Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 07	March 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. There's no consensus to delete the content. A possible merger does not require an additional relist. Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulla cake

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

Dosen't comply with WP:GNG, as there aren't any reliable "'published"' sources to support the object (possible sources are mostly blogs). And according to WP:NOTE and WP:V, "if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" (from WP:NOTE). I came to conclude that this article should be deleted as it dosen't comply with the guidlines. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible sources include the government of Jamaica, as this is a staple item of the NPL menu in schools, at least according to an UNFAO report on school feeding programmes in Jamaica (ISBN 9789251343975 page 94) that came up when I looked for this. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to List of Jamaican dishes. While acknowledging the difficulty in sourcing this article, I do think that food articles in general are vulnerable to systemic bias in terms of source availability, and it's always been of some surprise to me that an WP:SNG has not developed for food articles. The most convincing news article about bulla cakes would probably be this article from the Jamaica Gleaner about its removal from school lunches. Its presence in the Afro-Caribbean diet is corroborated in the Multicultural Handbook of Food, Nutrition, and Dietetics. Besides these references, a Google Books search indicates that bulla cakes are mentioned frequently in Jamaican cookbooks and in Jamaican literature as a quintessential part of Jamaican life, which leads me to believe that bulla cakes might be a victim of obscurity through ubiquity. This doesn't necessarily satisfy GNG per se, but it does indicate that the encyclopedia is not impoverished in having information about bulla cakes, whether in stand alone form or merged into the main List of Jamaican dishes. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to List of Jamaican dishes. The sources presented by Uncle G and Bibliomaniac15 seem to indicate a documented cultural resonance. Merge before delete, please. BusterD (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So... are we keeping or merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really think this is a case of WP:BEFORE. There is a full article on the subject of how to make Bulla cookies in the Wall Street Journal, of all places: ^[1]. As User:Bibliomaniac15 points out, The Gleaner, Jamaica's newspaper of record, has an article ^[2] deploring that "Bullas [are] to be removed from schools", and another one here ^[3]. A quick glance at google news has plenty of other articles from WP:RS where Bulla cakes are not the main subject, but a significant part of, or mentioned in, the article:^[4],^[5]^[6]. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan—Rwanda relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations, no agreements, no embassies, and trade is very tiny at USD601. There has been routine visits by ambassadors but no state visits. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:56, 10 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 23:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Cowick

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

Non-notable actress. Per IMDB, had a single uncredited role in 1939. Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of the three sources are non-existent WWW pages with gibberish URLs. And the third is IMDB. I can source a single cast list mention to some books on movies, and nothing more, not even confirmation of the IMDB biography. Uncle G (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence they meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two sources other than IMBd look to be census records. Even if they do list her profession as actress, they are not at all the type of records that show notbility. The census actually tries to include an entry on every single person. IMDb isn't a credible source and one uncredited role does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shipyard Sally appears to be her only role (at least in the 1930s) per The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States: Feature Films 1931-1940. I found no record of her at BFI. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried LA Times and Variety, which were my guesses for an obit, but she's not mentioned there at all. Lamona (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability and fails GNG policy. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (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 keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Jenkin

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

Non-notable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Nb, the one text (Conversations with Dorothy Jenkin) that would appear to provide significant coverage is self-published and written for/with/by Jenkin’s daughter as a memorial piece and therefore not independent. — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and New Zealand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources look good for establishing notability: [1][2]. I can't access either as my local library is shut due to covid, but I'll see what I can do. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced plus the inclusion of work in a major museum. User:Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets requirements of significant coverage when including references mentioned above. Another major article in a reliable source : [3] -- haminoon (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a person notable in the histories of Invercargill and Stewart Island, evidenced by the museum holdings and SIRCET newsletter; and in the botanical illustration community, evidenced by the New Zealand Native Orchid Group Journal article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets both WP:CREATIVE and the WP:GNG. Absolutely no WP:BLP concern. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, and is certainly a notable Southland artist. Grutness...wha? 13:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to be notable and sources used are reliable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:02, 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. Nomination withdrawn by proposer. Nthep (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkby train crash

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

One person suffered minor injuries when a train ran the buffers at the end of a platform. This sort of thing happens a lot, so it is hardly a noteworthy incident. Now it is clear, following conclusion of the prosecution, that it wasn't even serious enough for the driver to be jailed, it underlines the non-notability and this simply falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Suggest it should be deleted, but merge some of the content into Merseyrail and/or Kirkby railway station. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This "sort of thing" certainly does not happen a lot, at least in the UK, and easily meets WP:GNG. The level of punishment handed out is not an indication of the level of notability. — Voice of Clam 22:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say it is notable enough to keep, although I think expansion of the page would be a good idea. — Thebrakeman2 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident with widespread coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. NemesisAT (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I held off creating this one shortly after it happened. Forum chat was that there were unusual circumstances, which were later rumoured to be that the driver was using a mobile phone whilst driving. Per WP:BLP, I kept this allegation off Wikipedia when discussing at WP level until it had been reported by reliable sources.

Prosecutions of railway staff following railway accidents in the UK are extremely rare. There's Quintinshill, Wootton Bassett, and this one. There was also a prosecution after Great Heck, but not of railway personnel. It was the prosecution which shoved this one well above the notability threshold, and the reason the article should be kept. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT it is clear already that there is already strong consensus to keep the article, so I am more than happy for this AfD to be closed. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:45, 9 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!} 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot News 18

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

~~Non a notable company. Fails to have WP:RS sources. Juggyevil (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)~~ (sock strike — DaxServer (t · c) 11:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep I have done much research and published it on Wikipedia as a Wikipedia contributor. And during my research, I have found that this website is popular in India, and they also have readers around the world. They have also been featured on many websites. I have only mentioned a few in the sources. As per Wikipedia guidelines, this article satisfies all the requirements on Wikipedia.--998ashish (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (sock (see SUL) strike — DaxServer (t · c) 08:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I disagree with Juggyevil (talk), it's a notable company, and they have been mentioned by other renowned news and media companies. Such as ZEE5, Latestly and My Nation. They have a WP:RS reliable and trusted source. Recheck their sources, and very it all the sources are very popular. So I request Wikipedia to keep this article on their platform. And protect this page from getting edited or modified to safeguard the article because the uncreassy changes are done on this article, which affects the article's trustworthiness on Wikipedia. --Sunilyadav457 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer (t · c) 09:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Noting that 99ashish is locked, and Sunilyadav457 has no edits outside this topic. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:48, 3 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!} 22:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After searching Spot News 18 on google. I find many trusted companies that refer to them, such as ZEE5, Latestly, My Nation, and much more. So they satisfy all the need to be on Wikipedia. They have been a feature in Notable Sources WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP, so I will recommend keeping this article on Wikipedia. --720vikas (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer (t · c) 09:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Vermont Sir, Another one 720vikas has no edits outside this topic.😁 Cinzia007 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can’t see my vote. Someone removed it? Is it allowed to remove vote of other people? -_- Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not realising WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (restoring user's !vote removed(?) by 720vikas here — DaxServer (t · c) 15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Really Sorry Laptopinmyhands (talk) I by mistake deleted your comment. Thanks to DaxServer (t · c) for Restoring your Comment. --720vikas (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer (t · c) 09:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, per arguments above. In addition to GNG and most passages being unsourced, two of the sources appear independent but contain the exact same text. Questioning their validity as independent. YuriNikolai (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage. The MyNation article is "featured content" (read: paid promotion), and the other two are likely the same.-KH-1 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are notable, and they have been referred from notable sources. All conditions of Wikipedia criteria are met. --43.231.213.170 (talk) 13:35, 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. This is a BLP for whom no independent, reliable source coverage apart from the cockfighting, her family has been identified, and as such we cannot keep it. There is "sourcing" but not of the BLP complaint variety to address BLP1E issues. Given sourcing concerns, I am deleting but have no objection should someone create a redirect to either of the options Star Mississippi 02:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Irina of Romania

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

No notability except for being her father's daughter, and a possible claimant to the currently non-existing throne of Romania. Most sources currently in the article are self-published by the subject's family. Third-party sources only refer to her among her father's daughters. The only other independent sources mentioning her are related to a petty crime she committed, which does not warrant a separate article per WP:CRIMINAL. Desired outcome is merging salvageable info into Michael I of Romania#Family or Romanian royal family#Descendants of King Michael. Anonimu (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regarding the claims that there are many independent sources regarding the subject of article, if you believe this to be the case, please indicate at least a few of them and indicate how exactly they "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material".Anonimu (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Switzerland, and Oregon. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The children of a monarch are notable. And easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the policy that says so? And no, it doesn't meet GNG, as most sources are NOT "Independent of the subject" and the independent ones do NOT have "Significant coverage".Anonimu (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE, an elaboration of WP:IAR, which is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of descendants of royals out there, should we have an article for each of them, against WP:GNG?Anonimu (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did "children" suddenly morph into "descendants"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are children of non-reigning monarchs different from "descendants"? Could you point to the policy that says we should apply WP:IAR only to children of non-reigning monarchs, but not to other descendants? Anonimu (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children are descendants, of course, but descendants covers far more people than children does. Most people are probably descended from a monarch somewhere along the way. You comment was There are tons of descendants of royals out there, should we have an article for each of them... No, we shouldn't and I didn't say we should. We don't need a policy about a policy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - like most Wikipedia articles not the most famous or well known person in the world but enough coverage from life events including her crime to meet WP:Notability, even Bunte in Germany reported about her regaining her title Princess of Romania. - dwc lr (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do read WP:CRIMINAL. Also, the Bunte is exactly what policy warns about: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention".Anonimu (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more than enough sources to prove that she is notable. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some examples of such sources?Anonimu (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than just WP:CRIMINAL going on here. She's the daughter of a monarch, she lost her titles, she regained her titles, and has lots of coverage in RS. --Kbabej (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide example of non-trivial coverage in RS? I mean something more than her being the daughter of her father, being involved in a crime and family drama? Anonimu (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonimu: A friendly reminder to not WP:BLUDGEON the process. It is not expected that you reply to every !vote in this discussion. Also, what you consider "family drama" has been reported in RS, as shown in the article linked above about getting her titles back (and also when she was stripped of them). --Kbabej (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the main argument seems to be that there is in-depth coverage about here in RS, I will keep replying to such arguments until actual proof is provided.Anonimu (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonimu: Certainly you did a WP:BEFORE on this before nominating? There's her arrest as reported by the BBC here; there's not attending her mother's funeral here; there's her regaining her titles in Bunte here; the coverage continues. As a member of a royal family, she is high profile individual and gets coverage as such. --Kbabej (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we discard WP:CRIMINAL then? BTW, Bunte is a gossip magazine, not a WP:RS.Anonimu (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is People, and it's on our list of good sources per WP:RSP. Can you show where Bunte isn't considered a RS? --Kbabej (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think Bbabej has made the case. The illegal cock-fighting incident was covered in significant detail by the BBC and the Oregonian. Ficaia (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MONARCH. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: The only sentence of WP:MONARCH relevant to this article is "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone." --JBL (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @JayBeeEll: Check it again WP:MONARCH, — But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline.. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @VocalIndia: Yes, exactly: such people must "establish their notability according to the general notability guideline", i.e., no special considerations apply to them. --JBL (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion, and my own standards. ("Spouses and minor children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.") Her charity work, her own jobs, and the cockfighting scandal make her notable. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are basically two questions that need to be asked. Is there coverage in third-party sources? Yes; whether it be because of her position or her criminal activity. Does she have the same level of notability as her sisters? Yes. Usually we establish notability on a case-by-case basis, but with royalty their whole claim to notability is based on their ancestry and relations. That is why it’s absurd to claim that she’s not notable but her sisters are. Keivan.f^Talk 16:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody claimed that. As a matter of fact, once this is done I am going to follow with AfD on each of her sisters, except Margareta, as none have notability on their own.Anonimu (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you’ll most likely be wasting a lot of editors time. There’s not a single delete !vote on here, and her sisters are even more involved in royal affairs and patronages. —Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Pretenders to thrones and their families are an interesting subject. BTW she is in the line of succession to the British throne, but too remote to be notable as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment, may you be so kind to also comment on the article's merit in relation to Wikipedia's notability guidelines?Anonimu (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a real shame that the !votes above are so incredibly poor quality, and I hope that the closer takes note of the complete lack of a compelling policy rationale in them. I have just taken a quick look at the article and its sources. After removing a section sourced only to obviously non-RS pages (some random self-published monarchy fan-site), there are 9 footnotes that point to English-language sources. Of these
1 is a dead-link to people.com, whose title suggests it is only incidentally about Irina, and

