Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 03	February 05 >

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PySynth

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

This was prodded back in 2009, with the rationale "Non-notable Python script." That seems notable to me still. There's a few primary and directory-style links on the internet, and a blog entry, maybe two--but that's it. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software, fails WP:NSOFT. MaterialWorks _(talk) 17:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MaterialWorks, NN. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion about the Ontario Canoe Island is to do a Merge or Redirect but it seems like the consensus here for this Canoe Island is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe Island (Northwest Territories)

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

These are small and insignificant islands with no significant coverage beyond database entries. Neither GNG nor GEOLAND are met. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and Islands. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Islands (and lakes) are not automatically notable and more than a name database item is required for stand-alone articles. The coordinate points closer to a Fox Den Island on Google Maps than a small sandy shoal which may be this one, which doesn't seem likely to have the sources needed for notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: location is extremely remote and almost certainly uninhabited. Also, the location pointed to is a delta, not an island, and the larger islands nearby are named something else. If location is correct, this would be a very small islet. Elinruby (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, google and bing maps for coordinates given show water, maybe adjacent to a Fox Den Island ( per google maps) at delta of Anderson River into Woods Bay (per this map linked from Anderson River article, which is an offshoot of Liverpool Bay perhaps by that map, while Bing maps gives point location of Liverpool Bay around towards Eskimo Lakes. It is not clear to me that Anderson River flows into Liverpool Bay, how did that implication get into the article (which says the island is in Liverpool Bay? Anyhow if we cannot identify the island on a map we shouldn't keep an article about it. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Canoe Island jengod (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merger option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom) - I would question the usefulness of merging far-flung islands that happen to have the same name. There are many thousands of tiny islands across Northern Canada and there's really no point in even mentioning them if we have nothing more than a database entry. –dlthewave ☎ 02:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jengod and Dlthewave, is the a possible merger target for this one? It is an island in what? And User:Eastmain, could u pls clarify what second island exists... the article currently states something like " the island is in a bay and it is in an island". Maybe a second nearby Canoe Island needs to be covered in the disambiguation oage Canoe Island. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is how i lean currently, with my questions and comments above. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split to separate articles; then merge to List of islands of Canada, or mention in Anderson River (Northwest Territories) and Amundsen Gulf. The current title can then redirect to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Peter James -- that seems a bit confused as a !vote, I for one don't know what you want. About splitting to 2 articles, do you happen to understand what 2 islands are being talked about, if the article is talking about 2? I couldn't figure out that myself.

Referencing the list-article List of islands of Canada seems helpful in this discussion, and I don't recall seeing it before. Its inclusion criteria are not clear, but it looks to me that it is trying to mention just the 200 or so biggest/most important islands in Canada. This "Canoe Island" is a remote, tiny speck compared to any of them, and I don't think it should be included there at all. My 2 cents. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the references, there are database listings for two different islands which you can open to see their respective locations. We wouldn't normally include them in a single article like this; looks like the second one was added just after the article was deprodded. In my opinion it's a moot point because there's no evidence of notability whatsoever. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability at all, there's nothing to split or merge. Avilich (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DVD43

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (web). A simple google search shows you downloads and where to download it, nothing reliable. Previous discussion to delete this article was all deletes, the reasons were that the article fails GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like nothing much has changed in the last 14 years re notability, and the website has been highjacked. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no sources. MaterialWorks _(talk) 23:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts#District 4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bielat

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated twice. The first proposal (here) resulted in a recommendation to delete. It was found that his candidacy did not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The second proposal (here) resulted in "no consensus." That no consensus took place during the 2012 election in which he was a candidate. I believe the last decade has demonstrated that the first deletion was the correct call. There are two potential claims to notability here. The first is his two congressional candidacies on which I have a difficult time believing any historian will write in any meaningful context (as opposed to Evan McMullin or Christine O'Donnell. The second is a business career for which none of the companies are particularly notable. In the interest of avoiding recreations or editing numerous red links, this article should redirect to 2010_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Massachusetts#District_4 Mpen320 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if, arguendo, candidates for the United States Senate were notable, House candidates are not. Again, it's different with a perennial candidate, who might be notable by iteration. There's some coverage, as with any Federal election, but not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Massachusetts#District_4 Mpen320 (talk per nom, as a viable WP:ATD. An appropriate redirect target, given that his performance in that election (in terms of voting percentage) is his most successful to date. Per the nom and Bearcat, he fails the criteria of WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, and thus dosen't qualify for a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits. Star Mississippi 20:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Hits

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits, unless there are non-GMA sources are found, even the secondary sources. Similar outcome to 2nd Avenue AFD, which is ended up in a redirect, fails WP:NBROADCAST. 172.125.126.113 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits - Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits: Most results from Google are from the channel's parent company, falls under WP:PRIMARY. If secondary sources has been found, please ping me. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, and WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits for now. Fails WP:NTV per nom. Very little to no coverage from non-GMA news sites. SBKSPP (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 20:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I Know What Made Otis Blue

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Current version is entirely unsourced. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been updated and now contains more information. Three sources have been added. --Bensin (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources for charting. Not impressed by the single sentence from the AllMusic review though. Unless more is found, I think it'd be best to merge the charting info and that single sentence into the album article. QuietHere (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using WP:NSONG guidance. Several results in News[1]. Books[2]. Videos, for what it's worth.[3] Broadway World called the song a "solo hit" indicating rank on sales chart (factor criterion #1).[4] Melody TV says it was "Top 16 in France".[5] -- Yae4 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Save, no comment. BeenDominic (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per WP:HEY based on the good work by Geach and QuietHere. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). Star Mississippi 20:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity (The Jets song)

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). I would normally say "merge" per WP:PRESERVE, but all the information in the topic is already contained in the target. I attempted to find sources for this, but perhaps my search terms are lacking. Anyway, I couldn't find substantial coverage of the nominated topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per 78.26. Which is what is was. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (album): Barely found anything about the song aside from mentions in Google Books. Not even a Top 40 hit, though it has received a lot of airplay on several Top 40 stations back in the day, like KIIS. ASTIG 😎🙃 04:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Just No Other Way and will ECP the redirect Star Mississippi 20:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I Fall in Love

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just No Other Way per Note 1 from WP:NSONG. This single is not notable enough to have it's own article. MaterialWorks _(talk) 23:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just No Other Way - Not seeing anything in a Google search that would be an acceptable source for the song specifically - no reviews, nothing. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 02:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just No Other Way per above. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Real Love (Dan Hill album)

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

Very light/minimal coverage of album in reliable sources. Attempts to redirect by multiple editors have been reverted. Unless someone can find significant sourcing required to meet requirements per WP:NALBUMS, redirecting to Dan Hill is still the best option. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very minimal sourcing and a WP:BEFORE shows very little coverage. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirection would make sense if the disambiguated title were a plausible search term; I'm sceptical that it is. Can't find sources online; I'd imagine that sources might exist in print media but if so they haven't been cited. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 02:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's too few sources. In its defense, there is an Allmusic page. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The clear consensus, in addition to the nomination being withdrawn. Star Mississippi 20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Rainier

