were extensively covered in that era. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company was covered (usually under Centura Software Corp.) and profiled by various analyst groups such as Gartner, Forrester, Bloor, etc. For example, here's a link to a report from Bloor, here's another recent report - there's lots of reports but mostly under the name Centura. In my opinion, this topic should really be Centura Software and Gupta redirected there. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 96P/Machholz#2007 perihelion. Is there a soft merge? More relists than input, but I don't see a third one changing that and there's no opposition to the merge recommendation. Star Mississippi 02:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO 2333[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline of WP:NASTRO; no scientific notability and has been only covered once by news sources. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I did find a few news stories about this comet, so it may have a certain minor notability in the WP:GNG sense. It appears to be a fragment of 96P/Machholz that broke off during the 2007 perihelion, so perhaps a merge into '96P/Machholz#2007 perihelion' would work?[28] Praemonitus (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Thenvenkatachalapathy[edit]

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

Couldn't find any relevant sources about this temple. Most of the text mixes mythology and history. Fails WP:NRELORG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:NRELORG. Notability not asserted. No reason what makes this temple special. Such temples are in every street, neighborhood. Venkat TL (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability, fails WP:GNG. Timetraveller80 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I recognize Milowent's efforts, but also their acknowledement they can't access the source. If someone wants this for draft space incubation, just ping. Star Mississippi 02:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Vista, Alameda County, California[edit]

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

I don't see any sources about this place other than the book listed. Judging by the description, the article seems to be nonnotable: it had a post office for at least three years. I assume it was only written because of GNIS. However, if anybody has the book available to them, they can verify.

Based on the description in the article, this was probably located in what is now Piedmont or North Oakland. There is currently a Monte Vista Avenue in that area. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS does not have this, as was noted on the article's talk page back in 2009. This was Carlossuarez46 inferring "former settlement"s from Durham's place names book, just as with Stokes Landing, California (which was of course actually a landing). The only record (in a contemporary directory of U.S. post offices) is of a Monte Vista post office with postmaster Joseph Dieves, hotelier and brewery owner, who was buried at the Mountain View Cemetery, Oakland, and who is better documented than his post office. Uncle G (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not sure how we missed this one among the massive batch of utter junk from an irresponsible user. The source does NOT actually say this was a settlement but rather just states the existence of a post office, which is not the same thing. Reywas92^Talk 06:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The California Digital Library, California Counties Photography Collection, lists having a folder in its collection on Monte Vista of which it says "Contains images of Monte Vista, a former settlement in Alameda County near northeast Oakland."[29] I'll dig a bit more but there's no reason to speedy delete during this AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: I think you should vote if you don't want the article to get deleted. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that says it was "a former settlement", but i don't have access to the non-online content to back it up. I know that doesn't stop people from nominating things for deletion but I can't save everything.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Interpreting Uncle G's as a keep, or at least not to delete based on his analysis. I don't see an additional relist providing more input. This does not preclude a merger back if that's decided on editorially. Star Mississippi 02:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Four idents[edit]

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

BBC Four's main page already has a section called "Presentation" which summarises this page well. This page is entirely unnecessary, there are many other websites which will give the reader information about channel idents. This page is convoluted and does not belong on Wikipedia. ComplainingCamel (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at BBC Three idents (AfD discussion) I discovered that the article that we (fortunately, see later) do not have, BBC Two idents, has entire book chapters, going through the idents one by one.
- Brownrigg, Mark; Reech, Peter (2019). "'Music is half the picture': The Soundworld of UK Television". In Grainge, Paul (ed.). Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube. Bloomsbury Publishing. doi:10.5040/9781838710354.ch-004. ISBN 9781838715564.
Moreover: That nomination rationale is a terrible one, not founded in Project:deletion policy. We don't delete things just because the information exists elsewhere. Indeed, we only include things when the information exists elsewhere. Nor do we delete things because they are Project:summary style sub-articles.
That said, the existence of History of BBC television idents and the fact that no-one has actually gone to look for the outright books on this subject (which have lots on Two, but not Three and Four), and that all three of the places where we cover this are solely based upon WWW sites named "TV ARK" and suchlike, does mean that there's just been uncritical dumping into three separate places in Wikipedia. But it does not take the administrator deletion tool to fix this, just an editor with a bit of willingness to pull the finger out, read the books, and mercilessly merge with the ordinary editing tool.
There's another channel with a lot written about its idents that I kept turning up because I thought that "channel" might be a good restrictive search term. It turns out not to be.
- Fanthome, Christine (December 2007). "Creating an iconic brand – an account of the history, development, context and significance of Channel 4's idents". Journal of Media Practice. 8 (3): 255–271. doi:10.1386/jmpr.8.3.255_1.
- Brownie, Barbara (2013). "Modular construction and anamorphosis in Channel 4 idents: Past and present". Journal of Media Practice. 14 (2): 93–109. doi:10.1386/jmpr.14.2.93_1.
And in another demonstration of Wikipedia not having the articles that the good sources write about, and having the articles that the good sources do not write about, History of BBC television idents does not have BBC Wales at all.
- Blandford, Steve; McElroy, Ruth. "Promoting Public Service? Branding, Place and BBC Cymru Wales' Idents, Promos and Trailers". Journal of British Cinema and Television. 8 (3): 392–410. doi:10.3366/jbctv.2011.0046. ISSN 1743-4521.
And we only write Wikipedia by watching television, people, not by listening to the radio.
- G., McCusker (1997). "The audio logo: A case study of Radio Scotland's on‐air identity". Journal of Communication Management. 1 (4): 362–373. doi:10.1108/eb023439.
Yes, I had a what-the-Hell moment and tried Scotland just to see. Not a peep in BBC Radio Scotland. Of course. Three duplicate articles on the unstudied stuff, no content on the studied.
Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Uncle G, but I cannot for the life of me comprehend your comment, also, you should include, in bold, your preferred outcome. Thanks for your insight. | ComplainingCamel (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason for this to be deleted as it is well references and passes any notability issues.(Rillington (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering that the main article does a decent job of summarising this, I don't think it warrants a split here. There's a lot of unsourced information and general WP:CRUFT on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGlow (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 keep. Consensus is sources presented are sufficient for GNG Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Boto[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Greece, Portugal, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, there seems to be a lot of coverage of him, just not in English. This is a lengthy interview from the Spanish Sports publication Diario AS. This is another from the Greek sports site Sport24. A ton of articles through the years like this one from Metrosport (Greek). Rikster2 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster, meets GNG. Giant Snowman 22:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY with the sources found by Rikster2. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources found by Rikster2. Alvaldi (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Notability" is not exactly an ideal deletion argument, and that has been countered by the sources identified in this discussion. Thanks, IP 201 for IDing the sources. Star Mississippi 02:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Ecuador – Red Sun[edit]

