Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Kiessling[edit]

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

Aside from AllMusic, I'm not sure what the reliability of these sources are, but I'm not convinced of them. Didn't find anything else. QuietHere (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searched and could not find enough sources that are reliable. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Allmusic bio and routledge book referenced in the article point to the composing of multiple tv theme tunes and scores which would count to passing WP:NMUSIC criteria 10 and as it is multiple tv shows redirecting to one would be inappropriate, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Atlantic306, plus other music sites, recently sampled by other musicians MNewnham (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article reflects what he's best known for in the English-speaking world, but the German Wikipedia article has a couple more sources that cover his non-soundtrack work. Nexis also finds an obit in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, 8th January 2004 which lists several German shows he composed for, and rather enthusiastically describes him as "the German king of easy listening ... the German Vince Guaraldi". Adam Sampson (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely to be kept per vote count alone anyway, but the sources Adam has provided have convinced me. Silly me forgetting to check for int'l versions. Withdrawn. QuietHere (talk) 04:05, 17 March 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. LFaraone 01:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brian Browne[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub for 15 years. Fails WP:BIO. Those arguing for keep should provide evidence of actual sources. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 15 March 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. If someone feels like they can find offline sources and wants the draft, just ping me. No need for REFUND. Star Mississippi 01:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Computerized Airline Sales and Marketing Association[edit]

Computerized Airline Sales and Marketing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. In fact, I'm barely able to find any references conforming that this org exists, — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From old press releases ([1], [2], [3]), it looks like this association was active from 1979 to somewhere around 2014; the official website was still active in January 2014, but appears to have gone dead later that year. I'm guessing that any RS coverage is likely to be offline. –FlyingAce✈hello 04:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I was working in the airline industry when I created this article. I thought it was useful to have a central place where information about CASMA could be collected. To FlyingAce's point, a Wikipedia article becomes even more valuable for industry history when sources become harder to find. But I don't feel strongly about it. --Macrakis (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added some more info with footnotes. Many of the sources are admittedly press releases and thus primary sources. --Macrakis (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find a good number of press releases (and re-publishing of press releases) but the only non-press release article I find is the last one in the article's ref list. Note that most of the references, like the Yahoo News one, turn out to be press releases. Lamona (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Press releases don't make the organization notable. Without any reliable secondary sources, it fails WP:GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:30, 22 March 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. While reviewing the discussion, I found that the deletes were mostly based on NLIST and the keeps were mostly based on non-policy based criteria. For example, X entries are notable so the list must be notable is out of sync with policy. Because of this keeps were given less weight.

There was a general agreement that PictoChat meets the GNG. After my delete, I am going to restore the article, remove everything else and move the results to PictoChat. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of messaging applications for Nintendo game consoles[edit]

List of messaging applications for Nintendo game consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a group of non-notable software that is still not notable even when bundled together. No real reason they cannot be talked about on the requisite page of the game system in question. (The article used to be about PictoChat only before it was turned into a group article, so maybe it should be page swapped with PictoChat before deletion). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PictoChat is notable. The others might not be notable by themselves but they were merged in here to keep them around. I would say if anything the article just needs some cleanup of excessive detail. Andre🚐 20:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: First of all, WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a real argument. If you have the sources to prove PictoChat is notable, please put them here, as I unironically would love to see them - a WP:BEFORE from me came up with only one of note. Second of all, I assume this is a Move to PictoChat and keep argument based on what you said, rather than keep at its current name, as bundling non notable, only tangentially related subjects is not under Wikipedia policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is extensive magazine coverage of PictoChat[4]. Most are passing mentions, but a few cover this more in-depth such as Play and EGM magazine from 2004 Andre🚐 21:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: These all seem like trivial coverage, not extensive coverage. Can you point to the ones in particular that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a blurb in this issue of Play[5] Built in to the DS hardware, PictoChat lets up to 16 users converse, exchanging messages and drawings with the DS’ wireless capabilities. and it comes up again Not unlike PictoChat, Ping Pals is messaging software that lets up to 16 players communicate via DS. I'd say those blurbs plus the screenshots is pretty much what passes for significant coverage in a gaming magazine. It's more than a passing mention but not the main topic of the entry. Plus EGM [6] The stylus-centric wireless instant mes- saging/drawing program PictoChat is built right in to the DS hardware. with screenshots. Again, this is more or less a decent mention for a gaming magazine. There's also a bit in this publication "The Girl's Guide to Gaming" [7], p.299-301. This one looks decent as well [8] p.17-18 And check out this one[9] Andre🚐 21:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: The only one there I'd call non-trivial coverage is the Hyper magazine review, but since there are also GameSpot and IGN hands-on impressions of Pictochat, I think I'm convinced that it's notable, since that is three WP:SIGCOV sources.
    That said, it still has no bearing on whether a list like this is notable. But I would support a "move back to PictoChat and trim the rest" result for this AfD, since PictoChat is the only notable subject here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yes, I don't really see anything to keep in Wii Message Board / Wii U Message board. Those should really just be described as features in the Wii(U) articles. Andre🚐 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm struggling a bit to see where exactly you're drawing the line with some of these editorial decisions. This is an unnecessary split, but Nintendo DS Browser was so necessary you restored it with almost no improvement? Please help me make it make sense, beecause it feels random and arbitrary as is. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, Nintendo DS Browser is an unequivocal pass of WP:GNG while no application in this article is notable. See WP:NEXIST, as the quality of an article at the current time does not correspond to its notability/potential for improvement. The browser article stands to be drastically improved once its reception gets expanded and cruft removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not redirected for notability reasons, it was redirected for being an unnecessary split from the parent Nintendo DS article because it's just a basic port of a basic web browser. More or less the same thing this nomination is getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is pretty much an WP:WEDONTNEEDIT argument. I could also say that Firefox is a basic web browser as well, and I would be telling the truth, but it is still highly notable. The fact is that the Nintendo DS Browser was unique as it was a standalone purchase, necessitated critical reviews for people to decide on said purchase, and had its own hardware adapter to even make it functional. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The same could be said for PictoChat it was a notable messaging feature and had a cultural impact, it was a feature that reviewers and commentators specifically spoke about. It was a built-in feature but was billed as a new software platform for messaging. Andre🚐 21:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, hence my confusion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two items on this list have separate articles, one has an entire section of a larger article, and one has been discussed as notable above. A "Non-notable" argument does not work here. The others are probably non-notable, but that is what you get with lists without notability criteria sometimes. In conclusion, this should not be deleted, especially not for notability concerns. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: By your own admission the only notable thing here is Pictochat. So, you should specify the article be moved to Pictochat even if kept. There's no particular reason to bundle Pictochat with everything that came afterwards even if they aren't even the same thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Did you read my reasoning? I said that two of them had their own article, which clearly makes them notable. Neither of those were Pictochat. One of them had an entire section of another article, which is a lesser, but still there, form of notability. That one was not Pictochat either. Pictochat was the one discussed as notable here. That is four notable entries. The rest are just byproducts of a list criteria not based on notability. Clearly, notability is not a valid argument for deletion here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: None of them would be notable enough for a standalone article besides Pictochat, so they do not "have their own article". They are a section of a larger article that is not entirely about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: I was wrong about one, but Swapnote, one of the entries on this list, has an article, as you can see by the link. Swapdoodle has its own section of the article on Swapnote, and Wii Speak Channel has a section of the article on Wii Speak. Pictochat is clearly not the only one worth mentioning. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: Swapnote has an article, yes, but it shouldn't. It's not notable. If you can prove that actual WP:SIGCOV exists of Swapnote I might legit consider withdrawing this AfD, but right now I can only find trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Destructoid and Joystiq looked like WP:SIGCOV. I believe Nintendo Life is an independent reliable source as well. There is your WP:SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my argument is that the coverage is not significant despite being mentioned by WP:RS. The Joystiq one was simply a trivial news update as far as I could tell. I am pretty confident the article wouldn't survive AfD without being merged to Nintendo 3DS#Swapnote, making it yet another "section of a bigger article" type mentions. The article claims there was a GameSpot review but the lack of any source and the fact that it is "out of 5" rather than 10 makes me think it's a hoax. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: Swapnote has a metacritic page. The "Swapnote Remastered" update was covered by Nintendo Life. Twice. Destructoid also covered the remastered update. There is an article about Swapnote at TheGamer, assuming that is reliable. A news update entirely dedicated to Swapnote is hardly trivial. This is clearly WP:SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it has articles on IGN. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Having a Metacritic page" is not significant coverage. Everything has one, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
    The Gamer is also not considered proof of notability per WP:VG/S
    And news updates can be trivial if they are simply informing on patch notes or announcements and not describing something indepth. If nothing better can be discovered I will probably be nominating Swapnote for AfD whatever the result of this one is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise against that. Just from a cursory glance of a few sources (IGN, Nintendo Life, GameSpot), Swapnote has a lot of significant coverage. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nintendo Life went into detail about the why, not just patch notes. There were also several other quality sources. How is that NOT significant coverage? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete Individual apps might or might not be notable, but there's no assertion versus LISTN that as a whole, Nintendo game console chat apps are an element that's been the subject of critical focus. Sources that X, Y, and Z exist do not equate to "A List of X, Y, and Z" being worthy of inclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mostly unsourced. There is some scattered coverage that might make sense for a redirect, or very selective merge if someone wants to suggest a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for closing admin If this page does get deleted, please move it to PictoChat and delete all content not under that heading rather than the entire article. The swapped with page can then be deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sections without references should either get references or be deleted, but this kind of model of "small topics merged to a general list somewhere" is a good one. While ideally it would be an overarching topic with general coverage as David Fuchs mentions, as this is a Wikipedia grouping, it's not completely forbidden to group these in some fashion that makes sense on Wikipedia, and "messaging applications" doesn't really seem like OR. So as long as there are short, referenced sections that are kept in some sort of meta-article like this one, it's fine. SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Restore PictoChat as a standalone article. Fails WP:NLIST with minimal coverage of these subjects as a group. There seems to be enough coverage of Pictochat for standalone notability. Other applications have less coverage and many already have articles or sections in other articles. Frank Anchor 16:16, 21 March 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 Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's 50 metre freestyle. Joyous! Noise! 03:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazlati Mohamed Andhumdine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 15 March 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. Consensus is clear among established editors Star Mississippi 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KuCoin[edit]