the remaining 8 all concern the cock-fighting story.
So as far as the English-language sources go, this could not be a more clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. I do not have time right now to attempt to assess the Romanian-language sources, but if this has not been closed (and really, despite the lop-sided vote, it should be relisted, given that none of the Keep !voters have articulated anything that resembles a defense of notability based on community norms) I hope to return tomorrow to thoroughly dissect them. --JBL (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- People only has this to say "Irina, 36, who raises horses with her husband, John Krueger, in Oregon, just returned from a two-week visit with her parents." That's all.
Romanian sources are mostly self-published by Irina's family ("Royal family of Romania"), with two exceptions:
-Adevarul - This is the most detailed independent source regarding Irina. Note however that the article, published in August 2013, includes a word-by-word translation of the Marriage section of the Wikipedia article as of July 2013. The rest is about her criminal venture and her visiting her parents.

-Romania Libera is exclusively about the criminal proceedings, and has only this info unrelated to the crime: "Principesa Irina, în vârstă de 60 de ani, s-a născut şi a crescut în Elveţia şi s-a mutat în Oregon în 1983." ("Princess Irina is 60 years old, was born and raised in Switzerland and moved to Oregon in 1983").

Anonimu (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the response so far has been overwhelmingly "Keep", an opposing editor asked for a relisting and for those advocate Keep to comment on the quality of the sources, specifically, both those in English and those that are not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New to this AfD. Clear notability as evidence by extensive coverage. Also, WP:SNOWBALL. Atchom (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive coverage must be proven. As it stands know, we have coverage mostly limited to her criminal convictions. Please indicate the sources where we can find such extensive coverage.Anonimu (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete We have a strong precedent of deleting these royals-in-pretence, especially the more collateral they are. The legal issues are sourced from relatively local media, and I'm inclined to draw the curtain of WP:BLP over them. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks Liz for allowing more time to do a proper source analysis. I'm going to refer to the sources in this (perma-link) version of the article, before I removed some content, to be maximally inclusive. Here is a detailed analysis:

Detailed analysis collapsed for readability

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Footnotes 1, 2, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 all concern the cockfighting charges
Footnotes 3, 23, 24, and 25 are to casamajestatiisale.ro/, a website that is apparently controlled by the subject or her family
Footnote 4 is about her father; I confirm Anonimu's statement that there is exactly one sentence of the article about Irina.
Footnotes 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to romaniaregala.ro, a website that is apparently controlled by the subject or her family
Footnote 15 is "Queen Victoria's Descendants (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1987), page 190", used to source the parentage of her husband; I think we can be confident that it doesn't have anything substantive to say about Irina without needing to drag a copy out of the library.
Footnote 16 is a ridiculous self-published hobbyist page of royal genealogies, which is not RS and has nothing substantive about Irinia
And footnote 8 is titled "Who is Princess Irina, arrested in the USA for organizing illegal cockfights?", and whatever substantive things it has to say about her are plagiarized from Wikipedia.

In summary, the article is a gross violation of WP:BLP1E: aside from the cockfighting, it includes a total of 0 sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and substantive. Meanwhile, the arguments offered by the Keep !voters consist entirely of unsupported assertions, not in keeping with any established Wikipedia consensus, guideline, or policy -- a trout to all of them (except Bearian, who is at least honest about it). Deleting this article will make Wikipedia better. Incidentally, if this article is kept (which it absolutely should not be), it must be retitled: the only RS sources are the news articles about the cockfight, which call her "Irina Walker", and per WP:NCROY we should "not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use." --JBL (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. In this case, there are multiple articles from reputable news sources that go into quite decent detail about the cock-fighting affair (1), (2), (3), (4), etc., which combined with her status as the daughter of a former monarch make her notable as a quirky "royal crim" whose unusual crime received coverage by the BBC, HuffPost, Bunte, and the Oregonian (plus Romanian sources). Ficaia (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is utterly standard crime coverage: anyone accused of a moderately unusual crime will have a few small waves of coverage, at arrest, trial, and conviction. That's still one event (the crime & trial; in Irina's case, it includes the incredibly silly spectacle of her sister removing her from a non-existent line of succession), and that's all we're seeing here. To make the case for a non-BLP1E, you seed a piece of significant coverage that is not primarily about the cock-fight and its immediate aftermath. (It would also be nice if people who edited "monarchy" articles cared at all about the quality of sourcing -- I haven't gotten into it too much because it's not the reason this article should be deleted, but people leaning in heavily on gossip magazines and HuffPo should really be re-evaluating their life choices.) --JBL (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think it's really telling that (as you point out) the sources go into much more detail about the crime itself ("the cock-fighting affair") than they do about Irina herself -- that's because she is not independently notable of this story. --JBL (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People can become notable for committing a rare or unusual crime in combination with an unusual background. In this case, both the crime and criminal were unusual enough for the media to consider her notable and produce quite a lot of coverage. Therefore, the subject does not meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. Ficaia (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a rare or unusual crime, it's bog-standard. Rare or unusual crimes get more than utterly routine crime coverage, which is what this is. There are 0 in-depth sources about her in the entire pile. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source in particular tips this over the line for me. It's not a passing reference; it's multiple paragraphs in a British article about a foreign event. There is definitely not "relatively local media" as one editor above argues. Ficaia (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nominator is wrong in that the original story from the Oregonian also got re-published by a few other news sources, not all of which were local -- but it's not separate reporting about her, it's a piece about the same crime. This is extremely common with crime stories that have a mildly salacious aspect -- and it does not do anything to move it past BLP1E. --JBL (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She easily meets WP:GNG. Don't forget about Romanian newspapers. GorgonaJS (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked Romanian newspapers, still couldn't find anything to support her notability per GNG.Anonimu (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi GorgonaJS. This is a bare assertion; you might as well have written "She easily can fly to the moon" as far as providing an argument is concerned. Please see Ficaia's comments to see what form an argument "She meets GNG" should have, namely, you should point out which criteria of GNG are met by which sources. (Of course Ficaia is wrong about their assertions, but I point you to them because they are the only Keep so far who has attempted an argument that this person / article meets a community standard for notability, rather than make an unsupported assertion of it.) --JBL (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  DWC LR and Kbabej both make sound arguments too, as I hope the closer will recognise. Ficaia (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  DWC LR's argument is literally "look some non-RS gossip rag wrote a piece about her", it doesn't come close to addressing any of the points of GNG (and it certainly doesn't rebut the BLP1E problem). --JBL (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from the BBC, HuffPost and others mean the subject doesn't meet the third condition for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. The subject has to meet all three conditions to be excluded. Ficaia (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely common for an article of a mildly salacious crime to be reprinted in several different outlets (for example because of syndication through AP); that is not what a "significant event" is for the purpose of BLP1E. --JBL (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill crime incident without much WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The rest of the sourcing is substandard, Wikipedia mirrors, or not independent. The event isn't notable, and neither is the BLP1E by extension. Avilich (talk) 16:30, 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 Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's eight. Unlikely another relist is going to generate consensus that differs given outcome of similar discussions. Consensus, slim as it is, is unanimous. Star Mississippi 02:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guus van Ditzhuyzen

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

We do not have any significant coverage of Ditzhuyzen, only mention on one sports statistics website. As a non-medalist in the Olympics he does not meet our notability guideline. I search on newspapers.com and found absolutely nothing. Also google news and google books indicated no sources at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of nothing being found on this guy, then redirect to Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's eight per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure why not finding anything on newspapers.com would be particularly relevant here. The subject was a Dutch Olympian, and newspapers.com does not seem to have coverage of Dutch newspapers (I checked on a very notable Dutch sportsman, Marco van Basten, and newspapers.com turned up nothing on him from the Netherlands). I would note that this person does have a page on the Dutch Wikipedia and there is one book listed as a source for him, but I don't know how deep the coverage is in that book because the book does not seem to be on Google Books. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search on delpher.nl, the search engine for 20th century dutch newspapers, journals, magazines and books. There are a few mentions of mr. van Ditzhuyzen, or van Ditzhuijzen (y and ij are interchangeable in dutch). His name is mentioned in rowing competitions around 1928. Still, coverage is not really significant. I agree with Lugnut´s recommendation to redirect. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:15, 2 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!} 22:10, 8 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, no valid deletion rationale given, nominator blocked indefinitely for advertising. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Paintings