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

The sources are three articles in the same local newspaper, a blog posting from a columnist for that same newspaper, and a listicle from a local business's blog. I did some searching on my own and didn't come up with anything better. This was discussed at WT:DYK#Lady Rainier for a while; a few more sources were found, but just passing mentions that didn't contribute to satisfying WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing wrong with Seattle Times nor the fact that the three articles are published in the same paper, unless you have a specific concern that all three distinct authors are not independent from each other and or the subject of article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the Seattle Times per-se, other than that it's local coverage. But more importantly, it's all the same source. Quoting from WP:GNG, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand "series" here to be the decisive factor, for example if one newspaper is covering an ongoing story, and different authors contribute different pieces for example about a murder trial, it's likely that the same editor is supervising/commissioning the series, but I am not seeing that here. I'll stop commenting and let others opine here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where's the geographic diversity of sources guideline? Haven't been able to find it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Shushugah that separate coverage in the same periodical does not constitute a series as mentioned in WP:GNG. Some of your concern re: sources is valid to me, but I think that Template:More citations needed added to the top would be more appropriate than deleting the article because of it. DJ Cane (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) We have enough to establish notability for this sculpture. The sculpture has a 120 year history which is documented in the Seattle times and in books. In our notability guidelines there is not requirement that the WP:RS be international or national; only that it is reliable. The sculpture appears in books and newsprint throughout the 120 years history of its existence. The sources in the article are non-trivial secondary sources discussing the sculpture. I submit that the sculpture passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep our GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the three main sources are from the same newspaper but given that it’s a reliable secondary source, that’s not a problem. Those sources establish GNG. Schwede 66 16:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I disagree with people's judgement here about the quality of the sources, but it's obvious I'm in the minority, so withdrawing this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the sources in the article PeterHaris (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC) User has been WP:CUBLOCKed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems to me that Schwede66, DJ Cane, and Shushugah are mistaken – RoySmith used the wrong quote, though. He takes his statement from an explanatory footnote, but right there in the guideline prose, it says Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nothin' about needing to be a series in there. Combined with the fact that it's local coverage, and therefore is predisposed to take more notice than would probably otherwise be due, I can't really establish a GNG pass. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could argue about the role of a footnote in determining source use all day, but also note the additional sources Bruxton brought up that show that the statue makes significant appearances in other reliable sources as well, adding to my idea that we should apply Template:More citations needed rather than delete as the Seattle Times articles (in my opinion on their own) plus Bruxton’s sources satisfy WP:GNG. DJ Cane (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The links are, respectively, a passing mention and another Seattle Times article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, WP:GNG mentions five criteria: To have significant coverage (doesn’t say how many sources need to offer this) from a reliable (Seattle Times qualifies for sure), secondary source (Seattle Times plus the book), that is independent of the subject (also met). The fifth is that the presence of these four provides a presumption that the topic discussed in the article is notable though that it could certainly be debated. What I mean to say is that Bruxton’s additional sources show that there are more out there beyond the Seattle Times. While I’m not in a position to do this, I think it’s a safe bet to say that if someone looked deeply in libraries in the Puget Sound Region they would find additional books at least lightly discussing this topic, not to mention what may also be online. For me, this meets the presumption as described in WP:GNG. Of course the vast majority of coverage of a statue (with few exceptions) is going to be local, that doesn’t make it not notable, neither does a source section that leaves some to be desired. DJ Cane (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG also says, in its fourth criterion, that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. To count for GNG, each qualifying source needs to give significant coverage (there are exceptions, and I don't believe this is one of them). A passing mention doesn't count. If there's SIGCOV out there, I'd be happy to assess, but speculation a GNG pass does not make. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leeky, you're forgetting this is AfD. Speculation about the possible existence of sources is how the game is played, despite WP:SOURCESEXIST being a WP:ATA. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand behind my argument as being evidence based. DJ Cane (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we speedy close already, since nominator has withdrawn? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. After reading @DJ Cane's argument, I'm thinking of withdrawing my withdrawal. It'll be amusing to see what else people come up with. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Can this be closed now? I see your doubtfulness in withdrawing, but seven (6.5) days after the start of this discussion, I see seven Keep votes with only one Delete vote. Also pinging theleekycauldron in case you have anything to say. Timothytyy (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you want. Folks here seem to have a deep misunderstanding of what WP:SIGCOV means, but I'm not going to fix that by arguing here, so whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal only works if no one has !voted to delete, which I have. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNC, and per discussion and the statues staying power (exhibited since 1903). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. It's an art of work publicly exhibited in a major city for over 100 years. There are multiple secondary sources in a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JohneL NG

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is described as an up-and-coming act by the sources cited in the article. He doesn't have a music career to speak of and has only released songs. None of his music has been discussed in reliable sources and he hasn't done anything to warrant a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's charted on a digital platform only, which we don't count towards notability. Nothing else found we can use for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources in the article seem to be very reliable, nor does he have significant coverage. Seems like he's only known for one song he released. MaterialWorks _(talk) 23:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most of the sources listed are reliable. See Nigerian Sources.Wikispendo (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikispendo, as the creator, you're only allowed to comment and not !vote. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT refs do not appear to meet RS. It should also be noted that this is actually the second AfD for this subject in the past year (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnel-NG). It is also SALTed at Johnel NG and Johnel NG (Rapper) and was deleted previously at JohNel NG, Johnel Music, Johnél NG, and Johnel (Rapper). Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoodGirl LA

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Pulse Nigeria and Native Magazine published interviews they conducted with her. However, these sources aren't independent of her. She was nominated for a notable award, but not as a lead act on the song. It is simply WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have a stand-alone article. None of her music has been reviewed or discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.Wikispendo (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikispendo, as the creator, you're only allowed to comment and not !vote. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:AFDDISCUSS, "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else." Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to @Beccaynr: for the accurate assessment. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the accurate assessment. @Beccaynr. Wikispendo (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seemed to have a bit of career as a singer. She has been signed, has good streaming evidence and social media coverage indicate career success. Passes WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Sources already listed in the article made it easy to expand, but advice to Wikispendo is to not leave a new article as a one-sentence stub for so long; otherwise your articles will keep landing at AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Wikispendo (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Namenj

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not been discussed in reliable sources. As a matter of fact, the only reliable source is the announcement of him being signed to a label that is borderline notable. None of his songs or musical releases have been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search of the subject doesn't show reliable sources discussing him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable musician does not pass the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourced with less than stellar sources. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel High School, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore

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

Can't find anything that would count as an WP:NORG pass. All I can find is user-generated content like Urban Pro and Edu Vidya, which doesn't confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth mentioning that article completely lacks any sources. (Also found a passing mention for their sports teams in the Deccan Herald, "Carmel HS emerge champs". But no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources conferring notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:GNG - appears to be 100 % original research, and not notable. Also, according to my long-standing standards about high schools, this small, private school is not in any way notable. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sibaya Casino and Entertainment Kingdom

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

Was draftified in the hopes of improvement, but moved back without any significant changes. Currently, no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources, and searches did not turn up any. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 15:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is this recent North Coast Rising Sun piece describing the venue and its community involvement, but it is predominantly interview-based and wouldn't be enough to sustain WP:NCORP in itself. AllyD (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known casino and easily meets WP:GNG. A few minutes of searching produced a large amount of material. Here's news coverage about it from WP:RS (IOL carries coverage from multiple newspapers in the Independent Newspapers Group) [6][7][8][9][10][11][12].[13][14][15] Sunday Times/Times Live: [16][17]. Incidental coverage from Sunday Times: [18]. News24: [19][20][21][22][23]. [24] I can add more links if these are deemed insufficient, I got tired of pasting them. Park3r (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, an excellent essay. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Park3r's comment. GeographicAccountant (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, and per Park3r's comment. Jedi wiki 10 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG (I've searched) and the WP:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION essay is utterly unconvincing and has no links to policy at all, it's just the opinion of an author who thinks that all castles and tourists attracts are notable. I'll make my !vote based on policy and guidance not someone who doesn't respect them. CT55555(talk) 02:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Masi

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

Non-notable musician. The artists with whom he's worked are very notable, but not him by a long shot. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do find some sources but have no idea how reliable they are, as they are particularly in the "metal" world. All That Shreds magazine has a fairly lengthy article about him that covers much of the music-related bio that is here. Metal-Archives has a shorter article that is a review of one album. Vintage Guitar has an interview, and says that he was nominated for a grammy. However, I don't find him listed in the Grammy awards site. LA Times has an article covering a performance by his band, and has a few sentences about him. It's all pretty thin. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the articles mentioned above there is also this AllMusic bio here that again mentions his nomination for a grammy award. Also there are staff reviews of three of his albums here, here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - based on the sources found above, he is arguably notable. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We have basically even numbers of editors advocating Redirecting this article and those who want to Keep it. Luckily, a possible redirection, split, renaming or restructuring of this article is a discussion that can continue on the article talk page. Also, I'm here to assess this discussion not adjudicate whether or not Byzantine emperors and Roman emperors should be together on the same list or on separate lists or some sort of third option which is a content decision. This discussion has already been relisted twice and I don't think a final relist will substantially alter the divide in opinions here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Byzantine emperors