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

Non-notable crypto company. I find plenty of PR pieces about them in financial newspapers, but nothing about the company. Raising capital and the like, routine business dealings. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Per CoinMarketCap, this exchange falls in the top 5 largest globally. At the time of posting, this exchange processed $761 million in spot volume and $2.3 billion of derivatives volume in a 24-hour period. <nowiki>"Top Cryptocurrency Derivatives Exchanges". CoinMarketCap. CoinMarketCap. Retrieved 17 March 2023.<nowiki>. While this exchange isn't transparent, it is certainly notable. To say otherwise seems very puzzling. Satoshi (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Largest isn't criteria for notability. Coverage is per WP:SIRS only for companies. scope_creepTalk 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Raising fund and how to use it is very important to check company health(especially in downturn in crypto market). Also, the topic of cyberattack is not positive one even if page said they recover 84%. It is very difficult to share neutral information since everybody have their own bias. I think you can delete some of section of page but deleting entire page is not good idea. 240D:1A:A2D:8D00:519B:D4DE:53AD:14C9 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Raising funds is a routine business activity and not any sign of notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This coi editor looks like a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 21:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I vote to keep this page because it's a lot more notable than suggested. When I did the original research after seeing the missing page, as cited on the page, there are several non-"raising capital and the like" references that are from reliable sources. When looking at the entirety of the page 23 references (currently), there are only three "raising capital" type of events that I can see. If you want to edit those out that's fine, but I think the page should stay. Thank you! NeedAUsername44 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I was able to find what I think are many reliable sources but using the three best method, here are a few good ones I think stand out to me. If you need more info, of course let me know, I'll try to track it down for you. I hope this helps. Thanks. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Politico.com - "Two of the world’s largest crypto exchanges failed to take steps to prevent sanctioned Russian banks from using their platforms, according to a report from the blockchain analytics firm Inca Digital provided to POLITICO. Huobi and KuCoin, both based in Seychelles, still allow traders to transact with debit cards issued by sanctioned Russian banks, including Sberbank, on their peer-to-peer platforms, according to the report, which will be published later today." (source)
  2. WashingtonPost.com - "A top Senate Democrat on Tuesday pressed Binance, Coinbase and other major cryptocurrency exchanges to explain how they would protect their customers in the event of a financial calamity, as Washington braces for further fallout from the collapse of FTX. Wyden directed his letters to the U.S. division of Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, KuCoin, Bitfinex and Gemini, major exchanges that allow customers worldwide to buy and sell various digital tokens. The senator asked them to reveal more information about the way they manage customers’ deposits and assets. Wyden also requested the firms’ balance sheets, while demanding they explain their policies in the event of a crisis, such as bankruptcy." (source)
  3. Reuters.com - "A preliminary United Nations inquiry into the theft of $281 million worth of assets from a cryptocurrency exchange last September “strongly suggests” links to North Korea - with industry analysts pointing to Seychelles-based KuCoin as the victim of one of the largest reported digital currency heists." (source)
  • Hi NeedAUsername44, just to be clear, you're saying that these mere mentions-in-passing in various publications meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability? The criteria for establishing notability is much more than mentions in reliable sources. HighKing++ 17:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of being notable. Looked at the first block of refs. They're consist of funding news, ceo interviews and company generated news. None of it is independent. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 21:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, did you look past the first block of refs by any chance? The first block does have some funding news, but also non-funding news and if you go to the rest of the page it has a lot of major news events with many reliable sources. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add another comment. I noticed several other Wiki pages with similar content like Huobi and OKX (see also List of bitcoin companies) and those are okay. Wondering what the difference is in this case? Anyhow, that may be beside the point. When I did the original research it became clear to me that this is a more well known and news-worthy company than some of the others with major global events, garnering attention from the likes of the United Nations[1], US Senators[2], and NY States Attorney[3], etc. I think at the very least the page should stay and can be built on as clearly there is a lot of news surrounding this company (especially after the FTX scandal). Thanks. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument that should be avoided in Afd. The references and quality of the references is what decides whether it stays or goes per WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a top 5 cryptocurrency exchange and there is other exchange Wikipedia pages that are certainly less notable than this one. As another person said this is puzzling and piqued my interest. So thought I would comment. Some of the other ones I saw have pages but are less notable are BitFlyer Bitpanda Bitso Bitstamp and more. That is just getting through the B named exchanges. I'd say based on the rest of the page reliable sources this page should stay. Zingpsych (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coi editor is a WP:SPA who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 [10] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
  • Ref 2 [11] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Ref 3 [12] Fails WP:ORGIND. Interview with the found. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
  • Ref 4 [13] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Ref 5 [14] Another interview. Fails WP:ORGIND. Not independent.
  • Ref 6 [15] Another interview. Fails WP:ORGIND. Not independent.
  • Ref 7 [16] Another interview. Fails WP:ORGIND. Not independent.
  • Ref 8 [17] More funding annoucements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Ref 9 [18] Same press release as above. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Non-rs.
  • Ref 10 [19] Passing mention as getting sued.
  • Ref 11 [20] Same press-release as above.
  • Ref 12 The court.
  • Ref 13 [21] Getting hacked. Doesn't prove its notable. It is generic.
  • Ref 14 [22] Same press release from twitter annoucement as above.
  • Ref 15 [23] Money recovered.