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

I would like to request a deletion of this artist page. I am the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and the artical/page to be deleted. Many of the items included have been fabricated with an excessive amount of contributors and edits. Thanks Trash McSweeney. Theredpaintings (talk) 21:36, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep According to AllMusic bio (currently at ref [4]) they have issued albums, they toured Australia, United States and Europe. With other reliable sources, the article clearly demonstrates the band's notability per WP:NBAND notwithstanding its need for better editing for improvement.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteThe act has has some touring but much of the information is incorrect. It is misleading information to general public, industry and is also hurting the bands profile and business. Theredpaintings (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Theredpaintings (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. - This is a duplicate vote by the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are procedures for dealing with an article about yourself, which typically involve a request to administrators; see WP:BIOSELF and WP:AUTOPROB. As for Red Paintings, the band got media coverage that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability, so their article is useful for readers. If it contains inaccuracies they can be cleaned up without deleting the article. It definitely needs to be pared down to remove non-notable trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment - The band also has (by my count) seven album articles in Wikipedia, so if the band's article is deleted then we will have to take care of the albums too. Articles: Angel Flummox, Cinema Love, The Virgin Mary Australian Tour Acoustic/Strings Album, Walls (EP), Destroy the Robots, Feed the Wolf, The Revolution Is Never Coming. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but clean up) - After investigating their history to inform my two comments above, I can conclude that the band has a healthy amount of media coverage while on tour and some reliable reviews of some of their albums. The article should be pared down to remove a lot of insignificant trivia, and some of their album articles could probably be redirected to the band article. If the nominator is concerned about inaccurate or private info in the article, that can be removed rather easily. Having the article is useful for WP readers as long as it is cleaned up, and I hereby volunteer to do it myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5. ✗plicit 23:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zenepe Pirani

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

Fails WP:GNG, also made by a banned sock. LockzZ (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:LONGEVITY. Being the oldest person in a particular country or region at any one point of time does not necessarily merit an individual article for the subject. The fact that this article was made by a banned sock surely means it should be auto deleted without the need for a discussion surely? @Bbb23:? --Jkaharper (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albania, and Montenegro. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 8 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 02:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Huntington's Disease Network

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

In every version since 2011, this has been sourced in the main to the organization's own WWW site, and peripherally to articles, some by Landwehrmeyer, that are about Huntingdon's disease itself and study results. Looking around, I cannot actually find anything that isn't press releases, the organization's own WWW site, regurgitations of the organization's own WWW site (helpfully marked as from the organization's own WWW site), interviews with Landwehrmeyer, or Landwehrmeyer writing about this. The world just hasn't independently documented this.

The fact that there's just been an edit war over how the article isn't true because it no longer matches the organization's own WWW site is just the icing on the cake when it comes to indications that no-one has documented this but the organization itself and its founder. If the sole source of truth is autobiographical, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe my uncle is correct. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary coverage. Search shows passing mentions as participant in research projects, but that’s it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:35, 8 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 02:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Riders

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

PROD removed. Absolutely non-notable team, not even backed up by sources. Fails WP:NCRIC, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just by existing, sports teams are not notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qatar T10 League. They play in a minor league, and are not a team notable enough for their own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to delete as per below comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed. I can see the rationale of redir to the League article, but while that may make sense for anyone looking for this team, it could be a tad confusing for anyone who is after eg. the 1923 film Desert Rider. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought of that, I agree and have changed my vote. Very few people in comparison would be looking for the Qatari team. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable cricket team who play in a non-notable competition and don't pass GNG. While there is a suitable WP:ATD, I agree with DoubleGrazing here, that it's would be confusing, and so shouldn't be used. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCRIC, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:36, 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narda E. Alcorn

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

per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have asked numerous times to have this page removed. The person in question, Narda E. Alcorn, my wife of 21 years, has asked for my help in removing the page. Here is a link to the text: https://www.flickr.com/gp/shelli/in6eYp

I have deleted it twice, but people unbeknownst to Narda or me keep putting it back up. It's really none of their business, and if the person wants it removed, it should be removed.

Thank you, Shelli

Delete: The current issue with this page is that the subject has sought help to delete the page because of harrassment and attendant safety concerns. It seems a reasonable candidate for Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects. The previous AfD (over a year ago) was for concerns of non-notability and was closed as no consensus. _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Theatre. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out at the end of the previous AFD discussion that the major source of information in the article was a regurgitated press release, which indeed appears to be the case. That's a pretty poor source for anything, biography or otherwise. But it seems to be the only thing available. There are quotations by this person. There are also mentions in credits, and in other press releases or photograph captions. But there's nothing that I personally would hang a biography from. Criteria that are not dependent from provenances and depths of sources for writing an article, that yet manage to qualify this for an article, are clearly faulty; because they've clearly led into the land of uncritically using press releases to make an article that otherwise could not have been made at all. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G's well reasoned explanation, and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not found sufficient support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and agree about the warmed-up press release. There is also an award bio that appears to be self-written. I think a good example of how sources do not support WP:CREATIVE is this 2021 Playbill roundup of reviews for a production she stage-managed. We're not provided a basis to assert she created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work when her role is not described as such or even mentioned in the reviews. It also appears to be WP:TOOSOON for her to be regarded as an important figure or [...] widely cited by peers or successors or known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, UncleG and ScottishFinnishRadish: WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Cabrils (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt?) per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline/poor sourcing, and the subject's request should make this an easy decision. I'd argue borderline on a BLP should be a no consensus delete even, but that's not for this discussion. Star Mississippi 17:50, 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 Draftify. Star Mississippi 02:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Divyang T10

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

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:NCRIC via WP:OFFCRIC. References are just WP:ROUTINE at best and WP:PROMOTION at worst. Fails wider WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. StickyWicket (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This was quite clearly a premature move from draftspace by obviously inexperienced editor(s). My Google search shows that it has potential to become a viable article. As a disability sport it should not be judged strictly according to NCRIC/OFCRIC standards which realistically only First Class or equivalent cricket can meet. Besides referencing the language also needs extensive improvement. I'd also strongly recommend that any future return to mainspace must be via the AFC system. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree with Dodger67 here, there may well be enough for an article here, especially on a disability related topic, but the article is a mess and needs and extensive cleanup before it's suitable for mainspace. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:01, 9 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 02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neiwei railway station

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

Does not have significant coverage; per WP:STATION#Stations, should not have a standalone article. Redirect to Western Trunk line. Ajshul ^<talk> 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajshul ^<talk> 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally, all operating stations are kept. See:

I think deleting this article would make Wikipedia worse as it would break the sequence in the "adjacent stations" template making navigation more confusing, and would also mean we lose the location data so the station would no longer appear in the "nearby articles" feature on mobile. NemesisAT (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant coverage:

編輯室, 蔣育荏、TRAVELER Luxe旅人誌 (2019-11-19). 台灣鐵道戳章集旅：蒐集車站紀念章，聆聽在地的故事。 (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 墨刻. ISBN 978-986-289-494-1. - Contains basic information & history regarding the station
"鐵路地下化後內惟站攀2字頭". tw.news.yahoo.com (in Chinese). Retrieved 2022-03-08. - Details the impact the station had on the community

I also agree with what Nemesis said, WP:RAILOUTCOMES notes that heavy-rail stations usually get kept here, and I would expect something with more thought put into it than just Does not have significant coverage for a station AfD. This is also the main railway line in Taiwan, it would be unthinkable to attempt to AfD a railway station article on the East Coast Main Line for example. Jumpytoo Talk 21:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) edited 00:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Western Trunk line, fails GNG. For all the editors who religiously point to RAILOUTCOMES every time a train station microstub is nominated for deletion, please remember that RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy, while GNG very much is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does deleting a railway station article improve Wikipedia? Letting railway stations pass if there is verifiable information on them is an easy rule that avoid continued discussion over whether the tens of thousands of station articles we have are notable, and provides consistency across the project. NemesisAT (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It improves Wikipedia by removing crap like this article from mainspace. From NSTATION: "If enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, then it may be appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." Even you have to admit the article at present is not even close to comprehensive. Therefore at this time it does not merit a separate article. You know what provides consistency across the project? Enforcing GNG, and not massively bending the rules for things like train stations for no good reason. How about you try citing a policy for once, instead of providing reflexive excuses to retain things clearly unfit for mainspace? As I said before, RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy or even a guideline. From the editnotice at the top of this page: "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". If you wish to persuade people, try expanding the article so that it meets GNG and NSTATION. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As useful as it is, GNG is anything but consistent as it depends on the interpretations of reliable, independant, and significant coverage. I am not providing excuses, I have explained why I think keeping all railway station articles improves Wikipedia. Per WP:IAR, this is valid.

That being said, the station does pass GNG with the Yahoo News article and the 臺灣公論報 article. NemesisAT (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further coverage:
- "台鐵新站采風（上）－內惟車站、美術館車站、鼓山車站、三塊厝" (in Chinese). 臺灣公論報. 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2022-03-08.
- "內惟車站" (in Chinese). 2018-10-23. Retrieved 2022-03-08. (appears to be a blog, but has some fab photos and demonstrates how stations aren't all the same, this one contains some nice looking mosaics)

NemesisAT (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consensus has long been that all railway stations are notable and WP:CONSENSUS most certainly is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The station is part of Western Trunk line, which is the main railway line of Taiwan, thus follows WP:RAILOUTCOMES. It is written inside these multiple (more than 1) secondary sources [4][5], thus follows WP:GNG. It has its own Wikidata page, Commons category page and it is written in other 3 Wikipedia languages. Chongkian (talk) 04:12, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nominated for speedy deletion while I was writing this. bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edsong

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

No claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC and no sources to show general notability. A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing independent.