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

The List of Roman emperors is a featured article that contains the Byzantine Emperors also; whereas this article is sort of a mess and provides nothing that isn't provided by the Roman emperors list. Feel that this should be redirected to List of Roman emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect FRA as outlined by OP. I do not feel that a separate page for the Eastern emperors is strictly necessary. Furthermore, the "master" page with all Roman emperors contains more details and, rather than having one cell with a relatively lengthy description for each emperor, has everything separated and organized more neatly; it's more to the point. Whoever wishes to see more detail can click through to the page of the emperor. As a little sidenote, I would suggest that the Greek names for all emperors on the Byzantine list from Constantine I to Focas are also penned down on the Roman emperor page, next to the English/Latin one(s), as is already the case for all emperors from Heraclius to Theodosius III. LVDP01 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I always found the adition of that "Notes" section quite weird. These are supposed to be consice lists of rulers, not a list of small biographies. And bout the Greek names, I believe the Greek names are only given after 610 because of the language shift in official documents. Roman emperors always spoke Greek (Marcus famously wrote his Meditations in Greek). Personally I think adding the names would make the Name section much more tight. Either way, we can discuss that later. Tintero21 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; I see no reason to have two separate lists. One version is clearly better than the other; it's basically the same information but more concise and better sourced. Tintero21 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The topic is notable and common sense suggests that there should be a page dedicated solely to this, but the article fails the criteria of WP:CONTENTFORK. Avilich (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably redirect but splitting List of Roman emperors to exclude from it those in the period after the end of the Western Empire would also be feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Aza24 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The List of Roman Emperors is a typical example of original research, or rather original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as redirect but am re-opening it per a request. Per WP:RELIST, any administrator is welcome to reclose at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My stance remains the same. I also want to add that I fail to see the relevance of the Holy Roman Emperors to the List of Roman emperors, as well as how they have "more of a connection with Rome"; even if this was true, they still are not actual Roman emperors, and should be kept separate. Same goes for the Latin emperors, Ottoman sultans, and Russian tsars among others post-1453, whom I cannot consider to be Roman emperors by any means. LVDP01 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per above. Two articles are literally the exact same. However, we should not include the Holy Roman Empire, Latin Empire, Ottoman Empire, or Russian Empire in the list. Just Augustus to Constantine XI.

I think we should also start a broader discussion over the use of the term "Byzantine" on Wikipedia, and the incredibly arbitrary conventions regarding its use. For example, all "Byzantine" emperors from Constantine I to Justinian II are referred to as "Roman", yet everyone after are "Byzantine", with no elaboration. What changed from Justinian II to Philippicus? This is common throughout all of Wikipedia. Some individuals in the fifth and sixth centuries are referred to as "Byzantine", yet some in the seventh and eighth are referred to as "Roman". It leads to lots of edit warring, and general confusion for the reader. This page is just one example of a widespread problem on this we should seek to resolve, and provide a consensus on what is "Byzantine" and what is "Roman" (though I personally favor the view that Rome continued uninterrupted from 753 BC to 1453 AD). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justinian II and many others were originally referred as "Byzantines" in their articles, but successive edits changed it to "Roman"; I'm surprised no one noticed it before. I always interpreted "Byzantine" as meaning "everything after the fall of the West". Assigning exact dates its quite arbitrary, but they are still points of reference. Justinian I may be called "the last Roman" by some, but he's still mostly referred as "Byzantine", with his reconquests marking the "peak" of the Byzantine Empire. I think we could rename the "later Eastern emperors" (which should start with the Justinians) to something like "later Byzantine emperors" or just "Byzantine emperors", with that section serving as the redirect of Byzantine emperor, maybe with an explanatory text or something. Tintero21 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But my main point is, why? To put 476 even as the date for the fall of the west is incredibly misleading, as:

a. Literally nothing changed in 476, except the position of Western Augustus was abolished.

b. Most Romans of the time actually saw this as a reunification of the empire, as Odoacer pledged allegiance to the east.

There was no "Fall of the West", honestly if you were to put a date on it, the Punic Wars would be the closest thing, but even that can't be defined.

My point is that there is literally no reason why this list should be divided (especially as both articles convey the exact same thing), except to follow an arbitrary scholarly consensus that doesn't really exist. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Avilich: The topic is notable and common sense suggests that there should be a page dedicated solely to this. Our current list of Roman emperors page represents a highly "legitimist" interpretation. The Latin emperors are excluded in favour of the Laskarids, as are the rulers of Trebizond. The Holy Roman Emperors, who had a stronger connection to Rome, are ignored entirely. The list stops in 1453 without regards for any subsequent claims. In fact, we have three articles on such claims: Succession of the Roman Empire, Succession to the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman claim to Roman succession. I'm not saying this interpretation is wrong, but it is a particular POV that treats the claims of the Byzantine rulers very seriously and the claims of everyone else as nonsense. My own opinion, which agrees (IIRC) with that of E. A. Freeman, is that calling the empire "Roman" is unproblematic and preferable down to the 8th century. During that century, the emperors lose control of Rome (permanently) and, in 800, a rival claim to legitimacy is created. After that, "Byzantine" is preferable for the eastern empire for clarity.

If we are to have one list like this, I would title it List of Roman and Byzantine emperors for clarity, like our List of Roman and Byzantine empresses. I don't think it will help readers to land at the current page when they search for "Byzantine emperor". The lead would have to be adjusted, since it is concerned entirely with the ancient period. Moreover, the validity of the current list has been questioned. —Srnec (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, your comment here has caused me to realise that a separate Byzantine emperor article, like Roman emperor is a desideratum. Furius (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for better or worse, as long as we don't merge Byzantine Empire into Roman Empire, i.e., as long as the 'Byzantine' state is commonly treated as a distinct topic of study and identified as such, the topic of 'Byzantine emperors' will also need to have its own article. On the rest, I agree with Srnec's comments above. Constantine ✍ 12:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: All the Byzantine emperors called themselves Emperor of the Romans, ruled over a state named the Roman Empire, and their subjects called themselves "Roman". StellarHalo (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of the sources cited in the "Main bibliography" section of the List of Roman Emperors contain a list that covers the List's timeframe (from 27 BC to 1454 AD). The books listed in the "Secondary bibliography" section neither cover the same timeframe, and many of them explicitly refers to the Byzantine Empire instead of the Roman Empire. The same is true in case of more reliable lists presented in the "External links" section: Britannica covers the period from 31BC to 491 AD, Livius.org the period until 668 AD, metmuseum the period until 518 AD. Consequently, we can conclude that the List of Roman Emperors is nothing more than originaly synthesis. @LVDP01, Tintero21, Aza24, Avilich, Peterkingiron, PrecariousWorlds, and StellarHalo: why do you think WP should ignore scholarly literature in this specific case? I think the list of the Byzantine emperors should be improved by splitting the List of Roman Emperors to avoid original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It's odd that we have two seperate articles covering the exact same topic only to please the "scholarly consensus" (even though the scholarly consensus is that the Roman Empire was the Byzantine Empire, and there was no break in continuity.) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you refer to sources cited in the List of Roman emperors verifying its timeframe? WP accept scholarly consensus and does not want to create or promote alternative consensuses. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Srnec and Borsoka: I myself argued sometime ago that the Roman emperors' list should be cut off at some point c. 600-700, but there was no consensus for this and the featured list ended up including everyone. But the nomination is correct that the Byzantine list adds nothing in its current state, and readers should not be directed to the page which contains inferior information. A notable topic may still fail WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CFORK and be redirected, as this article should, until a consensus to split the Roman list emerges; but that discussion is a content dispute and as such belongs on the talk page, not AfD. The current broad definition of Roman is at least not wrong and there's no harm in provisionally keeping it that way until a better division is agreed upon. Avilich (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal. Thank you for your comment. However, I think the current broad definition of Roman emperors is wrong because it is not verified and it presents a specific PoV. Consequently, the present list of Roman Emperors does not meet basic FAL criteria. I think this discussion should be closed without any decision, and the topic should be discussed on the target article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is useful to have this separate from the very long list of Roman emperors, in the same way that it is useful to have lists of individual Chinese dynasties' emperors even though we have List of Chinese emperors. Furius (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also per the points made by Srnec, above) Furius (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and possibly split the list of Roman emperors from the Leonids onward to merge into this article, as appropriate. I think we should follow the majority of the scholarly literature, and conclude that list with Romulus Augustus, or possibly some of his eastern contemporaries who could reasonably go in both lists. Byzantine emperors, even if legitimately called "Roman" in the sense of cultural continuity, are really a separate topic, and should be listed separately under this title. P Aculeius (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel it should be redirected and we rename the page Roman and Byzantine Emperors. I agree we should close the discussion and move this to the talk page. Better to have Wikipedia stand above the historical confusion that was first created due to politics of the 8th century and expanded on in the 19th century when Byzantine studies was also created. Whilst I am not against keeping a page of Byzantine Emperors, ultimately, it's duplicate content and defining who sits where is too hard to get consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasbizannes (talk • contribs) 18:26, February 2, 2023 (UTC)
Keep As far as I see it three lists could easily exist in varying level of detail, one very detail named List of Roman emperors that cover the period before the fall of Western Rome, another very detailed named List of Byzantine emperors that covers the post-ancient period, and one simpler list named List of Roman and Byzantine emperors that list them all.★Trekker (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Mary Beard's thesis that Rome fell when Caracalla gave citizenship to the entire Empire. Of the many ways historians say the Roman Empire transitioned to Byzantine they include:
- Rome was not longer under imperial control (8th century)
- When Egypt was lost and only Greek was spoken (Heraclius era)
- When Rome "fell:" in 478
- When Christianity was formalised (Theodosius? Constantine?)
- when New Rome was inaugurated at Byzantium (330 and the original reason).
...instead, Beard is saying when the citizens of Rome became a political term across the empire, shattering the illusion Augustus first setup that he was carrying on the Republic. It's probably better to say that's when the Principate ended, but going back to this, too many opinions and too many ways to slice and dice. If we combine "Roman and Byzantine", we stay out of these debates and can just organise by rulings Houses as one page. But for that to work, one page and the rest redirects. Elias (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When we have extremely long articles about extremely involved subject matters, wikipedians typically split them into reasonable sub-articles, occasionally truncating the original long article as a brief guide towards the more detailed subs. I see zero reasons presented which preclude our normal pedia growth processes for this list. List of Roman emperors, while perhaps featured, is way over-long and as several users have stated, not particularly inclusive of subjects like Holy Roman Emperors (which have a direct relationship with the overall subject matter). I believe "keeping" here moves this process forward. Users Srnec and Avilich make better cases than I. BusterD (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical subject. NYC Guru (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above, the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article and I'm not very sure if deletion would be an improvement. The other article covers a huge period of time, from antiquity to Middle Ages, and thus is crowded, a little hard to navigate, and possibly a bit confusing for the average reader. Since the two empires are very commonly treated as separate entities in historiography and literature and the rullers of the East are commonly referred to as Byzantines, it is possible that this is how the average reader would search for them. Based on my own experience, this article has actually been helpful. Piccco (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone page. Merging with Roman emperors wouldn’t be feasible since the Byzantine and Western Roman are generally treated as separate topics, and a merge wouldn’t really be helpful to a reader who may just be confused or find the resulting Roman emperors page difficult to navigate. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lorjuste