Not a single one of the references which consist of mostly routine coverage of funding annoucements and ceo interviews are woeful. The fact that it got hacked is such a routine occurance that it fails to register in any great details It is a generic and happenstance and doesn't prove its notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 16:42, 21 March 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 Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team. Sandstein 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayka Zima[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources do exist such as [24] and [25], however they are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of those "trivial" sources establishes a claim to notability: the first Tahitian to compete in the Federation Cup.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Redirect? Another tough one. First Tahitian in Fed Cup. Two Bronze medals in the same international tournament at the 2015 Pacific Games. Usually when looking at a tennis career that might be enough. The only problem is in looking at her full pro career it's a blank slate. Per the WTA she played no events ever. Per the minor league ITF Challenger level I see no events played. Per the minor-minor league ITF events I see no events ever played. Did they lose her records or did she never play anything other than Fed Cup and the Pacific Games those two years? All I see is some junior results from 2008. Did she get injured and retire? Did she die? Because she did absolutely nothing else I would lean towards Delete but perhaps a better idea is to redirect this to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team where her name is in a list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply for being the first Tahitian to play in that particular tournament as described. This would also help combat "Western nation only" bias on wiki, where anything and everything from a western nation gets noted, but hardly anything from elsewhere on the planet does. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also coverage in French from Radio 1 Tahiti we can use to flesh out the article. [26] Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of whether there are or are not multiple reliable and independent sources which cover this subject in reasonable depth would be helpful in determining notability. Tangential discussions of "first", "western", or the like are generally not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirect Happy to go with emerging consensus below. WP:BEFORE shows an almost complete lack of SIGCOV. Routine match listings, incidental mentions in a few news reports that lead with Carol Lee. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team with no prejudice towards recreation if Tahitian sources are found that cover her more in depth. I found absolutely nothing on normal searches of Google and Newspapers.com, but imagine there could be local sources that we're somehow missing here. Per WP:NTENNIS, she doesn't meet the mark right now but it seems oddly strange that this is all she ever did. Nomader (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Want to explicitly note here that Oaktree b's article is a great find, but I don't think it's enough significant coverage to pass muster. A note should be added to the talk page with links to the few references we have for her. Nomader (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only other mentions are on a site called Tahiti Info, [27]. I suppose it's RS, appears to be a news website. Sports Tahiti [28]. This about a match from a Saipan newspaper, [29]. Radio New Zealand [30]. A Tahiti Newspaper [31]. There isn't much else. Are these decent-enough sources? Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tahiti Infos is a news site, and its the source for pretty much everything in French Polynesia. Radio1 and TNTV are also good sources for French Polynesian content.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about a redirect to the Pacific Oceania team that competed, there plenty of coverage about the team she played with? Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which I mentioned and linked to in my post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And which I also listed above. Per the sources that Oaktree found, they're all... kind of passing mentions of Zima herself, but really terrific information about the team at large. It honestly reinforces my !vote towards redirecting. Nomader (talk) 03:12, 17 March 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. LFaraone 01:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignace Meuwissen[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage consists of articles either in Dutch with passing mention or from non-reliable sources. 24GT (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-09 ✍️ create ← 2012-01 ✗ G2
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies delisted from the New Zealand Exchange[edit]

List of companies delisted from the New Zealand Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See no evidence that this topic passes WP:GNG. Paradoctor (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Lists, and New Zealand. Paradoctor (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The New Zealand Stock Exchange is notable and this list is about companies de-listed from that exchange. Many of the de-listings attracted media attention. The list has appropriate criteria. Delete - As noted earlier, I was not welded onto my position. I have interpreted list criteria incorrectly so happy to support deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is about the list topic, not the exchange nor the individual companies or delistings. WP:NLIST: Notability of lists [...] is based on the group. Are there any sources discussing NZX delistings as a group? Paradoctor (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point @Paradoctor and thanks for pointing that out. My knowledge of list criteria is not the best. You do not think there is media coverage about the delisting of companies from NZX? I feel like the notability of the delisting's kind of is based on the "group" in the sense that delisting of NZX companies is an event that often attracts notability. A list seems perfect. We certainly would not want a separate article on each of these delisting's, but a list? Idk, it just seems to fit. If my argument seems shaky - it probably is. Out of 400+ AFDs - I have probably done less than 5 list discussions so I could be way off here. Either way, this isn't a hill I'm prepared to die on. Let's see how the consensus develops because I am far from rusted onto my view here. Cheers! MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Delisted companies are not considered as a group (other than by this site), only individually in announcements. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to maintain this list. CharlesWain (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It feels fundamentally wrong to remove this list article. Will our readers be interested in this topic? Absolutely. Is there an issue with referencing? No, not at all. There’s a Sharesies article that discusses why a company may delist and given that this is a NZ company, I suggest that firstly, this information should be included here for context. Secondly, I’d argue that the article discusses this list. Schwede66 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article discusses the concept of delisting, which is covered at listing (finance) § Delisting. Here and now, the topic is companies delisted from NZX, which is not even mentioned in the article, let alone discussed. Paradoctor (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Ambazonia. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

States of Ambazonia[edit]

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

"Ambazonia" is not a functioning nation-state; it's a separatist guerilla movement. As such, it doesn't actually have "states," beyond the declared wishlist of its organization. The content of this article is almost wholly based on primary sources, and a good chunk of it is the apparent invention of the article creator, who among other things has developed fictional "flags" for these fictional "states," for which they're now at ANI. As such, I'm seeking to confirm a redirect to the Ambazonia article, and am taking it here under the expectation that a simple bold redirect would be contested. Ravenswing 21:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, and Cameroon. Ravenswing 21:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary AfD IMO, should have redirected yourself. We'll do fine without this redirect so I've tagged as A10. —Alalch E. 10:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add: there are no "states of Ambazonia", so I don't even support such a redirect. Deletion is in order, speedy preferably. —Alalch E. 10:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You will find that a controversial redirect is just liable to be reverted, unless "Redirect" is the confirmed result of an AfD. This would also immunize the article against recreation, which simple deletion doesn't do automatically. (And by the bye, an article that might be plausibly redirected is ineligible for speedying.) Ravenswing 11:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that this hoax-laden redirect needs to exist. —Alalch E. 11:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no "states" of Amabazonia except in the mind of Wikipedia vandals and petty fanfic regalia cruft pushers. A redirect would entertain that there is some basis to this concept which exists in RS, and I see no evidence for that. For the same reason, "Mongolian lunar colonies" and "Video games in Medieval Europe" do not exist as redirects, because they do not exist currently, have not existed in the past, and have not been seriously proposed to exist in the future as reflected by RS. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except those examples don't hold water. This article does exist currently, has been proposed to exist, and unless it gets salted, has the possibility to be recreated down the road. (Never mind that nonexistence is no bar, considering the tens of thousands of redirects of fictional concepts, places, institutions and characters.) Ravenswing 18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I ended my examples by "as reflected by RS". Ambazonia itself isn't exactly extant either, but its proposed existence is at the center of an ongoing armed and political conflict which has been heavily covered in the media and now some scholarship. I think what you're suggesting would mean any one Wikipedia editor could cause a WP:FAITACCOMPLI simply by creating a single bogus article and then forcing us to try and redirect it, when it should have never existed in any capacity before. I'm willing to change my mind if we see that the Ambazonia Interim Government has proposed subnational states in their claimed territory along the lines of the US or Nigeria, since that makes this a plausible search redirect for readers, but I'm not seeing that at the moment. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Lean merged - For the original version. It made sense of the deleting that article, as the original was already exist.
Through redirecting to the original Ambazonia, and expanded it's delete feels warranted yet. As for now, I'm thinking a bit that the redirected page should will be merged with the History of Cameroon and/or Anglophone Crisis. Along maybe reviving it's original infobox, if the few disorganized Ambazonian separatist guerrilla groups. Has formed a military coalition/unified paramilitary group aganist the Cameroonian government. But, as it stand in March 2023, as it seems for some reason, they still are disorganized both military and politically, if the information avaliable is scares in that civil conflict. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article history and then redirect to Ambazonia per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOR. It's clear that the States of Ambazonia is a WP:POVPUSH article designed to present the goals of the Ambazonia guerilla movement as fact/reality. It's supported by primary sources with a political agenda rather than neutral sources; thereby violating policies on WP:No Original Research and WP:Neutral Point of View. As such, I think all record of the article should be deleted to prevent a merge of this WP:POV/WP:OR material into the target article and then it should be redirected. I see no problem with including content on the "State of Ambazonia" as a concept in the Ambazonia article given that it's an idea motivating conflict/events in Cameroon provided that material comes from reliable and neutral secondary and tertiary sources, and the material about the 'State of Ambazonia' is presented not as a fact but as an ideological concept.4meter4 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ravenswing and 4meter4 said it best. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 22:11, 23 March 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 Winter Hill transmitting station. Any useful content can be merged as editors see fit. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Kirby television relay station[edit]

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

This is an article about a small pole (as pictured in the article) which relays television signals to fill in coverage for about 3,400 homes in a suburb of Liverpool. Fails WP:GNG on the grounds that it is not, in and of itself, notable. Sources are just routine administrative lists of TV transmitters and there are thousands of these around the country. WP:NOTDIR of minor television infill stations. Flip Format (talk) 21:27, 15 March 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 Hubert Burda Media#Media and digital brands. LFaraone 01:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Asia[edit]