This was created by an editor who has been blocked for UPE, and was draftified but moved back to mainspace without any changes, by an editor who made 10 minor edits and waited 4 days. The musician could still be notable, but since there is no sign of that, this is pretty much just a promotional effort. bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 8 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. No valid rationale for deletion given. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tonse

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

In fact a hidden removal of an article. That article was bad, that is true, but to my opinion the arguments given make no sense. (Discussion before restoring after an undiscussed removal, unsourced while sources are there, creating link to disambiguation pages while refusing to fix them etc.) The Banner talk 17:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Disambiguations, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination resulting from an edit war. Deletion is not the answer to a content dispute. SpinningSpark 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Secretly removing an article and edit warring over it is right the answer? The Banner talk 19:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one's edit warring or doing anything secretly. I clearly advised on the talk page that I would be reverting to the version that complied with WP:V, waited over 12 hours without a reply in a discussion that had previously been quite active, and then reverted. Then your response is to make this absurd AfD to... delete... the article? For some reason? I don't understand your logic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to this undiscussed edit. The Banner talk 19:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - A WP:BOLD edit on an article whose content I was not able to verify, with explanation given in the edit summary, is hardly secret. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article has been blanked and someone objects, then AFD is one of the two possible ways forward (WP:ATD-R). – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, valid dab, no reason for deletion. MB 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a DAB page. As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, if the nominator had provided reliable sources to back up any of the content in the article, I would have thanked them for it and gone away. Instead they spent all of yesterday casting aspersions at me, dodging the idea of sourcing, and are now resorting to wasting the time of others with this absurd AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said on that talk page, you try to shift the blame to me. Not fix things. The Banner talk 23:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article, not dab. Guys, nobody is arguing for deletion, so "speedy keep" makes no sense. The page obviously doesn't work as a dab because "T(h)onse" isn't an ambiguous term. Tonse East and Tonse West aren't two unrelated places that just happen – by a miraculous coincidence – to be named as though they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing. As far as I'm able to tell from looking at a map and a random set of google hits, Tonse is a single, sprawling, settlement that for administrative purposes is divided into two (and possibly more) units. The article on that settlement was turned into a disambiguation page with the rationale, expressed on the talk page, that Thonse doesn't exist as a legal entity. I don't think that makes sense: London, for example, didn't have legal existence between 1986 and 2000, but if Wikipedia was around at the time I doubt anyone would have argued for London to be a disambiguation page simply listing the boroughs. Wikipedia's coverage of populated places shouldn't be organised around an enumeration of census tracts or municipal bodies, but on geographically and culturally meaningful entities, like villages and towns (it doesn't hurt to have coverage of census tracts, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of coverage of actual towns). If there's any change to be made, then that would be for the two Tonse stubs (and probably others, like Kemmannu and Hoode Beach) to be merged into Tonse. – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any actual reliable substantive references to back up these assertions, or are you just making assumptions based on what you saw on Google Maps? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for a reliable and substantive reference for the assertion that Tonse East is the eastern bit of Tonse? – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yes! If it's not a legal entity, it doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND automatically, so there needs to be some manner of sourcing in order to demonstrate that it meets the second bullet point of GEOLAND regarding populated places without legal recognition. Otherwise you're just looking at a map and making an assumption that might very well be incorrect. By analogy: the cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam have similar names, and if you looked at them on a map without knowing otherwise, you might think they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing, because they're smashed up against each other. Except they aren't, they're distinct cities that have never been the same city, and writing an article titled Greater Coquitlam that discussed both of them as a single entity would be incorrect. For all we know, given the complete absence of sourcing, the same goes for Tonse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I had looked at were these [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Are they great? No, but they demonstrate that a place with the name exists and has coverage online; I don't think you can expect better online English sources for a random village in India. Do these pages say that Tonse is made up of Tonse East and Tonse West? No, but they have little reason to go into details about the structure of local government; relevant here is this community Facebook page: obviously that wouldn't qualify as an acceptable source, but the fact that what is says in the "About" section matches the description in the Wikipedia article is an indication that this description isn't seen as complete nonsense by the locals. – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just close this misplaced discussion. What should happen is that the article is left alone and protected if necessary (it doesn't matter if it is the wrong version because there's no reason for the next step to last more than a few days) and the talk page discussion continues calmly and without accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 9 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica F.C.

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

This is confusing. I found reference to the team on Soccerway, but with only two seasons of results, despite a claimed 1961 founding. They're not on Premier League site and I am unable to verify continued existence or that they were notable, or even that they were relegated. Without the latter, can't even ID a merger target. Star Mississippi 17:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:23, 10 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 02:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skoarding

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

Unreferenced since 2013. No reliable hits located on a search. Sounds like something some guy made up one day to me. Ineligible for PROD, proposed deletion in 2013 with similar rationale was contested by creator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The creator's account name is Simonpwilkinson (talk · contribs), another contributor's account name is Leonbaker13 (talk · contribs) and the article tells us that "Simon Wilkinson and Leon Baker" invented this. I don't need to go any further, for once. Wikipedia is not for things made up on the piste one day. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G's rationale and nomination. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:40, 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. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kambriel

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

Non-notable fashion deisgner, barely any RS, fails GNG. Winner of Gothic Beauty's 2005 Fashion Designer of the Year award is also not a notable award. Chrisalder (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marketing page. Not meeting WP:GNG. Is there any special criteria for designers? If no, WP:GNG it is and it is not being realized here. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacking indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:42, 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. Star Mississippi 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Château Ka

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

Non-notable company, barely any RS, fails GNG Chrisalder (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Lebanon, France, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Leaving aside routine listings replaying a line promoting the company's"extraordinary story of determination and resolve", although the company's products are listed in some wine reference books, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 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. Star Mississippi 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovar Party

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

I am unable to find any source for the existence of this party or its leader Aden Rugova. This article was added in 2008, so the "last election" should mean the 2007 Kosovan parliamentary election or 2004 Kosovan parliamentary election but there is no information about this party which is supposed to have "won 10% of votes". I tried Albanian search terms such as "Partia e Kosovës, Aden Rugova" but couldn't find anything. HTinC23 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. HTinC23 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, too, can find no evidence the party exists, appears to be a hoax ... 13 years ... not quite a record, but in the top 15 it appears. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my search also shows nothing. Adem Rugova is a plausible Albanian name, but that only shows several random people on the internet; more likely, it originated as a hoax mix of Adem Demaci and Ibrahim Rugova. No such user (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious hoax. This is the second hoax I have seen and voted on this month. Also we need to preserve the hoax on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Felicia (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V unable to confirm that the party exists fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:45, 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. Star Mississippi 02:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp Man

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

Couldn't find any sources mentioning the show, not even on the SBS website. Hoax? Paradoctor (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article created by an WP:SPA with absolutely no sources or real information. Searching produces zero sources or evidence that this show ever existed. The original version of the article, as created by the WP:SPA, contained a link to a blog claiming to be the website of the show, which contains nothing but the words "Wasp Man" and two completely unrelated videos. This is very much looking to be a hoax that managed to survived for fifteen years. Rorshacma (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I come to the same conclusion as Rorshacma. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax. Unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:47, 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. There is absolutely no chance that this will be deleted at this time regardless of whether it should be per policy. Consensus is so strong that a no consensus would not fly, but this could probably be revisted in a timelime similar to that of a no consensus once the war is not a current event. Star Mississippi 02:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaly Gerasimov