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was "associate director of scheduling" in a presidential administration, which is not an "inherently" notable role, so making him notable for this would require him to be the subject of a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about his work in the media and/or books. But the only sources here are deadlinked content from the university student media of his own alma mater, which is nowhere close to sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References (the alumni magazine) each fail to deliver all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source. Rhadow (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As a ny state historian, I was not aware of this guy. I was brought here by deletion page. This is great information. Historians might not quote wiki, but it helps makes connections. Joco179 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for inclusion is that the information is notable, by virtue of the subject having received coverage about his work in reliable sources, not whether state historians deem the information "great" or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. references are to semi-reliable sources such an an alumni magazine. Our significant coverage standard requires much more, which is lacking here. The quality, quantity, and deppth of sources do not reach our current standards. I was a Democratic committeeman in Upstate NY, during the period 2001-2009, attending the state convention in 2000, but I have never heard of this guy. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Improvements to the article (WP:HEY) and change in !vote indicates a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Jobe Jr.

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

Notable for only one event. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Foundational reference (only one) fails to deliver all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source. Rhadow (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States at the 1980 Winter Olympics as I couldn't find sufficient sources.

Changed to Keep as per sources found by BeanieFan11 Suonii180 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass GNG, see [25] [26] (p2) [27] [28] and [29] (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhadow and Suonii180:. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TDSnowshoe (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the above multiple significant sources that that date from 1979 to 2002. Alvaldi (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While consensus can change, the longstanding practice and precedent has been to keep athletes at the Olympics level. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't anymore, the consensus as of last year is that all Olympians need to demonstrate they pass WP:GNG (with a presumption that Olympic medallists would usually satisfy this, but other participants might not). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources found to show he passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled from Marilyn Monroe

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

The article reads like an advertisement or a puff piece, not an encyclopedia.

Many of the claims in the article are not supported by the source they are cited to.

The article goes off on tangents to talk about things that really belong on different Wikipedia pages.

As there are Wikipedia pages about The Marilyn Diptych and Gold Marilyn Monroe, the need for this article to exist at all is questionable. The Erethizontidae (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. The Erethizontidae

(talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is way better than Gold Marilyn Monroe (if you're going to mention another article, LINK IT), but we don't really need both - they should be merged into Marilyn Monroe series or something. The nom doesn't contest notability, which is wise, as they are effortlessly notable. Nothing in the nom is a valid reason for deletion. Some trimming could be done, and the student prose touched up. NOTE: Proposing deletion here was the nominator's 10th edit. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - PS: Marilyn Diptych is a different work, not part of the series. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic article with advertising tone, fails to meet GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? What is "unencyclopedic" about an article about a work by a leading artist? The 23 different refs are variable in quality, but several are of high quality. Did you look at them? Though, as I said, this would be better covering the whole series. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails to describe or identify the particular print in the portfolio that this article is specifically discussing. There are 10 different versions of Untitled from Marilyn Monroe 1967 at MoMA and one at the Met The lede states "Untitled from Marilyn Monroe (1967) is one of a portfolio of ten 36×36 silkscreened prints". The article should either be about the portfolio or state which print this article is about. These are iconic images, but this article does not approach it in a way that makes sense. WP:TNT WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying merge/rename, not delete, then. Why not say so? Most of the article is about the series anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, if there are wording concerns about the page content then those are easily fixed (if someone hasn't already done so). The topic itself is 100% notable as a stand-alone page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my vote, the article fails to identify which image it is about. There is no indictaion of which collection it is in nor has there been a fair use image added to clarify which image is being written about. An analogous situation could be if an article was written titled "Image of earth taken from Apollo 8" with no image or description, and then went on to discuss the entire series of photographs taken from that mission as well as photography in space in general. I do not think renaming the article to refer to the series will fix the problems of the article. Yes, Warhol's images and assemblies of Marilyn are notable, as are the photographs take from Apollo 8, but the approach here is wrong for an encyclopedic entry. The subject needs to be addressed anew. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey! As you say, the 19,000 bytes in the article say very little about the individual print (it is a print, btw, in many collections) as it is mostly about the series/portfolio & the conversion of the article to one about the series would only take a minute of so. Yet you are opposed to this. Why? Johnbod (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources in the article discussing this and other Marilyn portraits by Warhol. I would support a merge per Johnbod. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for a very notable topic, Warhol's series. At first I thought this was a vandal delete request or something and that it would be snow closed when I clicked on this discussion. Kind of amazed that it has received delete !votes. The page covers a notable topic, is well sourced, is entirely credible for Wikipedia's Monroe collection and Warhol collection, and there is nothing broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

As discussed above, I propose converting this to an article on the series. I'll open a talk section there. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Lennert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLPs of several politicians, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The only claims here are that they served on the local council of a municipality, which is not an "inherently" notable role and instead hinges on the quality and depth of the sourcing you can use to write an article with some actual substance about the significance of their political careers (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their term in office had on the municipality, etc.) -- but these all just state that the people exist, the end, and all use only a listing on the self-published website of the municipal council for sourcing.
While Greenland is small enough that municipal councillors could potentially be viewed as more prominent and significant in that context than usual, we long ago deprecated the notion that county or municipal councillors would get an automatic "promotion" from sourcing-dependent notability under NPOL #2 ("local officeholders") to "inherent" notability under NPOL #1 ("national or state/provincial legislatures") just because their country doesn't have a state or provincial level of office between the national legislature and the local councils -- so these councillors' notability would still have to be established by sourcing the articles to proper WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work rather than relying on a single primary source. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Greenland. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, with my major complaint being the lack of secondary sources. No objection to recreation if better sourcing is found and notability can be established per WP:NPOL. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The expectation of a local official is sourcing that shows much more than they exist and actually discusses the significance of their time in office. Size of jurisdiction does not matter in application of this expectation. --Enos733 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Single Day

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

This is a band that does not meet notaiblity for bands. There is no evidence of charting any singles or albums. The only thing that comes close to indicating any sort of notability is that the band won a "Stammy award" which apparently a local music award for Stockton, California. That is not a major award. The references in the article are mostly interviews or noot reliable sources.