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

Despite 18 references, none of them come from reliable secondary sources and there is no notable coverage of them from a quick search on Google :3 F4U (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blanking and redirecting (nominator) as there's not anything to merge here. :3 F4U (they/it) 06:43, 17 March 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. LFaraone 01:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hashneen Chauhan[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, no major parts. Coverage is typical celebrity fluff or cast lists. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Clearly not notable enough to be on the mainspace. A prime example of self-published promotional sources was added to the article. Reference bombings to cite a one line was quite hillarious. Khorang 05:49, 18 March 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asmad[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. I could find nothing better than squad list mentions in Viva and Bola, which are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of depth of coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 15 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 03:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Workopolis[edit]

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

I don't see anything special or remarkable about this company, certainly not GNG-wise, and the coverage is very pedestrian. Does not pass NCORP. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A ProQuest search appears to yield numerous results for articles specifically about this company. Mindmatrix 18:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've updated it and it seems to satisfy notability criteria. It was one of the top job boards in Canada when it was running. CT55555(talk) 04:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per sources added by CT55555 with further potential for expansion if someone can access this article by the Calgary Herald on ProQuest. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:25, 20 March 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Brain[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Confusingly, there seem to be two semi-pro/amateur footballers with this name. Coverage such as Lynn News, Eastern Daily Press and Fakenham Times is about an outfield player for Fakenham Town F.C., rather than the goalkeeper that is the subject of this article, so all need to be disregarded. Neither of the footballers with this name seem to be notable and there is no WP:ATD that would make any sense in this case. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Lawrenceville School. Salvio giuliano 21:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawrence[edit]

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

The subject is a high school newspaper that seems to lack notability. There are hardly any independent sources besides off-hand mentions, and the large table of kids involved suggests there may be a self-promotional aspect to the page. Stopasianhate (talk) 18:36, 15 March 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burry Port television relay station[edit]

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

A small television relay station, one of thousands of almost identical sites providing TV service to part of a small town. It transmits with a total of 2 watts meaning it provides service to a few hundred homes at most - it is not notable under WP:GNG in any way. Flip Format (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unfortunately, some editors in the past have thought anything that fitted on an anorak forum also fitted on Wikipedia. This is an example, and we simply don't need it. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This relay station is only notable at a local level (that is, the town it serves). TH1980 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, there's loads of these across the country and this one doesn't seem notable to a wider audience outside the town Lewcm (talk) 13:52, 19 March 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. LFaraone 01:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bala transmitting station[edit]

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

WP:NOTDATABASE of small television transmitters and their frequencies. This is a low power television mast covering a village with no real notability - it is not the site of any original innovation in television broadcasting (e.g. Ferryside television relay station which was the first in the UK to switch to digital) - it is just one of thousands of very similar small transmitter sites providing TV service to towns and villages. Flip Format (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reason I gave in the other cases. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, there are loads of these across the country and this one doesn't seem notable to a wider audience outside the town. Lewcm (talk) 13:53, 19 March 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. LFaraone 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flint television relay station[edit]

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

It's a defunct analog television transmitter for a small town - basically, an antenna on the top of a tower block. No sources cited, not notable in any way - it is hardly a major landmark like a Crystal Palace or a Wenvoe. There might be some notable stuff here about campaigns for Welsh language broadcasting, but I don't think this article about a TV transmission relay is the hook on which to hang it. Flip Format (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's not notable and it only has one source. The welsh language broadcasting section could possibly be put into another article if there's a suitable one available. Lewcm (talk) 02:16, 18 March 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. LFaraone 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania Handball Champions Cup[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Currently no references on the page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Handball, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The newspaper les Nouvelles Calédoniennes has to every edition where a team from there island participated articles [32]. For example [33] and [34]. There are some mentions in a german newspaper [35] and [36] and also in a french one [37]. Also la Dépêche de Tahiti has an article about the 2011 edition. [38] Unfortunately the article is not online anymore and it was not archived. At least in New Caledonia and in Tahiti exist news article and some from Europe. Also this championship is a qualifier for the club WC IHF Men's Super Globe. In my eyes the article will pass WP:GNG and there is some WP:SIGCOV.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Qualifier for IHF Men's Super Globe, most importantly. The majority of the years have articles that at the time had valid links that editors had obviously read and pages were then reviewed by independent editors clearing the sources. I agree the article will pass WP:GNG and there is some WP:SIGCOV. Bjcook — Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: that's clearly not the most important sport event in the world, but it's a continental competition wicht qualifies for IHF Men's Super Globe. Some sources exists or existed. I fully agree with 2 previous votes. --LeFnake (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Australia, and New Zealand. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Page has no references. The only potential sources that do exist are all from the one source (mentioned above) with the other source going to a dead link. For this reason, I believe the topic doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV requirements. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a newspaper article of the 2011 edition from La Dépêche from Tahiti. You see the newspapes in Tahiti and New Caledonia had articles in there printed versions. Also another info: an other name of this tournament was Tiri Master.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 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. Star Mississippi 02:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Affine Analytics[edit]

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

References are either press releases or self published. Do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Dalai60 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. Dalai60 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When searching, it is worth distinguishing the similarly-named "Affine DeFi" and a "Affine Protocol" crypto project which has made recent fundraising announcements. AllyD (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA-authored article about a company. There have been large numbers of edits by further SPAs since it was accepted at AfC in 2018 but it remains substantially as it was then. More recently, they were mentioned by a Gartner analyst in a "Market Guide for Data and Analytics Service Providers" (2019), sponsored a UC Berkeley event on Gaming and AI (2022), announced a partnership with a digital marketing company (2023) and announced the setting up of a manufacturing lab (2023). I don't see a staff team's participation in a hackathon as notable here; if there is notability it would rest on the 2012 Analytics India interview with the CEO about obtaining angel funding, or the unbylined CIO Tech Outlook piece (2013) describing the company's aspirations: some may view these more positively, but I don't regard them as "substantial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH. Overall, I don't see the evidence of notability required here. AllyD (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is Back (Chinese TV series)[edit]

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

Not finding sources indicating a pass of WP:GNG. Two included sources are not reachable by me, but that may be the fault of my ISP. edit: withdrawn, see below ASUKITE 16:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. ASUKITE 16:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sources may exist in Chinese. I know, I am just saying WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, so I am not voting keep, just commenting. I'll also add that the creator is a student, so as their instructor, if the consensus is that this is not read for mainspace, I'd ask for this to be userfied in their userspace rather then deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn - Thanks Piotrus, I hadn't even looked. I don't want to discourage a student from editing. If nobody else wants to vote delete this can be closed. Sorry if this was a bit hasty of me, I usually put more time into my AfD nominations. If anybody does feel this needs more time it can still be moved to a draft, but I'll leave it alone myself. ASUKITE 19:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a bit early, but consensus is clear, and the nominator's comment below could be interpreted as withdraw. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. E. Cleveland[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of being notable. No external WP:SECONDARY coverage outwith the church. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked him up the only places that talk about him are Seventh-day Adventist websites. No notable newspapers talk about him and no notable magazines talk about him, this proves that he was never notable outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Catfurball (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found quite a lot about him, in general newspapers. It seems he was widely known. We don't require sources writing about him to be notable, they should be independent and reliable, like these.[39][40][41][42][43] Thincat (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)::[reply]

*:Delete. The coverage in independent sources seems to be obituaries, which do not confer notability (or else everyone with an obituary would be on wikipedia). Stopasianhate (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thincat: That seems to be two obituaries you have found there. Your saying these are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? scope_creepTalk
Well, the first two references are one obituary extending over two pages. Editorially written obituaries, used with care, are a good source of biographical information. The other three references were published decades before he died and are not obituaries. They are all significant and independent. Less significant articles I didn't include. Thincat (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with obituaries, as opposed to death notices that are paid for? Obituaries are among the best sources in newspapers, because they give a general overview of a person's life rather than write about an individual event. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Alabama. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because systemic bias. You expect white/mainstream newspapers in the American South to write about a black evangelist for a suspect denomination (SDA has endured a LOT of prejudice over the years). I'm seeing what's been written about his life retrospectively as being a summation of all the articles that apparently should have been written about him during his lifetime, but weren't. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I expect is evidence that the person is notable and passes WP:SIGCOV. Not a position you've taken that completely ignores policy around notability with some nebulous argument that can neither be proved nor disaproved and where none of us has the guidance nor the capability nor the tools to prove it either way. Hard evidence per WP:THREE is the general route to proving notability. scope_creepTalk 09:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know he was black but I would still hard evidence that he is notable. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that is so it seems that you did not read the references I provided. So neither will you have learned he was the first Black leader to integrate the church's hierarchy (I think that means he had white associates – but I am not religious so I may not understand properly), and his preaching attracted many denominations worldwide with large, enthusiastic congregations. I found it interesting to read about him and I'm sorry you didn't have time to do the same. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday was a busy day for me and I was working on a lot of different articles. I did read the article references you presented above but it didn't register that he was black, truly. I did ask you if you thought he was notable and you seemd sure. I think with five news reports that are secondary coverage is a pass for WP:SIGCOV. I would close it now, if not for the delete !vote. One more keep and its closed. scope_creepTalk 15:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (it deserved more than a ping!). Thincat (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thincat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- His body of publications and that his personal archive was considered important enough to be preserved both point to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as newspapers coverage from various time periods that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the point has been made through discussion that conensus has been reached that the man is notable. I think this can be closed. scope_creepTalk 13:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enniscorthy RFC[edit]