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

Non-notable individual per WP:BIO1E. The only significant coverage this person receives is about his alleged death in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article makes no notable claims about this person, and no sources can be found prior to this week that confer notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's not notable just for being killed (although it certainly is a rare event for a general to be killed in action), so WP:BIO1E doesn't apply. He's notable for being a major-general and chief of staff of one of the armies involved in a major conflict. So it is not true to say that the article makes no notability claims either, since it lists his post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I must have missed the WP policy that says that all major generals and chiefs of staff are automatically notable, even if there are no reliable sources that cover them in any significant way (apart from their alleged death in an ongoing war). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm implies that you are making emotional decisions about this issue. 84.42.146.147 (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the !votes, and it seems like many are basing their keep arguments on criteria similar to those in the deprecated NSOLDIER (which supported many of the still-existing military biographies). Things like rank and awards and command positions were previously considered proxy indicators for notability, but are no longer per this Feb 2021 RfC. Schazjmd (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has been decorated with a high-level state medal (the Medal "For the Return of Crimea") and was a high-ranking officer. His post was equal to a brigadier general in the US (as seen here). As Necrothesp stated, the subject was also a "chief of staff of one of the armies involved in a major conflict". Plus, of course, he was killed in action. With all that taken into account, I don't see how WP:BIO1E could apply. --Kbabej (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
these are all assertions with no evidence 2607:FEA8:2CDC:DE00:10EF:1678:C8D7:B1B2 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is not notable just for his (presumed) death. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay this has to be a joke @ScottyWong:. A Wikipedia page of a key person of the Ukrainian war and a long-time associate in Russia's army has to be deleted? Plus translated and acclaimed by other editions of Wikipedia. Further strengthened by numerous News Sources from all over the world, confirmed publication or not. I suggest you to read first the Wiki page, and not just skimming certain words, before tagging to deletion. --Likhasik (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he's so notable, then why didn't he have an article prior to the reporting of his death? I know that's not a reason to delete an article, but it's a curious question, isn't it? If this guy was so obviously notable as you say, then surely he would've had an article already. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of subjects get posthumous attention and then articles are created to cover their entire lives. Bobbi Kristina Brown is a perfect example of that, and now it is a GA. Not saying that this will ever rise to the level of GA, but I'm not aware of any policy that states we cannot write an article on someone when their death brings attention to their lives. Kbabej (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that there is such a policy. However, if he was notable prior to his death, then please provide the sources that establish that notability per WP:GNG, because I have been able to find exactly zero. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scottywong Have you looked into Russian Wiki sources? There are some Military-state-run papers about him. Maybe check it out. But for real though, I hope this article won't be deleted. Info is info and somewhere out there someone will need it, even in the future. --Likhasik (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add some sources aggregated an collated from various Wikipedia versions
https://russiandefpolicy.com/2016/07/29/russia-day-promotion-list/ This is from 2016
https://informnapalm.org/en/commanders-of-15th-mrb-ready-to-carry-out-kremlin-s-criminal-orders/ This one is from 2017. This is used by French Wiki.
https://archive.fo/UfJ94 https://archive.fo/tStOn These ones are covered by the previous URL I've sent dating from 2014 or 2013.
You can lurk on the informnapalm site and see various Russian sources stating his life before the 2022 Invasion. He was also a veteran of Chechen war BTW with his first name mentioned in news sources way back 2013. ru:Герасимов, Виталий Петрович#Литература From 2013 and 2017. In the reference section, there are also mentions of his notability going back to 2019 albeit only Russian sources (Or Ukrainian too?) Likhasik (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Likhasik: Thanks, these are the closest things I've seen to sources for Gerasimov. But, I have to say, if these are the best sources that can be found, I don't find them particularly impressive. The sources that discuss him in the most depth are blogs. Others are press releases from the Russian Ministry of Defense, primary sources which can't be used to establish notability. In most of these articles, all we learn about Gerasimov is that he was born in 1977, grew up in Kazan, and attained various ranks in the military. There's very little of substance here. I still maintain that the only thing in his life that stirred up any real coverage in the media is his death. This doesn't mean that we can't mention him in Wikipedia, it just means that he doesn't necessarily need to have an entire article devoted to him. It's especially problematic because if we can't find sources about him, then there will be nothing to write about him except that he was born in 1977, grew up in Kazan, attained various military ranks, got some medals, and then died. That's not much of an article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded He is mentioned at Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Notable_deaths, which is enough if has done nothing else notable. Currently the rest of the article only lists stages in his career, but does not mention any significant contributions or achievements. Moreover, his is the fifth-highest rank, the least of the General/flag officers. PJTraill (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he is said to have commanded two brigades – does that make him notable? PJTraill (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this individual prior to their death, then yes. If not, then no. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a policy that shows a subject's death cannot be counted toward notability if covered in RS? Kbabej (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kbabej: Yes, WP:BIO1E. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing my point. I did not say his death was the only thing making the subject notable. The point I am making is that a subject's death can count towards notability. There's no policy stating it cannot. When his death is combined with his high rank, his state award, and being involved in a major conflict, GNG is easily met. Kbabej (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having a relatively high rank in the military is not automatically notable. Notability is tested by the GNG, which requires multiple, reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way. If the only sources that pass GNG are about a single event, then WP:BIO1E applies. If you can provide other sources that cover the subject in a significant way prior to his death, then he would be notable. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no argument that can be supported predicated on the claim that a notable person that has not yet had a page written is less eligible because of an additional notable event occurring. Western generals get articles created constantly, not only because of their stars (or equivalent), but also the positions to which they are elevated. Vitaly Gerasimov is/was the CoS of the 41st Combined Arms Army and a major general. His death should not be THE reason an article gets created, as such an article is expected on the person already.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he was notable prior to his death, then where are the multiple reliable sources that covered him significantly (as required by WP:GNG) prior to his death? If you can show them to me, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. I've looked but couldn't find any, but I know there could be Russian language sources that I've missed. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I, again, discount the argument that because an article for a notable bio does not yet exist precludes it from being built when yet another point of notability arises. As to the sources for numerous points of notability other than death have not yet been added: they have an infinitely-greater chance of being added when the existing article has not been deleted. Deleting the article will actively work to further the bio's supression, as a perception of on non-notability will have been (falsely) built. I applaud your arguments in the effort to keep this notable bio from remaining, but they still do not meet the expectations for deletion.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is only notable for dying. When people refer to his rank and being chief of staff as notability, this was not grounds for an article before; really people mean it is notable that someone of this high position was killed. How many CoS of Russian armies, or even Western armies, have articles? I would agree if a 1-star US/UK general were killed in Afghan or Iraq they'd likely have an article, but they'd also have substantial and sustained coverage in RSs for years after. A casualty of a war with thousands of Russian deaths is not likely to attract sustained or substantial coverage going forward in Western sources; it will certainly fail WP:10YT, in my opinion. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it has "coverage going forward in Western sources". Any language sources are acceptable on the English WP. How do we know the subject won't have sustained coverage, especially in Russian and Ukrainian sources? Kbabej (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provide the Russian and Ukrainian language sources if you have them. Otherwise, if the sources only cover his death, then his death can be mentioned in the dozens of other articles we have about the ongoing war. Without sources covering this individual outside of this one event, the only thing we can write about him is that he died. If he ends up having sustained coverage in the future, then we can revisit the decision, but until that happens it's WP:CRYSTAL. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the template for the Russian article onto the page. You can see the sources there for yourself. They include a listing of multiple state-level awards, including:
Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 4th degree with swords
Order of Courage
Order "For Military Merit"
Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", 2nd class
Medal "For military valor" 1st class
Medal "For Distinction in Military Service" 1st, 2nd and 3rd class
Medal "For the return of the Crimea"
Medal "Participant of the military operation in Syria"
Kbabej (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any indication of how rare these awards/elite/prestigious these awards are? Soldiering comes with awards. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're going about this backwards. At best, having awards and getting a high rank are all indications that a person is likely to be notable, because usually there are reliable sources that cover those things. However, it still has to be shown that there are sources to pass WP:GNG, and despite the cascade of Keep votes here, I still haven't seen a single one, both here and at the Russian Wikipedia page. The only sources with significant coverage discuss a single event, his recent death. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On this point, these awards are far from the highest tier awards/orders for soldiering in Russia. See Orders, decorations, and medals of Russia. The highest order he received, the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 4th degree, is the 9th highest order in the hierarchy ("with swords" may make it actually lower). The highest medal is the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 2nd class which is the third highest award. Soldiers get awards; listing them without context does not indicate notability. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Soldiers get awards", and notability guidelines are clear that getting senior awards creates a presumption of notability. You have done absolutely nothing to rebut that. Atchom (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question I asked is whether the awards listed are sufficiently senior awards and the point I made is that there is reason to suppose these are not particularly senior awards. With respect, you and others have not dealt with this point. Consider the US context: if someone gets a silver star, i.e. the third highest military award in the US and apparently equivalent to Gerasimov's highest medal, does that individual have an "presumption of notability" because they got a "senior award"? If it were combined with a few bronze stars, would they then be notable? Likely not, not even if they were a brigadier. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing decorations across different countries is an imperfect exercise; this has to be contextual. By way of international comparison, in the UK context, a CBE has been consistently held to be enough to presume notability for AfD purposes, and a CBE is only the third highest rank *of the Order of British Empire*, with dozens of decorations above it. Make it what you will. Atchom (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not intended to be the Western-world.Wikipedia; it is intended to be an encyclopedia about knowledge of the world that happens to be written in the English language. We are aware of our geographical bias, with no magic solution, and the need for WP:RS constrains us; however, being aware of the bias is the first step towards trying to correct it. Boud (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, reliable sources tend to be Western sources and I don't have any information about how non-Western sources will deal with this going forwards. Perhaps I could have phrased it better! The other distinction is that UK/US generals, or senior officers who died in Iraq/Afghan, were one-offs whereas two one-star generals have been killed in a matter of weeks because of the scale of the conflict. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a significant Russian military leader, just as in US Marine Corps and air force major-generals have their own list articles given that so many already have Wikipedia articles. His death is notable too – sourced to two independent sources (UA govt Bellingcat). Boud (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, major generals are two-star ranks. In Russia, it's a one-star rank. Is there a list of brigadiers on Wikipedia? Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant Russian Military General. He was awarded a medal for the return of Crimea. His death is not the only reason he is notable, but I do admit it does play a big part. There are also multiple Russian languages sources about him, as shown in his Russian Wikipedia Page. That page also shows that the nom's statement of : "no sources can be found prior to this week that confer notability." is simply false. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian WP page has 6 sources. Four of them are about his recent death. The other two are dead links (for me, anyway). I tried to find an archived version of these pages but could not. If you are aware of a reliable source (in any language) that focuses significantly on this individual, and is not about his recent death, I'd love to see it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply for live versions of the dead links. All you had to do was to go to the Wayback Machine! This isn't difficult. Atchom (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Leading figure of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and apparently senior military officer on either side killed so far. Proposal to delete is either not serious, an effort to minimize Russian participation in the war, or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyzex (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one seems obvious. Brad (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A high profile conflict and a highly placed leader in it. --Dan Carkner (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep deputy army commander of a army/corps sized formation in an active ongoing war. Also useful as an expansion of the wider set of Russian Armed Forces biographies. We should have biographies for all relevant senior officers of the Russian invading force. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Everything everyone said above. Plus, there are reliable sources. For instance, he was notable enough to have his biography printed in in Российское военное обозрение (Russian Military Review) in 2019, accessible at https://web.archive.org/web/20210525120433/https://sc.mil.ru/files/morf/military/archive/RVO-9_sayt(1).pdf. This incidentally also sources his awards, which would qualify him under WP:ANYBIO. Also, the nominator's interpretation of WP:SINGLEEVENT seems to be flawed to me. We wouldn't have an article titled "Death of Vitaly Gerasimov", which is what the examples in that particular guideline suggest. His death is notable within the context of a career which is already notable in and of itself. Atchom (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a primary source, which can't be used to establish notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not. Primary sources are things like Gerasimov’s diary, or his actual military service record. A bio published by the Russian Army is a secondary source. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Government documents such as official bios are considered primary sources. It's not a secondary source as he served in the Russian Army, which certainly has an interest in talking up its officers, especially during an active conflict. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats simply not correct. Government documents like Gerasimov’s service record are primary sources. If a government employee takes those documents and writes up a biography of Gerasimov, that is a secondary source. It may not be independent of the subject (which may be what you’re conflating here, and disqualifies the source from counting toward notability), but that is a different question altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what a primary source is. Brad (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general was only notable due to his death. Relatively little is known about him with the exception of a few awards. That is hardly worthy of an entire article.KD0710 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with the above comments in favour of keeping the article. Interestingly, 12 non-English Wikipedias now have an article on Gerasimov (see here for where his photograph appears). Amitchell125 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect the photograph to remain. That it's of him has been challenged, and I think we have no licence to use it. If it is of him, it's highly implausible that the photograph's copyright has resided with any Ukrainian authorities. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His article meets WP:GNG. Also other Wikipedias have an article on him. Being on a forign language Wikipedia means the subject was notable if we have an English page on the subject. Felicia (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kbabej. There are thousands and thousands of people who only get an article after their death. Thriley (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rank and operational experience make him notable. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By his rank alone and role in the invasion he is notable; WP:SINGLEEVENT is not a good reason for the deletion, as Gerasimov's death is not a major event on its own, but in the context of his position and career within the Russian military. As can be seen in the current, expanded article, he took part in several major wars of the last three decades, and he commanded important units in the Russian army. And as Atchom said, any officer who gets a somewhat detailed bio on his life published (even if it published by his own military) is probably notable. Applodion (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is untrue that “no sources can be found prior to this week.” has references from 2013 and 2019, for example. —Michael Z. 15:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dot-RU sources may be unavailable at the moment because of cyber warfare or Russian censorship. Try the Wayback Machine or other archive. —Michael Z. 15:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So manny voters requesting Keep Read CNN has not been able to independently verify Ukraine's claim, and Russia's defense ministry did not immediately respond to CNN's questions about Gerasimov on Tuesday, which is a national holiday in Russia. The United States also cannot confirm the Ukrainian claims, a senior US defense official said Tuesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.67.114 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not definitively say that he was killed. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that CNN and US military authorities are talking about Vitaly Gerasimov adds to his WP:NOTABILITY - international coverage, no matter whether he's alive or dead. Boud (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If anything, if he is later discovered to be alive his notability would be even higher. Atchom (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there is precedent on Wikipedia for articles about military officers of roughly the notability of making the news by dying in a major conflict. A lot of articles about Iraq War leaders of lower rank exist, and the sources and adherence to notability criteria (even if just for dying) appear good. Kuralesache (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reasons to keep the article independent of his notability, although I personally believe his notability is sufficient. Several details mentioned here may play into the articles on Russian disinformation and mutual cyber warfare in this conflict. From that point of view it is possibly more notable if he *isn’t* dead, although of course we need to carefully explain all of the uncertainty in the meantime. Also, he is easily confused with Valery Gerasimov, who is unquestionably notable and whose article is likely to repeatedly get mistakenly edited to add his death if we don’t disambiguate. Imho it is also notable that Russian generals are being killed, although I don’t claim any particular expertise in Russian generals. 04:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC) PS: Russian article has six sources, Ukrainian has eight, and they appear to be different. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC) PPS: Newsweek says Bellingcat confirms the death, also mentions the cryptophone failures, and mentions participation in Crimean and Chechen campaigns, which is interesting given what he was doing at his death Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass on WP:BASIC. I don't buy the argument that because there wasn't a page about him before his death there shouldn't be one about him now. BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and that is indisputable here. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like the others above my message, he was a leading figure in the war, and a major general in the invasion of Ukraine. he also has many notable awards (e.g. Order of Courage) and was the second general to be killed in the war (a general dying in action is rare, as Necrothesp stated) after Andrey Sukhovetsky. --e (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh man, it's a long time I do not participate in an AfD... Multiple secondary sources have been provided, lots of coverage, the guy is clearly notable, he would have been notable even if still alive. Meets guidelines without problems. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether alive or dead, sufficient sources exist, and have existed prior to now, to confer notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep he was the Chief of Staff of an entire invading army (“The 41st Arms Army”) in a major war. That alone certainly makes him notable. And he was it’s deputy commander. Plus anyone at the rank of any type of “General” is inherently very notable. But there is more — I did the math and the combined forces for which he was Chief of Staff and Deputy Commander totaled about 15,000 men. Plus he is the second highest Russian military leader to date to be killed in action in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. All of this means that he, as an historical figure, has more than enough notability. Lastly, the recent major press coverage of his death also, by itself, makes him notable. You could be a complete unknown to the world, which no significant life details at all, and yet if you (for no clear reason) suddenly got as much press coverage as he just has, you would then be notable for that reason alone, by Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake77 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much wrong with this logic that I don't even have the brain capacity to break it all down. Curbon7 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, general, senior officer of a large formation. Wide range of sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we have a third major general killed in this conflict, Andrei Kolesnikov.[11] There was also a colonel (the immediate rank below major-general) killed yesterday.[12] These are not so rare in this conflict. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for dying = WP:BLP1E. One of many to follow on both sides. Wikipedia is not a memorial website. Pilaz (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mztourist above. Yakikaki (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A slightly odd nomination. He had a long association with the Russian military and his position on the Cheif of Staff alone should cover GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His notability is easily sourceable. Bommbass (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of high-quality secondary sources on the subject, that alone should be enough. Meeepmep (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the only mention the "source" has for this guy is a russian military newsletter....only problem is, the brief mentions of Gerasimov were actually not referencing this vitaly guy ....its referencing this guy :Valery_Gerasimov. for all intents and purposes this vitaly guy doesnt exist, this appears to be fake news...wholesale 2607:FEA8:2CDC:DE00:10EF:1678:C8D7:B1B2 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is what the Russians would say. We have plenty of sources on this guy. It isn't fake news if it is about a real person. Felicia (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I scanned through the rationales and was leaning towards keep, but I cannot get passed one fact, the article was created the day he was killed, to me (regardless of who he was, his rank and so on, if it wasn't for the current conflict the article would not have been created) this is a WP:SINGLEEVENT article. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe his article hasn't been created now because English Wikipedia has an (understandable) regional bias toward figures from English-speaking countries? Plenty of bios are created when the person has died; some are created even after they died! Atchom (talk) 01:58, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 F.B.C. Unione Venezia season