is an interview and does not contribute to notability
is an interview and does not contribute to notability
is not a reliable source
is an interview and does not contribute to notability
Presumably is this which is a directory entry and does not contribute to notability
Unable to find this article but the title indicatres it is about the Stammy awards and I doubt there is anything approaching significant coverage
Presumably this which does not even mention the band
Unable to get to any archive of this but I cannot imagine there is any significant coverage in a Yahoo Travel guide about Cesar Chavez park
I cannot find this source online anywhere but this is about a battle of the bands competition hosted by the magazine wo it isn't an independent source. Whpq (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Beyond what the nominator listed, I can find nothing beyond a few gig announcements and the usual self-upload streaming services. They got some hometown notice that the article over-hypes, and I would not consider the local blurbs to be the significant coverage that is needed here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajita Apu

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

Seems to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL pay-TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afiq Razali

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

I can't find evidence of any coverage towards WP:SPORTBASIC. He scored one goal as a professional, which I found mentions of in Sportimes and The Star but neither article contains detailed coverage of Afiq. Subsequently, he played at the amateur levels and I can't see any decent coverage of him since dropping to that level. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Ikmal Hafiz

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept previously due to playing some WP:FPL games, which is no longer relevant as a guideline - see WP:NSPORTS2022. Nobody in the previous discussion said that they thought Amirul met WP:GNG. The sources in the article are either databases or trivial mentions so do not help towards WP:SPORTBASIC. In all of my searches, I could only find a match report mention in ESPN and one single mention in an article in NST. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Public School, Hosur Road

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

A very similar article already exists in draftspace at Draft:National Public School so no need to send this to draft as well. I am not seeing any evidence of WP:NORG being met. The only sources I can find are database profile pages like Bangalore Education, which falls short on WP:ORGDEPTH. Other sources like the school's own YouTube channel, own website and other social media accounts fail WP:ORGIND. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - another copy exists at Draft:NPS 2 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school in both drafts is not notable. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable; we have an entire series of National Public School articles which are all private and owned by different people (thus not part of a united effort), and anyone can claim they're Central Board of Secondary Education-certified, but we need sourcing to confirm as such. Right now, we just have SPAM and evasion based on the second draft, and K. P. Gopalkrishna is connected to it all. Nate • (chatter) 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The school exists. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment How does it meet WP:GNG then? Please expand your reason for keeping. Nate • (chatter) 15:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any sources that could establish notability.Yilloslime (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be retained. THE SCHOOL IS NOTABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish2015 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC) I've moved this !vote to the correct location and indicated its intention. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing to demonstrate passing the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep this article and I'm also influenced by the nominator considering whether or not to withdraw this nomination and even the lone Delete vote is for a Soft Delete made impossible by all of those advocating Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hendren

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

Fails NSPORTS due to lack of SIGCOV. The source cited in the article is simply a list of oldest footballers and not a reliable source. My WP:BEFORE turned up only a passing mention in a list in "Old Leather: An Oral History of Early Pro Football in Ohio", and a passing mention in a 1919 Newspaper article. No way of identifying if Johnny was his nickname and if so whether his real name was John or Jonathan, so impossible to link him to other J. Hendrens. I'm OK with straight redirecting to a Canton Bulldogs list or whatever, however these redirects are controversial so I prefer to do this via AFD. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he played eight games in the pioneering years of the NFL. Sourced by PFR. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NSPORTS2022 decided that participation-based notability criteria (i.e., "he played X games, therefore notable") were no longer sufficient to sustain notability. Furthermore, purely statistical, all-encompassing databases such as PFR cannot be used to show the notability of a sports person per WP:SPORTBASIC. I feel that AFD !voters have the right to be wrong (though competence is needed and certainly you should listen) but straight voting as if the old inclusion criteria still applied and there wasn't a massive, well-attended discussion that decided otherwise, that Randy Kryn is well aware of because he's discussing it at ANI right now, makes me start to doubt this feeling - a right to be wrong does not extend to being disruptive just to make a point. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point was to Keep per the players sourced accomplishments at PFR. Apology accepted. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is that policies that you are well aware of don't apply because . . . reasons? You know number of games played does not matter and simply referring to a sports database isn't enough (it wasn't even NSPORTS2022 that decided that BTW - SPORTSBASIC predates that). I mean this is AFD and probably not the place to discuss this, but seriously... FOARP (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully point out that WP:SPORTSBASIC is not a policy, it's a guideline. Guidelines are not Wikipedia gospel or even a random prayer. They are suggested but not required guidelines. In the case of accepting PFR as a reliable source for notability of a professional football player, in this case one of the pioneering players in the 1920-21 precursor-but-counts-as NFL who played a respectable eight games, I stand by my Keep comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn - OK then, can you explain how PFR does support notability? For reference this is I think this is the link you are looking at and the entry in its entirety is this:

Johnny Hendren

John Crowther Hendren

Position: HB

5-10, 185lb (178cm, 83kg)

Born: April 25, 1897 in Philadelphia, PA

Died: June 3, 1964 (Aged 67-039d) in Drexel Hill, PA

College: Bucknell

High School: Northeast (PA)

SUMMARY

Career

G: 8 AV: GS: 1

I note that it says nothing about even how much of these games they played, what role they had in the games, and certainly does not substantiate any prominence in these games. This is exactly the case referred to by SPORTBASIC - a guideline/policy that predates SPORTS2022 - which tells us that a simple statistical database that includes every Pro-Football player who ever played does not indicate notability any more than e.g., a directory of professional lawyers, accountants, plumbers, or other all-inclusive directory of any other kind of professional including only basic statistical data about them. The entire point of the old, deprecated participation-based notability criteria was always supposed to be that people who played that many games *probably* had significant coverage out there, and not simply that they *were* notable simply for having played that many games, so even under the old criteria this would fail, because there is no significant coverage being produced at this point. I posted my WP:BEFORE results, you know I searched Newspapers.com and GBooks, as well as other sources, and didn't find SIGCOV - can you find it? FOARP (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SPORTSBASSIC: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Playing eight games in the pioneering NFL, that meets my personal criteria, which is what everyone applies when discussing whether or not to impose a guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia decides by consensus, we don't just decide things by personal criteria. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not closing this deletion attempt by deciding consensus, but merely voicing my opinion within the attempt. Putting it another way, if I meet a 1920-21 NFL pioneer veteran who played eight games I'd shake his hand, not tell him "That ain't beans" (at least to his face). I've !voted to include this one in Wikipedia on the same personal, but what I consider common sense, criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd shake his hand right next to you, but the list of people whose hands I'd shake and those who should have articles about them on Wikipedia are not the same. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FOARP, lol (I only write that when I'm actually laughing out loud), I did do a poor job of wording that. But you know what I mean ("Mister, darn it, if you only had a biographical article on Wikipedia I'd be proud to shake your hand"). Looks like BeanieFan11 is doing a great job since I checked this page last, this player seems to have been notably active in a few places. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or at least Draftify so I could turn it into something decent). We should keep this one. Hendren played eight games in the National Football League, was team captain at Bucknell, later played pro football for several other teams (1923 1924 and I know I saw more) and was mentioned many times in articles' titles for being one of the top performers in his games, see for example [30] [31] [32] [33] – then there's other coverage at [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] – and it seems that in nearly all of his college game reports he received several mentions (the same even in his NFL games), such as him being called the "star of the game," or one of Bucknell's best, etc. In my opinion, all this, added up, is enough to pass NBIO, which states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 - the articles you've posted cover games for All-Lancaster by a man named Hendren - a relatively common surname. There is no first name or even an initial mentioned in them. These are play-by-plays that give no actual coverage or details of the individual. How do you know that these are the same man? There is, for example, no mention of Johnny Hendren having played for All-Lancaster in his PFR entry, and no evidence that these are the same man. For all of the rest - these are passing mentions, not significant coverage, which requires that the subject be addressed directly and in detail such that an article can be written about them.