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

No encyclopedic references are used whatsoever, furthermore the notability and the importance of this article for the Sports category of the Wikipedia community is disputable. 多多123 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 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. Cunard's in-depth source analysis was given the most weight. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis (cat)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:1E: all citations focus on a single, transient event, and the subject has no lasting significance. This was a 3-day peoples' interest story that doesn't qualify for an encyclopedia article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case was notable for the international attention it got for a cat being put on house arrest, along with the massive media furor. It was also reported on in this book. --DrBat (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. This was a passing minor thing with no lasting significance for the one event. Among the linked news articles, almost all are just reprints of the Associated Press piece, not actually that much independent reporting. There's lots of people whose unusual crimes are re-reported nationally, but being a cat still doesn't mean he needs his own article. Few, if any, of the other cats in the book linked above are notable either. Perhaps there's another article like Animal trial where he can be mentioned. Reywas92Talk 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The seemingly large number of sources in the article are all covering the same story. No indication of any lasting notability. If this were notable, we would need coverage about other aspects of the cat's life. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what about renaming the article to be about the case? --DrBat (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Beyond the trial coverage, this is a historical event as it was the first time an animal had ever been put on house arrest. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that while there is coverage, it is all focused on the single event, and it is, essentially, a human-interest story. It has no long-term significance or coverage. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources are "all focused on the single event". My rationale for retention is that the event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Diversity of sources and Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage through coverage in national and international sources, a journal article, and four books published over four years (2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009). The article can be renamed to be about the event as suggested by DrBat. A rename could be discussed on the talk page since it's unclear what the best title would be (possible titles are "Trial of Lewis", "Arrest of Lewis", or something else). Cunard (talk) 06:31, 22 March 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 based on the overwhelming consensus. Questions about changing the article and the title to focus on the event is for editors to hash out on the talk page. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stübing[edit]

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

This article is a WP:BLP1E. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRIMINAL#2 and the societal and legal impacts it had in Germany. --hroest 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP policy cannot be superseded by the notability *guideline*. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BLP1E criteria 3, which says that a separate article should be avoided if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. While Mr. Stübing's crimes may not have been as significant, they certainly seem to be notable and I see this as an analogous case. Since BLP1E requires all three conditions to be met, an article seems justified especially as his crimes themselves do not have one. Highway 89 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Criteria 3 is predicated upon the existence of an article covering the event. An article on the subject is unjustified precisely because there is no article about the event. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 13:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with Hannes Röst: the event(s) have received significant coverage in reliable sources over more than a brief timespan, and have had a legal impact. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does BLP policy matter here when he was clearly stated to have been convicted?★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:BLP1E
    Subjects notable only for one event
    • Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
      • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
      • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
      • If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

    Let's look at what we have here:
    1. Do reliable sources cover the article subject only in the context of a single event? (YES)
    2. Is that person otherwise a low-profile individual? (YES, this is just a German citizen, not a person who is otherwise newsworthy)
    3. Is there an article actually covering the event? (NO, which means nothing from this article can be merged anywhere and also negates the possibility of a separate bio as presented in the Hinkley example)
    I do not see a cogent argument for keeping this article. The BLP policy, of which BLP1E is part, is a bright line. This article fails on all counts. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If there is an article about this it should be about the controversy and aftermath of the case, which is the notable thing, not the person themselves, this person doesn't have notability besides this event (WP:1E in the notability guideline says The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.). I also think the article does not pass WP:BLP1E - reliable sources only cover this person in the context of a single event, the person appears to remain low profile, and the event was not significant (I interpret a significant event as being something more like a national or globally important event, not just a case of a weird crime, which happen often) --Tristario (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me that any BLP1e issue could be dealt with by simply adding the word “case” to the article name, but I don’t think that’s necessary here. First, he’s well-known not just for the case, but also for the associated course of conduct which occurred over years. Second, our policy says, “If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual….” But I don’t think that’s likely, because he continues to campaign on the issue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give a source for him continuing to campaign on the issue? I saw some unreliable sources like the Daily Mail saying something to that effect, but when I read the articles they didn't appear to mention anything he did in the present and quoted things and recounted things that happened in 2007, the time of the case. But maybe I missed something. I also wouldn't consider the subsequent appeals to be a separate event to the case Tristario (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw an unreliable article from 2022 saying, “In Germany right now, Patrick Stubing is fighting to change the law around incest in his homeland.” No source seems to contradict that, so I don’t think we can say it’s likely wrong, though of course we cannot use the unreliable source in the BLP. Even putting all of that aside, he’s well known for the conduct, not just the case, of course people find the conduct more interesting than a bunch of legal details. Add to that the fact that appending the word “case” to the BLP title would be rather trivial and limiting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't use an unreliable source to assume he's not low-profile, especially if reading the source doesn't clearly indicate he's still campaigning for this. And what conduct? It's pretty normal for a legal case and subsequent appeals to involve conduct, it often does. It doesn't stop it from being a BLP1E
    And I don't think we should just add "case" to the name, that would be a poor title. A better title should be chose and the article should be written based around the event, not a person Tristario (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "What conduct", you ask. Of course, having several biological children with his biological sister over a course of years is the conduct distinct from any legal case, with more than one of the offspring having disabilities perhaps due to their messed-up genetics. Yes, legal cases often involve conduct, and conversely conduct often involves legal cases, but here I think that neither one predominates over the other, or else the conduct predominates over the legal case. Moreover, I don't assume he's not low-profile; I simply do not think it's been established that he is both low-profile and is likely to remain so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed conduct, but I wouldn't consider that to constitute a separate event from the legal case. And I think the correct approach when it comes to living people is to assume that someone is low-profile until we have good evidence clearly indicating that isn't the case (per WP:BLP, it's important to get these things right) Tristario (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we assume he's currently low-profile, you're saying that we should also assume he's likely to remain low-profile, and I just cannot do that based on nothing but unsubstantiated disagreement with an unreliable source. Additionally, the legal conduct does not, in my opinion, predominate over the non-legal aspects. Even putting all of that aside, I don't think an acceptable article title would be significantly different from what it is now. So I've tried to explain my !vote here as best I can. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you're saying that we should also assume he's likely to remain low-profile If we don't have a solid indication of him being high-profile besides something an unreliable source says and doesn't appear to substantiate very well, yes, we should be assuming this Tristario (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Our Wikipedia guidelines say that the present article and title are okay if: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You can see at Google Books that this matter has been showing up in a lot of reputable books. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline isn't WP:BLP1E, that's from the notability guideline, WP:BLP, as a policy, takes precedence (The notability guideline also says avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people). The coverage in those books, some of which are quite good sources, does lend more support to the idea that this counts as a significant event, so possibly WP:BLP1E may not apply. I still don't think it's a significant event though, only the initial results seem to mention the subject, and it's mostly in passing. Regardless, I still think we should be covering this as an event, not as a biography, per the guidance in WP:1E Tristario (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a policy takes precedence over a guideline if they conflict with each other. But often the guideline merely clarifies or supplements the policy. Certainly we should try to read the guideline in a way that doesn’t conflict with the policy, before concluding that it does violate the policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing a need to twist the guideline to make it something it is not. The policy is very clear to me. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Even if we assume he's currently low-profile, you're saying that we should also assume he's likely to remain low-profile, and I just cannot do that based on nothing but unsubstantiated disagreement with an unreliable source."
    We absolutely can and SHOULD do so. Another pertinent policy is WP:VERIFY, which states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." Any article about this subject should cover the event, not the person. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What in this BLP is unsourced or poorly sourced? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 22 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Charles (surgeon)[edit]