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:NSEASONS, team played in the 4th division at the time. Sakiv (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:22, 10 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 Camila (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something's Gotta Give (Camila Cabello song)

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

Article fails WP:NSONGS. All sources (accept for charts and certifications in minor music markets) are from sources associated with its parent album Camila and should therefore be redirected there. LOVI 33 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camila (album). There is some coverage on this song outside of album reviews, but that is rather limited in my opinion and not enough to justify this song having its own article. I believe a redirect would be more beneficial to readers than an outright deletion as this is a viable search term, but all the coverage on this particular song can be contained in the album article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camila (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:01, 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 moot. I'm re-opening and re-closing this discussion per WP:NACD following a challenge at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 2. The reasons for deletion (unverifiability) were valid and unaddressed at the time of the previous non-admin closure on 15 March 2022‎, and the AfD should have been properly been closed as "delete" at that time. However, these reasons for deletion have been addressed by a series of edits beginning on 4 April 2022‎, such that the article is no longer unsourced. The AfD discussion therefore no longer applies to the current state of the article, and accordingly I'm re-closing the AfD as moot. Sandstein 09:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team

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

Unsourced throughout it's existence as an article - there doesn't seem much likelihood of sources appearing after more than a decade since it apparently existed. Unbh (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Unbh (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Side was a representable side in the World Rugby Sevens Series, although the team is defunct now. The article obviously needs lots of improving, but the side was a notable one under rugby union guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice as failing WP:V (which is a valid deletion reason). If somebody wants to bother restarting this from scratch with some actual encyclopedic information, and more importantly, with some source to back it up, then this is not going to be of much if any help, anyways (heck, this doesn't even say when or where exactly this side was active...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 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 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mk.gee

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

Non-notable musician. Apart from the one NME article cited as a source, a search finds nothing even resembling RS sigcov. One album released, but not on any label (major or otherwise), therefore not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read the WP:MUSICBIO And applied it in this case but this person didn’t meet it. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:47, 9 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!} 00:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Mingze

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

Just being the daughter of Chinese president is not important enough to merit an article on its own. SochneyDe (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SochneyDe (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and China. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - subject of article has 14 independent references to prove wikinoteworthiness. in addition, at the same time this article is being proposed for deletion, the article has page views of about 4,500 views on just one day of February 25, 2022. This delete proposal may be the Barbra Sterisand effect in action. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — the article's sourcing right now leaves a bit to be desired, but she is notable. See e.g. coverage in the New Yorker, New Zealand Herald, and Agence France-Presse.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Numerous sources discussing her in her own right, not as an additional biographical curiosity related to her father. Atchom (talk) 22:55, 8 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 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toei Tokusatsu Universe

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

Purely reliant on WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FAN. Each of these franchises have cross-over specials of their own, but that doesn't mean they're part of a shared universe. The author is using speculation to connect dots to imply a conclusion. Additionally, the author fails to provide reliable sources confirming that these separate series are part of a shared universe, and fails notability. The article is a collection of assumptions and trivia that have no merit, nor supported by reliable sources. This article is just pure wishful thinking. Most of this information can already be found (and supported by verified sources) at the following articles: Kamen Rider, Super Sentai, and Metal Heroes. Armegon (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Armegon (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Armegon (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Armegon (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Anime and manga. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That's unfortunate to hear, but I don't agree about many your conclusions. First of all, that's not my original research. I simply mentioned everything I know from exact movies and shows. Secondly, if it's not a shared universe, what it is then? It's true that Toei doesn't promote it as a shared universe. However, regular appearances of characters from past media does nothing but establishes it. Reliable sources are shows and movies (the original material) themselves. And there's no reason to think that for example crossovers aren't cannon. They often continue character arcs, like in crossover movie of Kamen Rider W and Kamen Rider Decade. When for example a show isn't in the main timeline of universe, it is mentioned (although it's still said it's alternate timeline) and when there's no reason to think something isn't part of the universe, for example Kamen Rider Black Sun, then it's stated. I also believe it is very notable, considering notability of all specific media in it. Most of this information also isn't mentioned on Kamen Rider and Super Sentai pages. Please, reconsider and rethink, if you can. Thank you. --Дейноніх (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, official page like this (https://www.toei-video.co.jp/catalog/dstd03686/) mentions «the whole universe», where events of the movie involving all these characters happen. If I will find something else, I will also post it. Дейноніх (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I simply mentioned everything I know from exact movies and shows." That is the definition of your own original research. It's in complete violation of WP:OR. " It's true that Toei doesn't promote it as a shared universe." If Toei themselves don't call it a universe, then clearly this article doesn't pass notability, per WP:N and WP:NF. "Reliable sources are shows and movies (the original material)", the movies and shows are primary sources. WP:PRIMARY states to use secondary sources because primary sources can be misused and evaluated, interpreted, or synthesized. Which is exactly what you have done. WP:SECONDARY states "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source," and you have not provided any secondary sources to validate a supposed shared universe. Regarding that Toei Video link, you're seriously overreaching. "Universe" does not automatically mean shared cinematic universe. Based on that plot summary, the word "universe" is used to refer to the fate of the world. Hardly hard evidence to validate a shared universe. Armegon (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any elementary logic in what you say. Delete it, if you want. Дейноніх (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - There are no actual reliable sources describing all of these shows as taking place in any kind of shared universe. The page creator, in their argument in this discussion, even stated that "It's true that Toei doesn't promote it as a shared universe. However, regular appearances of characters from past media does nothing but establishes it.", which is pure WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comment above as I'm not seeing any evidence on how this isn't WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As I person who watches anime here I know I can't just pick and choose characters to establish a point on Wikipedia. The characters need to be specifically stated in sources, and the fictional universe must meet notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 9 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. Star Mississippi 02:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Ching Estate