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

notability Fire and Ice 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fire and Ice 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Organizations, and Terrorism. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Deleting small, south american political organizations should not be the norm. 201.217.121.18 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep/Delay Deleting A quick search of "Sol Rojo" in google news shows current incidents where their activities are making the news, now I don't have the knowledge to know if:

Are all reliable, but if there's three hits about their activities in the past 24 hours, then I think a little effort by anyone who has more knowledge on Spanish language media could get this article into shape CT55555 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very quick google of "Sol Rojo" brings up multiple hits about their protests and demands. I've added two in, but I don't have the Spanish language skills, or awareness of reliable sources in Spanish language to be the best person to major edit here. Nonetheless, I have seen enough to see that they are clearly notable, and with my edits, I think the subject of this article now meets the WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The largest credible news outlet in Ecuador has reported on Sol Rojo in the country. This article is paywalled so I couldn't read all of it, but it came up in a quick google. Additionally, a website that keeps track of the armed political movements in Ecuador has reported activity in the past 6 months. Additionally, the government of Ecuador has a webpage regarding Sol Rojo as well. I am fluent in the Spanish language and currently live in Guayaquil. This is my first time interacting on wikipedia, so not sure if I can edit the page, but here are the mentioned sources:

https://www.ministeriodegobierno.gob.ec/juez-llama-a-juicio-a-detenidos-en-operativo-sol-rojo/

https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/internacional/ecuador-no-tuvo-nexos-con-sendero-luminoso-pero-su-existencia-influyo-en-cambios-en-aparatos-de-inteligencia-de-la-region-nota/

For reference, most Ecuadorian subcultures are barely reported on, resulting in members of these organizations running no-cost blogs to create a historical archive of the local and national activity. This is notable in other cultural spheres such as contemporary art as well. 201.217.121.18 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinier Blom[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE and does not meet WP:GNG as a non-notable Olympian.

He competed as part of a team of 22 Dutch Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming second last, with us knowing little beyond that; just when and where he was born and died. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Violates WP:NOTDATABASE" isn't true or relevant, as the article is not 1)Summary-only descriptions of works, 2)Lyrics databases, 3)Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or 4)Exhaustive logs of software updates. If there's no further info on this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have no significant coverage on him. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we do not have grandfather clauses, so there is no reason to just mass redirect articles that were created without sufficient sources. Leaving in place a huge number of redirects will leave in place a lot of working links and falsely suggest to some editors that this means we consider a set of subjects default notable. It is not a good plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:R#HARMFUL on why it is damaging to delete articles that have been in place for some time without leaving redirects. It's not about notability. Ingratis (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is at least one recent article on Mr. Blom, published in 2019 on the Amsterdam municipal archives website. I have introduced the reference in the article. According to the reference, Mr. Blom was quite a celebrity around the turn of the century in Amsterdam. A query on "R.J.C. Blom" on delpher.nl returns a significant number of newspaper articles on gymnastics events between 1890 and 1910 in the Netherlands. He was founder of one of the dutch gymnastics associations.User:Ruud Buitelaar (talk)01:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that appears to be WP:SIGCOV. However, we require multiple examples of significant coverage; were you able to find two more? BilledMammal (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There are many references in the Dutch Gymnastics Magazine between between 1890 and 1945 because Mr. Blom was member of the board of the Dutch Gymnastics Association. The magazine has been digitalized. In the article I included a reference to Mr. Blom on occasion of his 50 year membership of Olympia. I also found a picture of Mr. Blom in 1895, from a recently digitalized book celebrating Olympia´s 25 years of existence. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Ruud Buitelaar. Ingratis (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lasting coverage. Absolutely no WP:BLP concern. Kudos to Ruud Buitelaar for his work here! gidonb (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelus Becker[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE and does not meet WP:GNG as a non-notable Olympian.