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

Bit of an odd one. References are all damaged and/or dead and before doesn't show much. Scopus has an entry. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think he co-authored that textbook but it would need more than coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and that is the real core of it. Hopefully somebody will illuminate it. WP:THREE refs would be handy to replace to the damaged ones. It is not enough on its own. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep per WP:NPROF#4 which is specifically mentioning a widely used textbook author. The book has 435 citations on google scholar, so this would qualify as widely used textbook to me. He is not quite at the bar to pass WP:NPROF#1 with his citation record. --hroest 21:39, 16 March 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. No quorum but given support of author... LFaraone 02:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Proulx[edit]

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

Cannot find Reliable Sources with sigcov, seems to be a journalist/radio host but not much has been written ABOUT him despite him writing quite a bit. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Entertainment, and Canada. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was created (full disclosure, by me) at a different time in Wikipedia's evolution, when our notability and inclusion standards were very different than they are today — at the time, the simple verifiability of his existence as a satellite radio host was sufficient for a presumption of notability in and of itself even if the sourcing was inadequate. But since that approach left us far, far too vulnerable to manipulation by exclusively local radio hosts posting articles that were effectively just replications of their own staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers with no reliable source verification of their significance, the rules have since been tightened up considerably to depend more strongly on the sourcing. But indeed, he just doesn't have the degree of third-party coverage required to pass WP:GNG by 2023 standards: even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google well, I still just get content written by him, and/or content that glancingly namechecks his existence in the process of not being about him, rather than content that has him as a principal subject of coverage or analysis — and even using "SiriusXM" as an extra keyword to try to filter the noise and drill down to his strongest notability claim, I still just get SiriusXM's own self-published press releases rather than journalistic coverage about his SiriusXM show. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 15 March 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. With little input, and opposing views against the nominator, I don't think there's going to be an agreement on what to do with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Na (screenwriter)[edit]

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

Proded this and was removed. 2nd class scriptwriters award shared between 3 folk. Refs are profiles. Been on the cat:nn list for 13 years and never been updated. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 12:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. That is an interview and passing mention at best. This is a WP:BLP. It needs to be real in-depth, significant coverage that is independent of the subject. Not passing mentions and being one of three people with an 2nd class award. None of this so far satisfies this. WP:THREE are the normal standard for this. Three decent WP:SECONDARY would do it. scope_creepTalk 10:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that this film was shown in the west. So if there was kind of significance constituting notability, it would be plaining obvious, but its not. scope_creepTalk 10:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twice above it is said that the scriptwriting award was shared with 2 others. It was certainly shared with Wang Quan'an but I don't understand who the 3rd person is suggested to be - I think this is a misunderstanding? Anyway, as I said on the article Talk page, I am unconvinced there is enough to establish notability here, but for this discussion I will mention a Sina interview (23 Feb 2010) with the subject about the script that she developed with Wang and also some biographical information and mention of her previous work as a writer about films. (As far as I can see, and without having strong sources with which to expand the article, she appears to have been working predominantly as a TV and film producer in the years since.) AllyD (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't establish notability unless the person is a model. They are WP:PRIMARY at best. Your right, it was two people that received the award, I thought it was three, but it only a second class award. It is a silver bear award not a gold one. So apart from the award there is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage. Not a thing. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    1. Liu, Qingqing 柳庆庆 (2010-02-23). "《团圆》获柏林银熊奖 编剧金娜石狮媳妇" ["Reunion" won the Berlin Silver Bear Award, screenwriter Jin Na Shishi's daughter-in-law]. Strait Metropolitan Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2023-03-20 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The reporter unexpectedly learned yesterday that Jin Na, the female screenwriter who left Berlin for Spain before the award ceremony and regretted missing the chance to accept the award, turned out to be the daughter-in-law of Shishiren from Fujian. She went to Spain to help her husband Cai Xiaosong prepare for his upcoming solo exhibition there. Yesterday, the reporter interviewed Ms. Jin Na by phone. ... In 2000, she interviewed the Berlin Film Festival for the first time as a film reporter, and in 2005 she attended the film festival as the editor-in-chief of the magazine "Film Story"."

    2. Li, Yuxin 李雨心 (2020-12-17). Chen, Jingjing 陈晶晶; Chen, Kangqing 陈康清 (eds.). "名人堂·访谈丨《听见她说》成"文艺爆款" 总制片人金娜：让女性"独唱"汇聚为合唱" [Hall of Fame·Interview丨"Heard Her Talk" has become a "literary hit" Chief Producer Jin Na: Let women's "solo" gather into a chorus]. 封面新闻 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2023-03-20 – via People's Daily.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Jin Na, producer and screenwriter. Her masterpieces include "Heard Her Talk", "Everyone Wants to Meet You", "Reunion", etc., and won the "Best Screenplay" at the Silver Bear Award at the 60th Berlin International Film Festival for "Reunion". ... Recalling the creative stage, Jin Na also called this work another "highlight moment" for herself. She has been immersed in the film and television industry for many years. "Reunion" written by Jin Na won the Silver Bear Award at the 60th Berlin International Film Festival The best screenwriter, as a producer, also has many masterpieces, but "Heard Her Talk" is still particularly special among them."

    3. Zhou, Ming 周铭 (2010-02-21). "银熊奖最佳编剧金娜：巅峰体验永远都在下一次" [Silver Bear Award for Best Screenplay Jin Na: The peak experience is always in the next time]. Xinmin Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2023-03-20 – via China News Service.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Although Jin Na, the screenwriter of the movie "Reunion" and winner of the Best Screenplay Award at this year's Berlin Film Festival, left Berlin for Spain in advance, she still learned about the news of the award through the Internet, and expressed her gratitude for the award through the Internet immediately."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jin Na (Chinese: 金娜) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Through being the winner (with Wang Quan'an) of the Silver Bear for Best Screenplay at the Berlin International Film Festival for Apart Together, the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, which says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times".

    Cunard (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is exact same interviews that were detailed above along with the 2nd class award. You have not added a single thing to the discussion. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't establish notabilty. scope_creepTalk 10:08, 20 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wolemonwu[edit]

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

Impressive article, but upon checking there is very little to be found about him. The main source, this article, reads like a press release and is labeled a "filed contribution". There are no sources at all in Google News and very few in Google in general (searched both with "Joe" and with" Joseph"). This is the only thing I find on Google Scholar, and it hasn't been cited yet by anyone apparently, so WP:NPROF isn't met. Fram (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Virginia. Fram (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently self-published books seldom grant WP:NAUTHOR notability. There is a brief bit about one of his books in the DSS Access source, and a review on TheAfricanDream.net, but I am skeptical that either of these is the kind of review talked about by the NAUTHOR guideline, and in any case it is less than we have looked for in past deletion discussions. I see absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF, and little sign of GNG. The article strikes me as rather promotional. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Russ Woodroofe. Given the way the article is written I believe the article might qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have tagged the article for a CSD under G11 given how promotional the prose is. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the G11 was removed, but this COI/UPE article is highly promotional about a person who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 TT me 01:09, 22 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 PDC Calendar (January–April)[edit]

2022 PDC Calendar (January–April) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 PDC Calendar, has zero in-depth coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Will be including 2 others created at the same time. Was redirected, but the redirection was contested. Onel5969 TT me 12:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

2022 PDC Calendar (May–August) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 PDC Calendar (September–December) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment Article is currently in draft. I accidently drafted this morning. For some reason I never saw the Afd tag, which is really weird. You can view it there. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All No indication of being notable and both have no effective sources. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to me that a problem with these article is that they cover such a range of tournaments: Premier Events, World Series of Darts, European Tour Events, Players Championships, Challenge Tour, Development Tour, Women's Series, Qualifying Events, Affiliate Tours. While people may be talking about many of these events, it's difficult to imagine anyone talking about them as a whole. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to sort out the important from the less important and we don't seem to be doing that here. (as an aside they also fail MOS:COLOR "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method ..." so we need something other than colour to distinguish between the types of events). Nigej (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nigej, there is likely scope for a list of major darts events, but not one that covers every single event taking place in a year. It's crazy that it's so long, so badly formatted and also so many MOS issues that maybe WP:TNT applies. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 March 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 21:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies delisted from Oslo Stock Exchange[edit]