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

Redirect reverted without improvement or rationale. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, just routine. And contrary to some editors, 3 or 4 lines in an article is not in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was previously WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT'ed by the nominator and restored by me, and then re-blanked-and-redirected by the editor despite the Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection guideline. The nominator was then asked to self-revert the article, but they did not and the article was reverted by a third editor. This AfD is the consequence of this sequence. For background information and a discussion about a set of similar cases, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Mass housing estates articles blanking/ redirecting. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 柯詠敏; 黃泳樺 (2016-11-03). "天水圍天晴邨：「百無」孤城催生居民抗爭　冀辦市集增歸屬感" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Tin Ching Estate has many places to rest, but the design is rigid and it is difficult to gather residents. ... Liu Huaqiang, 66, moved to Tin Ching Estate in 2008. At first, he felt that the air here is good and the environment is quiet, but after living there, he found that Tin Ching Estate was "nothing". ... Tin Ching Estate is located to the north of Tin Shui Wai, with a total of 16,000 residents in the third phase. However, the shopping mall in the village has only 8 shops, and only one Maxim's Fast Food has just been completed. Eight years later, there is only one more restaurant. It takes three years for a newly completed housing estate to be occupied before a mutual aid committee can be established, ... Apart from the lack of a market, there is a large road between Phases 1, 2 and 3 of Tin Ching Estate. At first glance, it looks like two separate housing estates. ... The planning of Tin Ching Estate has caused the residents to be separated from the housing estate, making life inconvenient and affecting their sense of belonging to the housing estate."
2. 杜寶琪 (2008-09-30). "天水圍公屋建高球場浪費公帑". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Just like the newly completed Tin Ching, there are super luxurious equipment such as a golf course and a large-scale ground fountain; ... However, in Tin Shui Wai, Tin Ching, which was completed in May this year, the house design is different from the practical principles of the traditional housing construction of the HD. When our reporter inspected the house, he found that in addition to the general house facilities, it was rare to have a golf course and a ground fountain with a diameter of nearly ten meters. The golf course is about half the size of a basketball court, with six holes covered by artificial grass, but the golf course and ground fountains are not fenced and fenced. If residents drive high waves on the golf course, they will hit residents and vehicles passing by at any time."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. 馮國豪 (2010-10-30). "怪蟲襲天晴邨居民恐慌". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "The Tin Ching Estate Children's Playground has turned into a terrifying insect paradise, where small insects that look like centipedes appear in groups day and night. ... Residents are worried that the insect army will secrete venom, threatening the safety of children playing in the playground. A district councilor pointed out that there was a "worm disaster" in the housing estate, but the Housing Department did not take action for a long time."
  2. "挺身抗議同工不同酬天晴邨清潔工：只想拎返自己應有嘅嘢". 獨立媒體 (in Chinese). 2020-10-06. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "Sister Rong and Sister Shi, the cleaners in their 50s, have been working in Tin Ching Estate since the opening of the village in 2008. They have been working diligently and conscientiously. They criticized the outsourcer, Yaju, for ignoring the plight of the workers."
  3. 柯詠敏 (2018-07-19). "【天水圍2.0．四】天晴邨有個「門常開」：不做蛇齋餅糉的互委" (in Chinese). HK01. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "There is also a "door always open" in a corner of Tin Ching Estate. Walking into the Mutual Aid Committee of Qingyun Building, ... Looking at Tin Ching Estate, there are many grass-roots families and elderly people, but the village has only a single-storey shopping mall with less than ten shops, which is difficult to meet the living needs of the residents. ... 42-year-old Tin Ching Estate is one of the many new immigrant women in Tianqing Village."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tin Ching Estate (Chinese: 天晴邨) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:SIGCOV shared by Cunard above. NemesisAT (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all the "significant" coverage shown above is simply WP:ROUTINE, and in some instances only amounts to 2 or 3 sentences. Hardly significant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the application of WP:ROUTINE as that is part of our events notability guideline so isn't applicable to this article. NemesisAT (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if can find WP:SIGCOV for this estate. --SlideAndSlip (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the coverage given above is enough to work as evidence of notability. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most mediocre of articles. Lets look at the non-references above, also mediocre to the extreme, the most common things, there are many grass-roots families and elderly people difficult to meet their needs like in every other place on the planet that undergoing fast change. threatening the safety of children playing in the playground. The very definition of the precuationary principle, again routine and mediocre to the extreme, used everywhere to protect chilren in playgronds. The absolute lowest most mediocre definition of what counts as notable. This defintion that is offered here as significant, offers no differetiation between what is notable and what is not. It breaks the barrier of what is consider special. It elevates the mediocre to specialness, the very worst kind of idea. What it means, is that every single thing on earth, even the most blaise and mediocre will come into Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 22:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the references and the references in the article are primary. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 25 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) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Scope creep said, "This defintion that is offered here as significant" and listed two quotes from the sources I posted: "there are many grass-roots families and elderly people difficult to meet their needs" and "threatening the safety of children playing in the playground". These two quotes come from the "Less significant coverage" section of my list of sources. I agree that these quotes amount to less significant coverage which is why I included them in the "Less significant coverage" section. Tin Cheng Estate has received significant coverage in the first two sources I listed. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 8 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 Country Music Association Awards. Sandstein 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Country Music Association Award for International Achievement

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable award. Only sources are WP:PRIMARY or just PR pieces stating that a given artist won the award. Delete or merge with Country Music Association Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Country Music Association Awards. Award isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge significant overlap Country Music Association Awards.--SlideAndSlip (talk) 15:29, 22 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) 02:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 8 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. Specifically, there is consensus against deleting the article, but there is no consensus on whether it should remain standalone or be merged or redirected. Further relisting this discussion to attempt to establish such a consensus does not appear meritorious to me; anyone who would like to take further editorial action on the article is free to do so, such as by establishing a consensus on the talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appleton Transit Center

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

I found no significant coverage. The two sources are about a 2019 shooting. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Wisconsin. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Valley Transit (Wisconsin). Would be more appropriate to expand on the major facilities in that article instead of creating separate entries. Sounder Bruce 23:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure merging mostly unreferenced content to another article is a good idea, even if the target article is unreferenced. I will support a merge if the content is referenced. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of articles on newspapers.com. There's enough here to establish notability for both Valley Transit and its routes, and for the bus station, and so I think they should remain as separate articles. NemesisAT (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NemesisAT Did you find any coverage beyond the routine coverage from Appleton's local newspaper The Post-Crescent? The sources about the shooting certainly show no notability. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the coverage I found was in The Post-Crescent. However, that doesn't mean we haven't passed WP:GNG, which does not forbid local coverage. Please see the source table below. NemesisAT (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because multiple news articles from one newspaper is still one source. The shooting articles don't help because shootings can occur anywhere. SL93 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are written by multiple journalists over a period of over twenty years. And even if you do want to count them as one source, an article can be kept on the basis of one substantial source and that is what you get if you combine the content of all the Post-Crescent articles. NemesisAT (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you received the information that one substantial source is enough. Of course the local news covered it throughout the years. Local news always does that for local interests that remain for years. I could flood Wikipedia with almost any establishment I wish to create articles on if that showed notability. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course the local news covered it throughout the years." Hence why it is notable. This is not a small village, Appleton has a population of 75,000. A bus terminus serving 75,000 people is worthy of an article here, in my opinion. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you have enough sources then go ahead, write this articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no space limit. NemesisAT (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the hundreds of AfDs I have participated in over the years, I still highly disagree with you based on the results of those AfDs. I really don't care if it's a small village or a large city. I can't go ahead with those articles because I know the end results. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to just disagree. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=96069122&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjI4OTM5Nzg4NywiaWF0IjoxNjQ1NTM3ODMyLCJleHAiOjE2NDU2MjQyMzJ9.tr27CSUwQzzG8i9xS2-GVkXCgrY-C-2HziPj5G46MRM	Third-party analysis	The Post-Crescent is a long-running daily newspaper	Article focuses on the transit centre	✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96165393/mayor-proposes-6-million-transit-center/	Third-party analysis			✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96071325/cheaper-to-build-new-transit-center/				✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96072964/new-smaller-transit-centre-backed/				✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96065802/bus-transfer-center-is-finally-complete/				✔ Yes
https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/23/end-era-greyhound-ends-bus-service-north-milwaukee/1727249002/			Passing mention	✘ No
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/wisconsin-firefighter-killed-medical-call/index.html			Passing mention	✘ No
https://eu.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2019/05/16/appleton-shooting-what-we-know/3690802002/			Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment Those references that are supposed to be good are annoucements of work order, work completion. How can they be considered coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS. They fail WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIR is clearly linked by mistake. A bus station isn't a company so WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't apply. Also, did you follow me here after your recent ANI edit? NemesisAT (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: did you follow me here? NemesisAT (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valley Transit (Wisconsin) and expand the information at the facilities area.Gusfriend (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This vote doesn't actually provide any rationale on why a redirect would be beneficial to our readers. I think one clear benefit of keeping an organisation article separate from a physical structure article is that then the transit centre can be linked to coordinates that appear at the top of the article and allow the article to be included in "nearby articles" lists for mobile users. NemesisAT (talk) 11:15, 25 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) 02:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's Plenty of ongoing coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 8 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Davies (classicist)

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

I'm not really much familiar with Academics' notability criteria, but upon a cursory look, this person lacks in-depth coverage which are independent of the subject. There's only one source, which is auto-biography. Tame (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This scholar is obviously reputable, given the publishers they use. I would prefer this discussion were handled by someone familiar with classics. Nonnus49 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not auto-biography, it's an official Oxford profile. Nonnus49 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations in a very low cited area. Did the nominator look at GS? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, he has a solid record as an author in a subject where frankly it's not easy to sell books. "The Greek Epic Cycle" (Bristol Classics 2001) is still selling, new, in paperback at a reasonable price, which implies lasting impact and interest. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we have a pass of WP:AUTHOR, with multiple reviews for multiple books apiece, which is the most reasonable thing to look for in this corner of academia. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PROF easily met. Atchom (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with other reviewers. Passes WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 07:11, 9 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!} 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khushali Kumar (actress)

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

The subject of this page fails NP:Actor and GNG. She is only known as she is a daughter of Gulshan Kumar and as a sister of several notable people. She is not a notable fashion designer, yet to launch her acting career. This page has been multiple times created by undisclosed paid editor of her team under the name, Khushali Kumar, Khushali Kumar Dua and this time by name Khushali Kumar (actress). If any subject is notable as she or he is a daughter of notable people, every child of notable people should have a page. The page needs to be salted, this page has been rejected min 5 times on AFC and finally moved to mainspace by a socketpuppet, who is blocked on Wikipedia. I am sure, you will be finding a lot of paid editors who will be voting keep and we need to keep an eye on them. Chrisalder (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chrisalder (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: She has appeared on a few music videos produced by her own company and nothing substantial, I hope she would pass notability as an actor once when she is casted by some other companies where she is a lead actor, right now the company is hiring a lot of paid editors before she becomes really notable, lets keep rejecting and deleting her page till then. I am expecting a lot of paid editors to jump in. Check multiple failed attempts here. Chrisalder (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Fashion, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also the creator User:Growthsakup has a history of creating non-notable articles and doing whatever it takes to defend them (often by using other accounts and removing AfD tags). They should be blocked for socking, but that's not what this page is for. --2601:642:4780:6B0:891:650A:FA7B:7D3D (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Her father's company is promoting her through music videos. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 15:25, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shifra Smart Homes

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nothing in gnews for its English and Arabic names. Plain google search just shows directory listings. Possible WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was similarly unable to find any significant coverage of this company in independent reliable sources. Unless there's something I'm missing, it fails WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:42, 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 redirect to Rajoo Dada. Sandstein 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aankhon Ke Saamne

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

Completely unsourced, one of myriad articles created by Rajesh. And Wiki is not a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 1 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!} 05:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator redirected the article before it was reverted, indicating some sort of G7. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As the film was later released under a new tile Rajoo Dada, the page Aankhon Ke Saamne can be redirected to Rajoo Dada as both titles bring up enough results. Rajeshbieee (talk) 07:49, 9 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 Jonathan Davis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexart

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

insignificant footnote, only significance is that former member went on to form Korn. this band seems to be not very noteworthy otherwise, and probably would be better served as a footnote in the Korn article than have its own. Band never released a commercial recording, only recorded 15 songs, none of which were released to public. Discography pretty much empty other than several paragraphs explaining that they didn't do anything but home-record the songs. half the article talks about the band Sexart morphed into afterwards (Supermodel) SleighBellz1980 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonathan Davis, where they are already discussed as one of his early endeavors. This article is a desperate attempt to make the band look historically important, when in reality they had one member who became famous without them later. (They are also briefly mentioned as an early stop for Ryan Shuck, who joined some other notable bands later as well.) The article is almost entirely dependent on sources that are actually about Davis and Korn, and the "Accolades" section is entirely about Korn's accomplishments with their overhauled version of one of Sexart's early demos. Sexart accomplished nothing notable on its own, nor did its successor band Supermodel. There is nothing to see here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be amenable to this type of change. They're worth a mention in his article, but not their own article, agreed. SleighBellz1980 (talk) 16:30, 1 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!} 05:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonathan Davis. Not independently notable, but a reasonable redirect target exists as an alternative to deletion. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that would work 142.197.118.57 (talk) 02:36, 10 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.