It would help people greatly if you refrained from posting WP:REFBOMB-style answers and exercised more discretion in the links you post, rather than attempting to give the impression that the subject is notable by simple weight of the number of mentions (which I note are more than the number of NFL games this person is supposed to have played in). FOARP (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that articles such as [48] and [49] do not cover him directly and are "passing mentions"? And you're ignoring the reason I listed the more brief articles – to show a pass of NBIO, which specifically states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether the Hendren with All-Lancaster was the same, I find it highly unlikely that there were two halfbacks named Hendren who were top players in Pennsylvanian football in the late 1910s/early 1920s (especially since I was able to find him as playing pro football from 1920-21, 23-24 – it only makes sense that he would have been on Lancaster in 1922 – also, Pro-Football-Reference doesn't list those teams). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hendren is not so uncommon a surname that we can simply assume that there was no other Hendren playing. I see journalists, diplomats, and even a soldier by the name John/Johnny Hendren. What is required is positive proof that they were the same. It is hard to say that something “addresses the subject directly and in detail” if it doesn’t even give you their actual name. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the community felt that the requirement for SIGCOV sources on athletes could just be superseded by BASIC, that exception would have been addressed in the RfC. Instead, there was overwhelming support for all athlete bios to meet GNG and include at least one GNG-contributing source. So a bunch of passing and routine mentions -- which wouldn't contribute to BASIC anyway -- do not cut it.

Additionally, you're well aware obituaries do not count when independence cannot be established (and a listing in the obituaries section of a local newspaper will virtually always be a submission). JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he was notable, it was probably for his college career rather than his professional career. There are a bunch of sources on Newspapers.com regarding him, mostly from his college career but I haven't found a significant one yet. While it isn't a great source, I do find it a bit interesting that there was a AP bulletin in several newspapers about his death in 1964 where he is mentioned as the former captain of the Bucknell University football team and former professional player[50] Alvaldi (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided by BeanieFan11 in his 18:50, 4 February 2023 post, plus lots of shorter mentions are enough to convince me he meets GNG, especially given that most sources from 100 years ago are no longer accessible but that notability is not temporary. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and analysis provided by BeanieFan. The large number of references with small but non-trivial mentions of the subject allow for a pass of NBIO and GNG. Frank Anchor 16:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant improvements since the nomination was made, clearly notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Soft Delete Most of the references currently in the article don't relate to his football career, and those that do are only passing. Without the football career what is it that would make him notable? That he fought in WW1 or was captain of his schools football team? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that SIGCOV sources in-depth cover a specific point in someone's life to count towards notability. What matters is if it covers him directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content – we clearly have sources here which do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone appears in an article about a church fair as a child, that counts towards notability of their later gymnastic career? Sorry that shouldn't be right. NOR is not notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally count towards notability coverage of a child (unless that coverage is very extensive), but college and after (and high school sometimes as well), we do count towards notability if it meets the definition of sigcov (covers the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I still still cover of playing college/high school football, which in itself doesn't seem notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I still still cover of playing college/high school football – could you rephrase that? Also, plenty of college football players (and a few in high school, too) are notable for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'll try that again, I somehow didn't type ever part of the sentence. As an example the point I was trying to make, if "a" is not notable and "b" is not notable then "a/b" is also not notable. If someone doesn't have coverage to show they were notable for playing football at highschool/college, and they don't have coverage to show they were notable for playing in the NFL, then you have someone who is not notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general if "a" is not notable and "b" is not notable then "a/b" is also not notable. This general rule may not apply to all subjects, however. The expectation for a professional athlete in an elite league is at least one GNG source to have a stand-alone article. While sports databases cannot be used as a RS to confer notability, they are not worth nothing, as they can be used to support content in the article. So, to me, subjects do not necessarily need contemporary RS coverage to have a stand-alone article. - Enos733 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recent widely attended RFC on the matter stated that these articles need to meet WP:GNG. One good source is not enough to pass the requirement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the close of Proposal 1 in WP:NSPORTS2022 found no consensus on that specific point. The close did find that "sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." - Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the close Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG.. I don't believe this discussion has actually found the sources sufficient to meet GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm teetering on flipping to keep (but can't withdraw because there is one delete !vote), but the "wounded in France" piece is probably the best one - and the source appears to be Hendren himself since they attribute it to letters quoted by his family? That's not independent. The pieces saying simply "Hendren" I am inclined to discount unless there is something clearly indicating that it is Johnny Hendren that they are talking, Hendren is a fairly common surname and anyway the "Wounded in France" piece tells us he had a brother who was also a sportsman. Passing mentions are passing mentions - you cannot simply pile them up and say "this is SIGCOV" unless they collectively describe the subject directly and in detail, and they don't. I'm not knocking what BeanieFan11 has found (though I wish they led with their strongest sources and a description of why they support the subject rather than dropping 20 -cite REFBOMBs) but the fact that few/none mention his NFL career does give the lie to the idea that simply appearing in a given number of NFL matches automatically makes you notable, because if it did then reliable sources would also mention his NFL career as a notable thing that their readers needed to know. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Polishing Cloth

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

This article is currently a Stub class at best at the moment, and it's literally just an article about a cloth. Theknine2 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. None of these are policy-based reasons for deletion. Sandstein 18:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has coverage in the NYTimes and Gizmodo. Seems like a marketing ploy by Apple, but we have sourcing talking about it, so it's acceptable, meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be for a merge provided there's a sensible merge destination. For example, if iPod Socks was up for deletion, I'd rather see it merged in as a section of the iPod article. However with this one there's not really a good destination that I can think of. EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pro Display XDR; this cloth is for nano-textured glass, and the most notable product with that glass is the Pro Display XDR. Two of the links are from reliable-but-clickbait Gizmodo. iFixit is routine coverage, as part of a MacBook Pro review. All the articles were published within a day of each other, immediately upon the cloth's announcement, and there was no significant enduring coverage. WP:MULTSOURCES tells us that the number of sources required to prove notability can vary depending on certain factors. Passing, , partly clickbait, partly routine coverage doesn't confer notability. DFlhb (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC); trimmed 15:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, widespread coverage in our WP:RS, clearly passes WP:GNG. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Passes WP:GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This product is not notable independently of its manufacturer. Wikipedia is not a catalog of Apple products. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shathiya Kandasamy

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

Despite his 2 games at the professional level in Malaysia, I'm not seeing any significant, detailed coverage. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. A Malaysian search yielded the usual databases like Transfermarkt and ESPN. My other searches yielded nothing better than a trivial mention in Sinar Harian and an image caption in Berita Harian. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth B. Jenkins

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

I cannot find an independent ref for this long term orphan Victuallers (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Victuallers (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Spirituality. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is no longer an orphan. CT55555(talk) 14:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My extensive searches found nothing to suggest notability. CT55555(talk) 14:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No comment about the subject. A book written by the subject fails WP:SIRS. Rhadow (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Jdcooper (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - her 1997 book has a lot of reviews from reputable outlets (Booklist, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly) that have been added to the article. WP:NAUTHOR could possibly be met if we can find critical reception of her other books. Bridget (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Gelbmann

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

Not seeing why Gelbmann needs an article here. According to Magyar Futball, we could expand the stats a little bit as he played for a few clubs. In terms of actual WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, however, I could find nothing decent. Nemzeti Sport is a trivial mention only and I can find nothing about him in other articles by that newspaper. 24 and OEFB confirm that he had a career in the amateur 4th tier of Austria as well but I can't see that this led to any news coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only in case he really played in prof. league for Budapesti VSC as I found on Az Wikipedia page. Otherwise, I totally agree with nominator Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:NSPORTS2022, the professional games for BVSC still don't make him automatically notable. Only significant coverage per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC would allow for an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article but I'm not sure that settles the issue of whether or not there should be a notability tag on this article. I think that is worth a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tayseer al-Jabari

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

Although I'm the editor who expanded this article from a redirect, at the time (back in November) Onel5969 added a notability tag. I discussed the issue on the talk page, and their argument was that all cited sources talked about the death of the subject, so he wasn't notable on his own. I wasn't convinced, but left the tag nonetheless. It was then removed by a user whose other edits happen to all be vandalism, so I thought that nominating it here would be most fit to settle the notability issue.