List of companies delisted from Oslo Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see evidence that this passes WP:GNG. It looks WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. May be in scope for Wikidata, but here it is just a maintenance burden. Paradoctor (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NLIST. I can't find any such list "in the wild", only announcements of individual companies being delisted. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Lists, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listing when they merged with a different company and thus got delisted, seems pointless. Dream Focus 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Companies die or merge into each other daily. This isn't really useful to anyone outside of time-traveling speculative investors. Nate • (chatter) 20:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the topic falls far short of satisfying WP:NLIST. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:25, 22 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Pride (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC not a notable rapper yet. Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has a charted single and is covered in the Billboard link and XXL magazine. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It did documents the subject notability as per Wiki:criteria for musicians for it to be enwik must pass this following criteria guideline of which in it says any article that:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following, which are: •Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. •Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. •Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Teepain (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as has had a single chart on a national chart for criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC as confirmed in Billboard and XXL sources in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Malcom Morgan[edit]

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

Curator and director of art nonprofit, fails WP:GNG coverage hyper-local, specialist and incidental mentions in coverage of Judy Chicago rather than Malcom-Morgan herself. Lacks SIGCOV, fails WP:NARTIST; WPNACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I am striking out your comment, as this falls under WP:OUTING. Curiocurio (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curiocurio: Yes..."unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information...on Wikipedia". User:Jerahcordova (aka, "Jerah Cordova"), the former mayor of Belen, left a message on my talk page saying "I'm the mayor of Belen, NM". Unless I'm missing something, please revert your edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the 2nd paragraph of WP:OUTING says that use of information that is self-disclosed on-wiki is not considered outing. That seems to cover the "former mayor" part. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Womanhouse, and include a sentence or two about the 2022 event at that article; or delete as an alternative to redirection. All of the coverage in the article concerns the single exhibition, and I didn't find much else out there. I think this falls under WP:BLP1E, at least in its current state. The name is relatively difficult to search for -- following this discussion in case better evidence of notability is found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated !vote to clarify that deletion would be a sensible outcome. I still think redirection is slightly preferred per WP:ATD-R, but I don't think it matters very much either way. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing my vote from redirect to delete. I never could figure out a way to include Megan Malcom Morgan in the information about Wo/manhouse 2022. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Agree with Russ Woodroofe. I have started a section at Womanhouse Womanhouse#50th Anniversary in 2022. Don't quite see how to add Morgan to the entry though. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think there is certainly a policy-based argument for deleting, I'm staying at the redirect !vote, since redirects are WP:CHEAP. I think it would be enough to mention that she curated. I agree that there's not much more than that to say -- the coverage of the revival seemed to be more interested in Judy Chicago's role. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded the Womanhouse#50th Anniversary in 2022 entry but still I am not finding a reference to the assertion that Malcom Morgan was the curator. She was on the steering committee, but alas, I don't see that she was a curator. Have I missed a reference? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On looking at sources, I guess the statement directly supported by them would be something like "under gallery executive director Megan Malcom-Morgan" or similar. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Megan Malcom-Morgan, was executive director of TTF at that time" with citation to the Womanhouse#50th Anniversary in 2022 entry. I still think it is a delete rather than a redirect. Even if it is WP:CHEAP, she just not notable, yet. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had tagged this for notability concerns. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that she meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 01:02, 22 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boughey[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Cant find anything on him. Been on the cat:nn list since 2011 and never been updated. A WP:BEFORE shows the briefest mentions of previous positions. Fails WP:NPROF. There may be a significant body of work pre-internet that should be looked at. The lost two decades before 1995-1996 scope_creepTalk 09:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Christopheronthemove: The normal course of action here to find at least three references per WP:THREE. scope_creepTalk 10:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've identified a five-page profile in the book Bangkok by Design: Architectural Diversity in the City of Angels (no preview, added as further reading), and there are quite a few mentions in Google Books results, including in relation to his work in Bangladesh. Draftifying is unlikely to help; if the subject is notable, the article can be improved in Mainspace. (As a side note, the article was previously PRODed in 2012, though that was before {{old prod}} became standard practice.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also subject of a Master's thesis[44] and journal article[45] published by the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (E/C) A profile and interview in the book Conversations with Architects Series: คุยกับสถาปนิกต้นแบบ[46]. Having been named Architect of the Year by the Association of Siamese Architects in 2004, thee association would have very likely published an award citation. Keep, considering all the above. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is stuff out there. I found this on Kamalapur Railway Station, but it really boils down to incidental mentions as being one of the architects who worked on the building for Louis Berger and Consulting Engineers. This piece tells us "Boughey was one of the five American professors of architecture, who taught at the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, when the university begun the program in 1962." (again in reference to Kamalapur station). You could argue that a photograph of an architect's work shown at MoMA somehow contributes towards notability, or this piece which extensively discusses the importance and impact of the Kamalapur building in the context of the city of Dhaka. This UNESCO Jury Profile tells us, " In 2004, the Association of Siamese Architects named Mr. Boughey Architect of the Year." - not the strongest of RSes but I think it points to a significant award. Add this book on Thai architecture, featuring Boughey's 'Intanate House' and then there's this, a thesis and therefore not RS, but a document that certainly points to an enduring and significant architectural legacy. I started typing this as a delete vote but I've talked myself into Keep! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Thailand. Worldbruce (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two potential sources: A search of EBSCO's "Art & Architecture Source" returned: "Critical review of the idealized tropical house; Bangkok". Abitare. No. 265. June 1988. pp. 164–169. ISSN 0001-3218. A search of The RIBA Library Catalogue returned: "Leben in den Tropen [Living in the Tropics]; Architects: Robert G Boughey & Associates". MD. Vol. 35, no. 1. January 1989. pp. 83–87. ISSN 0343-0642. There is also a scarce book which, though not independent and thus not helpful in establishing notability, might help with the "anything on him" problem: Robert G. Boughey and Associates (RGB) (1993). Chadanuch, W. (ed.). Robert G. Boughey. Bangkok: Key Pub. OCLC 857082923. Could someone with access to ProQuest's "Art and architecture archive I and II" search there as well? Searching in relation to Louis Berger Consulting Engineers (now Louis Berger Group) might be useful too. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as though we are almost there. scope_creepTalk 09:39, 16 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outer-grazer[edit]

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

It would appear to me that the reason this article (and its twin, and its French cousin) has attracted no references since it it was created in 2004 is that it is a neologism created... who knows? I certainly don't - that has not been accepted into the standard glossary of astronomy. WP:BEFORE done and it would appear that this term only appears in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks of this article. A search for this term in the Astrophysics Data System yields nothing of substance. In my opinion, the WP:NOTNEO test for neologisms applies here, and in 2023 that test is not passed. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:55, 15 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Google A Day[edit]

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

2-3 refs could definitely be scraped together, but coverage seems to not be WP:SUSTAINED. google search gives most recent news sources as 2015. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Google where it might possibly deserve a very brief mention. Or just delete it as a bit of commercial trivia and publicity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 15 March 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Collecott[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found some sources [47][48], but it's just mentions. I'm not sure I understand what makes an ambassador notable, but this one doesn't look like he is. And the article looks like LinkedIn, not an encyclopedia data. KhinMoTi (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing here is clearly terrible, but Collecott had a significant career and there are plenty of good sources on Google books, Google scholar, and Jstor. Apart from that, a CMG is surely "a well-known and significant award or honor", which is enough for WP:ANYBIO. Moonraker (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources in JSTOR. The gbooks hits are not indepth failing WP:SIGCOV. The gscholar hits look mainly small mentions and thus fails WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It always helps to search also with initials. Anyway, I have spent a little time improving the citations. Sources are easy to find. Moonraker (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough information to warrant a stand alone article. Any important information can be included in the article about British ambassadors to Brazil. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Brazil. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Moonraker mentions above, he has a CMG. He is also listed in Who's Who which seems to give him at least 2 of the WP:ANYBIO criteria --Mgp28 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing the reference to Who's Who as this is apparently not a national biographical dictionary, but the CMG honour still seems notable. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CMG has always been held to meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 20 March 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 China General Aviation as an WP:ATD Salvio giuliano 08:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tongyong Airlines[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. No sources available with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from I RS. No objection to a redirect to parent company if consensus exists.  // Timothy :: talk  08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a draft. CARLITOAHUISA (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company operated a single aircraft and doesn't exist anymore, you really think SIGCOV from I RS will appear?  // Timothy :: talk  11:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Tongyong Airlines" is probably just China General Aviation running a charter flight, as the full Chinese name for China General Aviation is actually Zhongguo tongyong hangkong gongsi (中国通用航空公司), which translates to something like China General (tongyong) Aviation Company. So, "Tongyong Airlines" is most likely a duplicate in the database. Just like China General, the Tongyong Airlines listed in aviation-safety.net ended operations in 1997 and merged into China Eastern Airlines. They both operated Yakovlev Yak-42 aircraft. Also of note is that China Eastern also had a route between Nanjing and Xiamen, as evidenced by the article on China General Aviation Flight 7552, but this might be totally unrelated as Tongyong Airlines was recorded as being a charter airline. Also, I was unable to find any sources for the hijacking mentioned in the article in Chinese or English. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to China General Aviation (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I agree with Mucube's analysis that Tongyong Airlines is likely a duplicate in the database since the full Chinese name for China General Aviation includes "tongyong" (通用). Cunard (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 15 March 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 GNG met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Amritsar train massacre[edit]