He competed as part of a team of 22 Dutch Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming second last, with us knowing little beyond that; just when and where he was born and died. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Violates WP:NOTDATABASE" isn't true or relevant, as the article is not 1)Summary-only descriptions of works, 2)Lyrics databases, 3)Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or 4)Exhaustive logs of software updates. If there's no further info on this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any sources to give actual significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The place to search old dutch newspapers is Delpher.nl [30] and the best search term is "C.L.J. Becker". His name turns up in results of gymnastics matches. Mr. Becker was national champion in 1907 and 1908. Still, coverage is rather insignificant.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Barrell (gymnast)[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, being sourced only to databases, and does not meet WP:GNG as a non-notable Olympian who competed as part of a team of 45 British Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming last. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Violates WP:NOTDATABASE" isn't true or relevant, as the article is not 1)Summary-only descriptions of works, 2)Lyrics databases, 3)Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or 4)Exhaustive logs of software updates. His bio states a lengthy career in gymnastics, along with another one in the RAF. Maybe there is more info in newspapers, etc from the time. If not, worst case is redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no substantive sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a set of sports stats masquerading as articles. There is no passing of notability or inclusion gudelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two sentences in the Olympedia source aren't enough, and no significant coverage has been found. Avilich (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Rockphed (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD; Already nominated before in a non-consensus close. No assertion of notability Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any indication of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Back in the day, drum corps competitions became popular and a bunch of articles like this one popped up. But just because this particular corps exists, that does not mean they are notable for a WP article. I can find no significant media coverage and they are only visible in their own promo sites and occasional listings of the events in which they appeared. (Note: Do not confuse with Wadaiko Yamato, a more notable international entertainment troupe sometimes called "Yamato Drummers".) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability from what I can see. The only source on the page is their self-published About page, and there were definitely no arguments to keep in the last AfD. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Meshksar[edit]

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

Meshkar's company “EA Home Design” was deleted via AfD [31] back in Dec 2021. It was recreated about two weeks ago under a different title but also deleted [32].

While this article is about the founder and not the company, it more or less suffers from the same issues (paid promotion/lacking independent coverage). Seeking deletion for failing WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Paid promotion is a no go, the Forbes article seems useful though. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was written via "BrandVoice" which is essentially sponsored content [33].-KH-1 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The Forbes piece does not meet RS requirements, as it is a contributor piece and thus fails WP:FORBESCON on WP:RSP. --Kbabej (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my vote, no notable sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack sufficient indepdent secondary sources that are reliable to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [34], [35], [36], look promising. I suspect there's a significant media coverage. Codabray (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Codabray: Of the sources you mentioned, the first (on mint) mentions the subject twice with his quotes; there is no independent analysis of the subject. There is also no author byline; it's written by "HT Brand Studio", which I'm assuming is some sort of promotional tool. The second on Entrepreneur is an op-ed piece. The third on Forbes is by a contributor and thus fails WP:FORBESCON on WP:RSP. So unfortunately, no, none of the sources you mentioned meet the RS requirement. Kbabej (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Codabray: Also, you're the creator of this article. Wouldn't you include the best sourcing from the article's creation? How do you not know if there's more significant media coverage if you've done the research and determined the subject is notable enough to have a WP page? --Kbabej (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is basically a promotional CV. As stated above, the sources don't meet the RS requirements. Here goes my assessment, though please forgive not using an assessment table:

1. The Forbes article is by a contributor and thus fails WP:FORBESCON on WP:RSP.

2. The Entrepreneur article is an op-ed piece.

3. The Homesnap is a company listing of his daughter and does not mention the subject. [Since removed.]

4. The Mint piece mentions the subject twice with his quotes; there is no independent analysis of the subject. There is also no author byline; it's written by "HT Brand Studio", which I'm assuming is some sort of promotional tool.

5. The Chartable piece is an interview.

6. The TuneIn source is another interview on a podcast.

7. The JP source is about his company, not him. It mentions his name once. The company has already been determined to be not notable.

8. The Architecture Art Designs article has no byline and mentions the subject's name once. The company has already been determined to be not notable.

10. The Lianna Marketing page doesn't even mention the subject, and even if it did, it would be his own website. [Since removed.]

Overall, these sources are terrible and I could not find one that fit our RS requirements. The subject is clearly not notable and this article is only here for promo purposes. --Kbabej (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Kbabej's source analysis above, I see very little notability if any. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kbabej. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability as per Kbabej's assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SASid- insurance development[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation PepperBeast (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional piece, they were in the top 1500 out of 5000 fastest growing companies almost 15 yrs ago! Zero sources used and I couldn't find much coverage now, other than just confirming they exist. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like an ad. The company definitely exists, but I'd hardly call it notable. It's quickly mentioned in the WSJ but that's about all I found after a quick search. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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