Note: I created this article before being an Extended-confirmed user, as I did not know of the relevant ArbCom rulings at the time. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hmm. As a senior officer of a militant group for more than two decades and the repeated target of assassination attempts, he would seem to be fairly notable in term of military history, regardless of page quality issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like there are solid refs which meet the GNG in English and one can easily imagine there are more in Arabic. JMWt (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added another Arabic source from 2019. There are others since his death too, so notability is not in doubt. Mccapra (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I am the nominator, I also think this should be kept, and only nominated to settle the issue of the notability tag. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 16:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Iliya

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - comprehensively fails GNG; I can't find anything outside of social media, database sites with low standards for inclusion and his own club's website Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Statz

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

Vanity page created by subject, doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet notability for biography of living person. Officialangrydub (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Colorado. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete beyond some concert listings and one interview, nothing notable found. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiography. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. I see an A7 was declined in the history but I disagree that there's even an assertion of significance (much less notability). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single interview does not constitute a foundational reference. Fails to deliver all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, (4) secondary source. Rhadow (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Hardie-Jordan

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Oceania, and United States of America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Baby Mulipola

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Barmada

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:AUTHOR WP:SIGCOV. Just being a Mayor of Aleppo for one year doesn't confer notability. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Politicians. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 13:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no reliable source and WP:GNG coverage completely fails. Nilpriyo (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep after improvements to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Alexander Lindo

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

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His profile by the Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slavery constitutes significant coverage, and cites The Lindo Legacy which will have additional coverage. Jfire (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jfire, the book "Lindo Legacy" was commissioned by a family member. It is therefore not an independent source. Lamona (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jamaica. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way notable. Athel cb (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been nominated more than 10 articles with same last name. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Jfire. CT55555(talk) 03:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like this book might have coverage. Will check at my local library. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Jfire, the article has coverage to pass.Epcc12345 (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as most of those advocating Keep do so because of a source mentioned in this discussion. But its independence has been questioned so I'd like to see either a rebuttal of that source so some additional references brought up. And although I have a known dislike for mass nominations of articles, whether or not this article should be Kept should be judged individually based on the merits of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just added info from two different Anglo-Jewish encyclopedias (one old, one recent) on Google Books and he also appears in The Jews in the Caribbean. He also has at least one patent. jengod (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added title page of the printing of Discourse Delivered on the 6th Tamuz, 5597-9th July, 1837, at the Synagogue of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, London, on the Occasion of the Demise of His Late Majesty William the Fourth By Abraham Alexandre Lindo 1837 to his infobox. jengod (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rivington Bruce Bisland III

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Only source I could find is [51], which isn't really even about the subject anyways. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 04:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 04:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strangely enough, the article creator tagged it as a poorly sourced BLP as they created it. And they've since been indefinitely blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced about the subject, but that's not my argument. One reference Reddit? Fails to meet all four: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source. Rhadow (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:NBIO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhadow. Not enough sources and fails several basic policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and none appears likely to emerge given split !votes following the relist. Star Mississippi 20:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Henderson shooting

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

This article was originally created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of HughD in violation of a ban. In addition to that, there's no evidence that this incident has received any sustained media coverage and will continue to receive any. Most of the sources are local, and all but two of them are from 2020. Shootings where four people die, including the gunman, are a dime a dozen in the U.S. nowadays, and this doesn't look any special. Love of Corey (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I tried the "first page of hits on google" notability test, all relevant hits on the first page, except for one, were already used as source. So at a minimum not much chance this article could be expanded much beyond its current state. (Note, depending on the words I entered into the Google search bar, some results on the first page would be for an unrelated shooting in North Carolina that has similar key words.) However, I would note that it has received coverage beyond local New York Times CNN Daily Mail with the last of those 3 links being the lone "first page of google hits" that was not already used as a source. Also this source is dated 2022, so it has had at least a token amount of staying power in the news. Is that enough to merit keeping the article? I'm not sure but am leaning no.Dave (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom mentions all but two sources are from 2020. I'm neutral on deletion but wanted to point out WP:NTEMP. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This tragedy is notable enough, so the article could stay, as long as more sourcing could be found. TH1980 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he only appears to have shot 4 people, that's almost routine now in the US. I don't find any lingering coverage of the event, three years later. It's sad, but a routine crime event. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that I am glad that I live in a country where shooting a few people to death is not a routine crime event. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article cites enough sources to meet GNG, and notability is not temporary. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The shooting has received sustained coverage due to the controversy over whether one of the victims was shot by police and an ongoing federal lawsuit by the family. Examples here and here (to be fair, these were published after this AFD was started). Hatman31 (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - continued coverage as presented above. Sources in article are sufficient as well. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see a divided opinion here thus far. I hope another week of policy-based arguments will tilt things either towards Delete or Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020 - this is an event article, so the WP:EVENT guideline and WP:NOTNEWS policy applies. Reliable sources do not show an WP:EFFECT or a significant or widespread impact, and there appears to be no WP:INDEPTH coverage with analysis to support notability. With regard to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, the initial burst of news coverage does not create notability, and there is the recent AP wire story about a "non-judicial public review" (that occurred because there will be no criminal case against the involved officers), and a civil lawsuit facing a motion to dismiss (that according to local coverage, is based on the defense of qualified immunity). Per the guideline, the recent sources also do not show an effect and significant or widespread impact - this subject is newsworthy, but per WP:N, even if a subject appears to have WP:GNG coverage, an article can still be excluded per WP:NOT, and the WP:EVENT guideline helps assess coverage and apply WP:NOTNEWS policy. Beccaynr (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after seeing nearly ten unique sources (of varying national prominence) I can't imagine ever supporting deletion. Clearly notable, and notability is not temporary. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regrettably, this is a routine shooting. I don't see this ever having any lasting effect. Redirecting to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020 would also be acceptable. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De Anza Theatre

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

Lacks sources, appears to fail WP:GNG. Can't find many online either, but if they're available consider Draftify until they're added into article Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is a good article. There is no reason to delete. Evangp (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-written article about a clearly notable subject. Serratra (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I just added a bunch of stuff including that it was designed by S. Charles Lee, photographed by Julius Shulman, site of a test screening of Singin' in the Rain etc. jengod (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the architecture nor its history as a theater (movies, then live acts) make it notable. David notMD (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added context on significance of Lee and Shulman, extended detail on architectural elements and building style, building use history, design integrity, that it is considered eligible for California Register of Historic Resources, but not NHRP, et al. jengod (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The California Register would still be significant. Even if it was declined for the NRHP, an in-depth architectural study would have been done before submission. It's potentially registered at the State level, just not the national level. I'd still consider that notable. To be fair, the NRHP is really an honorary listing, it doesn't offer any level of federal protection beyond certain tax breaks. See here [52] "Under Federal Law, the listing of a property in the National Register places no restrictions on what a non-federal owner may do with their property up to and including destruction, unless the property is involved in a project that receives Federal assistance, usually funding or licensing/permitting". I think this is still a notable structure. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear policy-based comments after the substantial work that has been done on this article since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note the historic resources survey's fairly comprehensive review of the place (on PDF pages 76-79 of https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showdocument?id=31369) has only been used in the article to make the somewhat negative statement that it's not NRHP-eligible because it's not well enough preserved. None of the positive evaluative statements in the review are used, nor is it cited for any of many facts that I think go beyond what's available in the (lesser) sources that are cited; I am guessing the review was found only after the article was mostly written. Useable material there includes statement that the property "is an excellent and rare example of a Streamline Modeme movie theater in Riverside....While the [Streamline Moderne] style was popular throughout Southern California during the 1930s, there are few examples simply because there was so little construction activity during the Depression. The De Anza Theater exhibits significant character-defining features of the style, including horizontally-oriented masses, flat roof, and curved walls. Other significant features include the fluted pylon with prominent signage, and the continuous bands of fixed horizontal fins over the windows that are reminiscent of speedlines." And there's more to use. I will construct a better reference to this review/report in the article. In general, a place having NRHP listing is useful in Wikipedia AFD discussions to a) establish some assertion of importance (already well-enough established for this place, so NRHP listing not needed for this purpose) and b) to establish that there will exist substantial documentation about it (and in this case the 4-page report, even with its somewhat negative judgment in the end, provides that already). Keep, there's plenty here. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. So the nominator's preference, that even if it is established good enough sources are "available consider Draftify until they're added into article" should be ignored. There are sources, there's no requirement the article needs to be rewritten to include them, this AFD is ready to be closed (keep). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, plenty of sources. No denying there is room for improvement, but this seems to meet WP:GNG. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lastonia Leviston

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

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:REFERENCE. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 03:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete Seems like she is only notable for one thing WP:BLP1E and there is not significant coverage and while the article doesn't discuss criminality, I see her akin to the victim of a crime and with her only being known for her privacy being broken, it seems like a weak reason to have an article. As the coverage seems tabloid, and not sustained, lots of reasons push me towards delete. CT55555(talk) 14:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E - reliable sources appear to cover Leviston only in the context of a single event; she appears to otherwise remain, and likely to remain a low-profile individual; this article gives undue weight to the event; and the event does not appear to be particularly significant and her role is either not substantial or not well documented. She sued, won, and appears to have eventually collected on the judgement, but there does not appear to be support in reliable sources for an event article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems almost unanimous which makes it easy to close this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwunonso Nwabufo

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

BLP of an early-career researcher who does not meet WP:NPROF. Twice declined at AFC for lack of notability but moved into mainspace anyway. Mccapra (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Advertising, Science, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh. Has only been publishing for the past three years, still a PhD student, an h-index of <10 in medical sciences... this is nowhere even close to a WP:NPROF pass. This is a good example of why people shouldn't try to write their own Wikipedia article, because now you get to hear a bunch of people who have never met you tell you that your achievements are insignificant, when you're actually doing quite well for the stage of your career you're in. Come back when you're tenured or when you get a profile in the Globe. -- asilvering (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the vote; however, your comment is not actually backed up by any factual evidence to support lack of notability.