At 02:44 today, User:AssumeGoodWraith, a non-administrator, closed this debate as no consensus. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, have vacated this closure. I did so because I considered the closure to be in error. All opinions suggesting keeping the article were from users who are unregistered or have a conflict of interest, and they should be given little weight.

When considering the closure in the round, the result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Holt Stem

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

Non-notable Opaqueambiguity (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Washington Post is an American newspaper source that is deemed credible, as is the West Virginia paper, and A Closer Listen doesn't look like a massive mag, but it stands as a credible source owned by a cadre of music critics.17:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.120.118 (talk)

Simply being mentioned once in a credible source does not indicate notability. The WaPo article appears to be just a routine review of a local concert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.168.118 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One brief mention in the New York Times explaining a title to one of his musical works, and what looks to be like a concert program in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to Wapo, West Virginia Gazette, and A Closer Listen, composer also has noteworthy mentions in two referenced "I Care if You Listen" articles, the Julliard Journal, and work with New Dynamic Records reviewed in Classical Music Daily and Time Out New York. These sources pass the "significant coverage" test as they go beyond trivial mentions of the composers's work, even if some of the sources' main content examines the work of other artists in the same article (also acceptable under the Significant Coverage test). Improvement to or updating the article could perhaps help the demonstration of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdynamicrecords (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the previous "keep" was submitted by an account that was one of the primary authors of the original article, and has the username "New Dynamic Records" which is the name of the record label operated by Dr. Stem himself via his position at Indiana University. Most likely this is Dr. Stem's own contribution to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.168.118 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renamer note: Newdynamicrecords has been renamed to JamesViolin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:29, 23 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) 03:30, 1 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!} 05:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How long does this discussion have to stay open? This is an obvious delete, fails all criteria for notability. This discussion has been relisted 3 times with almost zero discussion because nobody knows who he is and nobody cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.144.36 (talk) 16:20, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha (web browser)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most of the references are to store pages, the product's site, or unrelated information. A WP:BEFORE resulted mostly in download links and forum discussions. Found a couple reviews but those appear to be very run-of-the-mill stuff. Isabelle ^🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Cyprus. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I don't think the nominator did a good job on WP:BEFORE. I found bunch more good articles and have added them as a citation. See: Wired, online-tech-tips.com, Techradar and Windows Report. Zeddedm (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take those kinds of articles in considerations as I don't see "The X best" as enough to establish notability. Isabelle ^🔔 00:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why we should not consider such articles if more than one paragraph of info exists, showing it's in depth. Plus several publications calling it "the best" at something is a good thing, unless it can be established that it was PR or from a non-notable publication. Zeddedm (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please list WP:THREE best sources for detailed evaluation and discussion? As of now, I don't really see even a single good source. Am I missing something? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:25, 1 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!} 04:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, or WP:PRODUCT. This article reads like a promotional piece and upon further inspection it is clear that some sources come directly from developers of this browser. Other sources do not appear relevant (like etymology of word "Aloha"), in-depth, or reliable. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL software, the coverage linked to above is not substantial or of questionable reliability. Sandstein 09:12, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Nga Court

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

Coverage is simply routine, not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was previously WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT'ed by the nominator and restored by me in January 2022. For background information and a discussion about a set of similar cases, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Mass housing estates articles blanking/ redirecting. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 林穎嫺 (2022-02-19). "居屋2022｜東涌裕雅苑三座享機場海景　兩成單位3房2廁料即買即住" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
  The article provides many paragraphs of coverage about Yu Nga Court. The article notes from Google Translate: "Yu Nga Court is located at No. 8, Yi Tung Road, Tung Chung extension area. There are 6 blocks in total, providing a total of 3,300 units. It is the largest housing estate in this phase. The unit area ranges from 272 to 555 square feet. It is estimated that the key date is September 30 this year. It is believed that it can be used as an existing building for sale. When prospective owners choose a flat at the end of the year, they are expected to "buy and live". ... Yu Nga Court is the largest of the HOS flats put on sale in this phase, and it will also have more supporting facilities."
2. "新居屋｜東涌裕雅苑部分可望機場海景提供約300停車位". Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-18. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The new phase of HOS housing, Tung Chung Yu Nga Court, is located in the Tung Chung reclamation area, with a total of 3,300 units being sold, which is the project with the most units for sale in this phase. Each building is 32 storeys high, blocks A to D provide 570 units respectively, and blocks E to F provide 510 units respectively. The estimated key date of the development project is September 30, 2022, which means that the project is almost sold as an existing building."
3. 陳梓蔚 (2022-02-18). "【居屋2022】北角驥華苑開則四方可望海　東涌裕雅苑平均呎價最低即買即住". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Tung Chung Yu Nga Court offers a total of 6 blocks of 3,300 units, with unit sizes ranging from 272 square feet to 555 square feet. The temporary selling price is from 1.3 million to 5.55 million yuan; the average square foot price is 5,730 yuan."
4. "新居屋東涌裕雅苑伙數最多　大單位設2浴室　9月收樓料即買即住". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-18. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
  From Google Translate: "Among them, there are 6 blocks in Yu Nga Court, Tung Chung, which provides about one-third of the units. Some units even have two bathrooms, which is a rare residential property in recent years. ... Among the many projects, the key date for Tung Chung Yu Nga Garden is September 30 this year. It is expected that the buyer can buy and live immediately, and it will be Kai Yan Garden in Kai Tak at the latest. The key date is December 31, 2024."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yu Nga Court (Chinese: 裕雅苑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:SIGCOV shared by Cunard. It appears a second phase is under construction, so this will likely gain more coverage when completed as well. NemesisAT (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all the "significant" coverage shown above is simply WP:ROUTINE, and in some instances only amounts to 2 or 3 sentences. Hardly significant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the application of WP:ROUTINE as that is part of our events notability guideline so isn't applicable to this article. NemesisAT (talk) 14:55, 22 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) 02:58, 1 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!} 04:40, 8 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!} 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Trail Playhouse

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

Only sourced to its website. Local community theater. Searching finds routine mentions in local media - announcements of productions. No in-depth coverage in RS, does not meet WP:GNG. MB 04:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. MB 04:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MB 04:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:11, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melody MacDonald

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

only one citation presented and I cannot find other reliable info about her. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she's only written the one book as far as I can tell, and I haven't turned up anything else that would count for notability. She's not even mentioned in the one citation that's on the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV either (via Google Search). No Merge material (that isn't already in Wilhelm Feldberg). The one ref presently in the article doesn't actually mention the subject. There is a low chance that old press material exists that would make her meet WP:GNG. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:18, 8 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabuyao Poblacion

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

WP:VERIFY in question. The City of Cabuyao and its baranggays exists but these "districts" might not. WP:BEFORE search just points to Wiki mirrors. Also,

the Philippine Statistics Authority's Cabuyao page just list the baranggays.
the City Government of Cabuyao just mentions their baranggays.

--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same verification issue:

--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:29, 10 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 03:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parulia High School

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is unreferenced and I couldn't find jack about it. Except for a few trivial name drops in articles about other things, which don't work for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:06, 9 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 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maikel Pérez

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

Fails WP:MMA notability criteria; doesn't have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked in the world top 10 of his division. WP:GNG is also failed, most of his coverage is through routine sporting reports. Also competed at the 2008 summer olympics but did not win a medal. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Cuba. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and was never ranked high enough. He did appear at the 2008 Olympics, but finished 19th of 19 in his division. My search found database listings and routine sports reporting, but nothing to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no indication of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable. Many people including me never heard of this person because of a lack of notabilty. Felicia (talk) 17:39, 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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Apisah

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

Extensive junior career but does not meet WP:NTENNIS. Runner up in junior grand slam is close but not enough. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, Oceania, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Player as she has competed in Fed Cup competition before. Keroks (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's still an essay. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis is considered the notability standard which does not include Fed Cup. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many tennis player articles which are based of their participation in Fed Cup / Davis Cup competition. If you delete this one, I also suggest you go through many of the other thousand articles and delete those too for consistency. Keroks (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to do this soon when I have the time. Many of these Fed/Davis Cup-only players have no possibility for any reasonable expansion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Wikiproject Tennis Guideline. Has participated in a major international tournament for her nation in Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, the essay at Wikiproject Tennis cannot be used to support keeping an article that fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources added since nomination satisfy WP:GNG, with the Sydney Morning Herald and The National articles all SIGCOV. Jevansen (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jevansen, I think the article now passes WP:GNG. WP:NTENNIS appears to be in flux. Bonoahx (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 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.

[1] ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/bulla-cookies-11607122606

[2] ttps://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20180823/bullas-be-removed-schools-tufton-appeals-support-teachers-help

[3] ttps://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20181006/reid-defends-removal-bullas-schools

[4] ttps://www.post-gazette.com/life/dining/2015/02/26/Munch-goes-to-Leon-s-Caribbean-Restaurant-Warrenington-Avenue-Allentown-section-of-Pittsburgh/stories/201502260021

[5] ttps://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140505/cleisure/cleisure3.html

[6] ttps://www.tampabay.com/news/business/jamaican-native-brings-tastes-of-the-island-to-spring-hill/2211305/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]