Your comments suggest that you have not taken time to evaluate the subjects profile as written in the article. A lot of factors are put into consideration when considering the notability of a scientist. You have failed to examine the achievements of the subject relative to his career stage and leaders in his field. This accomplishments of the subject are well above his career stage and/or peers and are more comparable to leaders in his field.
At 31, the subject had already achieved the following leadership and scientific accomplishments:
1. Contributed to the development of two approved drugs for COVID-19 and HIV during his tenure at Gilead sciences.
2. Received over 20 awards including one of the most prestigious national awards in Canada : Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Award
3. Editorial board member of prestigious journals including Drug Metabolism Reviews and Journal of Applied Bioanalysis
4. Scientific leadership positions at the largest professional association for pharmaceutical scientists: Vice Chair, Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Drug Metabolism Community of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists
5. Has significant media coverage
These accomplishments are most prevalent to people at the top of their field in pharmaceutical sciences.

If you feel that there are useful ways in which the page can be improved, please suggest but do not make generic comments that indicate that you may have not actually read the article in its entirety and/or lack domain expertise to evaluate scientific accomplishment in the field of pharmaceutical sciences. SamuelKC (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contributing to the development of a drug is routine, that's what scientists do, work on teams to develop stuff. He appears to be one of the "grunts" doing the behind the scenes work. He's still a student, basically doing what any other student in his position does. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel a little less bad about having to vote "delete" now, at least. Thanks for that. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems likely there are COI issues and/or the subject is writing a page about himself. As the others have said, he hasn't done anything sufficiently notable yet. This shouldn't be taken as a comment on the subject of the article or the editor who did most of the editing of the page (if those are two different people), who may well be fine individuals. JMWt (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, @JMWt is basing his nomination on what other people have previously said and has failed to include any mechanistic and factual evidence to support limited notability for the subject. For example, what metrics do you use to define "sufficient notability"?

It is my impression that the nomination by @JMWt is malicious and lacks any evidence to support his conclusion for recommending deletion of the article. SamuelKC (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate personal attacks or accusations of malice. I understand the notability criteria and the metric is the accepted level of academic work and academic prestigue needed to meet WP:NPROF - namely that the academic is at the very top of their field. You don't have to agree with me or my conclusions, but you do have to assume good faith - especially when the people you are interacting with are uninvolved other than making a judgement at AfD. JMWt (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any factual evidence to support the deletion of the article @Mccapra or is your primary reason for recommending deletion primarily based on other's opinion? A useful evaluation should be based on your own findings, data, and any mechanistic evidence to support your conclusion? SamuelKC (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has brought useful findings to the discussion; a conflict of interest is serious. Notability is taken as described above and below. What we seem to have is a smart student, working with much smarter people. I'd suggest you please read PROF and GNG by clicking on the blue links for each. The person described in the article does not meet any of those criteria; if you feel they do, please offer a reasoned explanation without getting upset with people. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student awards and employer publicity don't add up to WP:PROF or WP:GNG notability. The promotional text and creator WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion don't help either. Given that the creator's initial edit summary called this "my personal Wikipedia page" it seems likely that there is an inadequately-declared conflict of interest here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was also declined in the AfC process, created anyway, nominated for speedy deletion, created again, and here we are. Should likely SALT after the AfD is done. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think delete and salt might indeed be the way to go here. Someone who insists a CIHR doctoral grant is "one of the most prestigious national awards in Canada" is wilfully misrepresenting the facts, completely misunderstanding the point, or extremely high on their own self-promotional supply. He'll be back. -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's particularly egregious given that he's describing the CIHR CGS, which is explicitly less selective than the CIHR Vanier CGS. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is completely irrelevant that the subject is advanced relative to his career stage.

43 citations on Scopus is 2 orders of magnitude lower than that of the average professor in this field (fails WP:NPROF C1a).
Student-level awards are explicitly excluded from contributing to C2 notability: awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.
Only chief editorship of a major journal meets C8.
Only the highest-level position of a major academic society counts for C6.
There is no indication the subject meets GNG or C7. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd agree with the JoelleJay line of reasoning. He's not achieved anything we'd count towards PROF. GNG isn't found either, this appears promotional to help this person gain a foothold in the academic world. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the top 11% of 515 people means there are around 60 others like him; that's not notable. He's one of a large group of people. Top 1% perhaps, he's lost in the upper portion of the field of candidates. Oaktree b (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the awards, publications, etc, will do for WP:NPROF. The only hope would be a GNG pass, but of all the listed sources, only one source is independent and non-trivial, the Good Nigeria profile. (The Star Phoenix profile has a highly promising title, "Young Innovators: U of S undergrad researcher investigates COVID-19's impact on people living with HIV," but it is actually about someone else, with only a trivial mention of Nwabufo.) I don't know Good Nigeria well enough as a source to speak to its reliability, but regardless, a single profile about someone's student performance is not enough for GNG. The academic job market is such that being an exceptional doctoral student, as Nwabufo seems to be, is simply the price of entry to the career. The point of comparison for an encyclopedia article is not "other graduate students who will apply for a Banting postdoc soon" but rather "Frederick Banting." This article is WP:TOOSOON by at least a decade. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serratus (virology)

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

Lacks notability, creator has a major COI TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adding in a vote per format. See my previous reply above for rationale. Ababaian (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion Silikonz💬 21:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of creating a wiki page for the Serratus project is for the integration of the underlying database to the relevant virology / bioinformatics pages. The goal is to increase connectivity with what is the world's richest collection of RNA virology sequences.

For notability: see Altmetric for this work (https://nature.altmetric.com/details/121608850). It is in the top 5% of all research output and in the 99th percentile for attention, including reporting from several news organizations

- Canadian CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/supercomputer-virus-study-disease-1.6345158

- National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/ciencia/descubiertos-mas-130000-virus-gracias-a-nueva-herramienta-informatica_17807

- Science Magazine: https://www.science.org/content/article/new-dangers-computers-uncover-100-000-novel-viruses-old-genetic-data

For COI: This article has no more COI than most other bioinformatics software/project pages and a large volume of the scientific edits on wikipedia.

- see contributors for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_bioinformatics_software

If there are specific issues with the neutrality of the article I am open to suggestions to address this. Ababaian (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ababaian I would love if you could added these sources you are listing into the article because as of right now there is only one source linked. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two of the news citations. Any other suggestions? Ababaian (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources certainly boost the case for notability. I'm going to leave the discussion going to see what others say. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. seems sufficiently notable based on

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/supercomputer-virus-study-disease-1.6345158 https://bc.ctvnews.ca/the-hope-is-we-re-not-caught-off-guard-again-b-c-researcher-says-of-discovery-of-9-new-coronavirus-species-1.5756953 plus the National Geographic article linked above. CT55555(talk) 02:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is well-established by reliable independent sources. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting in Shemiranat guild hall

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

Apparent WP:NOTNEWS violation, describing a recent incident not demonstrated as passing the ten year test for enduring significance. As written, it's basically "this is a thing that happened, the end", and reads like a straight-up copy-paste of a police breaking incident report while describing absolutely no ongoing effects or consequences to establish long-term significance.
As always, Wikipedia does not indiscriminately maintain an article about every single incident that happens in the world: we maintain articles about notable incidents that people will still be looking for information about several years from now, and this fails to demonstrate passage of that test. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't notable and reads like a breaking news bulletin. Appears to be a routine police call. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails WP:GNG Stopasianhate (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:GNG fail. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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