1947 Amritsar train massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, almost the entire article is sourced from a single news article from 26 September 1947; several train massacres happened during the partition of India in 1947, this one in particular isn’t especially notable of them all. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it would be a strange world if an event where thousands of people were attacked and killed was somehow not notable. There are contemporary newspaper reports that are easily found and historical studies that put the events in the context of that particularly horrific period. That's surely enough.
It may well be the case that there were other, horrendous, attacks in that period that have similar sourcing. I don't see this as any kind of logical argument for !delete, if anything it suggests an urgency to ensure that en.wiki covers all of these events. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than 3,000 peoples were killed. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three thousand people were killed and it isn't notable? On which planet would that be the case? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: between 200,000-500,000 people are said to have died in the partition violence of 1947, most in the months August-December, a great number of them in train massacres. There were hundreds of these massacres, and this particular one isn't any more significant than many of them. Might I point out again, that the article cites a single news article as its source. If a single news article is enough for a page, we might need hundreds of such pages for the August-December period. The absolute lack of citations and the absolute lack of coverage in scholarly sources doesn't seem to bother the voters above. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to debate with you here, but once again you attempt the more people died in other events argument which simply doesn't land when we are talking about this many people dying. If there are other horrific events from that period which currently don't have pages on en.wiki then the solution is clearly to create them. JMWt (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is longer than even the news report that it’s built on. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it was foolish on my part to begin this AfD without a prior discussion on the talk page of this article. @RegentsPark, Kautilya3, Uanfala, Vanamonde93, Fowler&fowler, TrangaBellam, Dwaipayanc, Capitals00, DaxServer, Anupam, and Mar4d: pinging other India-related editors who are perhaps better aware of the context and can better contribute to this discussion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, perhaps the article should be turned into an article about Train massacres during the Partition of India or some such thing for which we can actually find more sources than one news article. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with the astonishment of those above who see 3,000 deaths as notable. So do I. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3,000 deaths are obviously notable. What’s not notable is the coverage of this massacre. Not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. It can be mentioned, with due weight, in an article about the Partition train massacres, or maybe even the Partition of India. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't the only news article. I see articles from Reuters, (which quotes the West Punjab Ministry of Refugees from 30 September 1947), the AAP ("3418 Dead and Missing, 1328 Wounded") from 25 September 1947, the Chicago Daily News (first line "life is cheap in the Punjab these days..) from 27 September 1947. Not all the details are the same, but to say that the WP is not notable because there was/is little newspaper coverage is just wrong. JMWt (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The event the article is about fails WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You previously said quote "The 3,000 deaths are obviously notable. What’s not notable is the coverage of this massacre."
So which is it? JMWt (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any indication that this subject is notable on its own. Rather it is one of the many violent incidents that took place in the whole partition event. Capitals00 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may not currently cite WP:DIVERSE WP:INDEPTH coverage, but it appears that coverage exists in multiple newspapers internationally and over period of time, suggesting the article can be improved rather than deleted. --Mgp28 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this particular event does not receive any wide ranging coverage in newspaper that exists “over period of time”. All the international coverage are a couple news articles, from within one week of the event. Beyond that it is just one of the many incidents from August-November 1947, and should be included in an article about those events based on how much is WP:DUE. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've found multiple articles from around September 1947 but agree I haven't found later articles specifically about this event. (It's quite bleak that there was so much suffering 3000 deaths could almost be forgotten from the written record.) I see above you suggested merging this with other train massacres of the period. I can see that that could make a good article but I think we should keep this current article until that any such merge takes place. --Mgp28 (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While you’re at it, could you look up news articles for 1947 Kamoke train massacre, 1947 Haranpur train massacre and 1948 Gujrat train massacre? The first two happened in September 1947, the latter in January 1948. Please post any articles you find to my talk page, thanks. Since we’ve decided all partition train massacres with scant news coverage deserve their individual articles, it’s only fair to create these articles. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure anyone decided there should be multiple articles. I thought your suggestion of an article combining information about all these train massacres could be a good one, and that this article could merge into that. But my opinion is that until that time, we should not delete this article. --Mgp28 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (responding to ping), but my views differ from that of the nom, who pinged me. I think the nominator has a fair point about coverage, but it's utterly implausible to me that a killing of this size in Amritsar would be covered in The Advertiser of Adelaide, and nowhere else. There is certain to be coverage in UK/US newspapers that someone with newspapers.com access, and a little time, could find. There was definitely coverage in Indian newspapers too, but I'm not sure if archives from that period are accessible outside specialist collections. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did that, above. JMWt (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and instead incorporate its contents, in a WP:DUE manner, into a general article about Partition violence/train massacres during the Partition. On it's own, the event of the article has no indepth diverse coverage that has persisted over the years. All coverage seems limited to September-October 1947, there are no secondary sources that discuss the event years—or even months—after the initial September reportage. It doesn't even get a passing mention in contemporary works on the partition, such as Talbot and Singh's 'The Partition of India' (2009) or Yasmin Khan's 'The Great Partition' (2007). Not even in the detailed, Punjab-specific 2011 work of Ishtiaq Ahmed. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You were the nom. You can't !vote twice. JMWt (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, boldface removed. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (responding to ping). With this much distance in time, we need to defer to scholarly sources to identify what are notable events and how to cover them in an encyclopedia. Newsreports from 1947 are vastly inadequate. The title of the page is also pretentious in assuming that there was only one train massacre at Amrtsar in 1947. The earliest I have seen mentioned was in March 1947, when an inbound train carrying Hindus and Sikhs was sacked near Amritsar (Ahmed Ishtiaq).[1] Even in September 1947, we can't be sure there was only one train massacre at Amritsar. TrangaBellam added a scholarly citation to say that this was definitely notable. But this particular massacre is not mentioned in the source, despite the source being exclusively on train massacres. Neither does the Ahmed Ishtiaq book mention it. I think an article on train massacres of the partition of India would be a worthy topic for an article, because the phenomenon is frequently alluded to by everybody that talks about partition, but not any single of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    News reports from 1947 are vastly inadequate? What on earth is that piece of logic based on? A newspaper report from 1896 is as good as one from 1986. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , for now; another couple of years (was pinged). This is a tricky one. This article has been around for a couple of years. It cites the Australian-AP report, a primary source. I looked at my copy of Ian Talbot's Divided Cities: Partition and its Aftermath in Lahore and Amritsar: 1947–1957, OUP, Karachi, 2006 and a related journal article. There is no mention of this train massacre, but then there is little mention of trains (beyond the last wave of anti-Hindu-Sikh violence beginning in Lahore after a train full of dead Muslims arrived in Lahore from Amritsar.) The trains were special, ad hoc, trains, that can't be referred to as "Frontier Express etc."
But, it's also been a dogma in the partition literature for years that Hindus and Sikhs were killed in Lahore and Muslims in Amritsar. I remember visiting the Jallianwala Bagh, an iconic site of Indian nationalism, where troops or police under Dyer had shot 300 defenceless Indians in 1919, spurring Gandhi to the forefront, but thinking while standing there, that thousands of Muslims were killed here 30 years later and there is no monument. For all the apologies demanded by the Indian nation, and later offered by David Cameron, no apology, not even regret, has ever been offered for the Muslim deaths in Amritsar or the Hindu and Sikhs in Lahore. For all these reasons, keep for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also remember from British accounts that the Sikh Jathas and the ex-Indian-National-Army men, recently released, which was both Hindu-Sikh and Muslim, but more of the former, were particularly vicious in their violence. So much for the Hindu-nationalist claim that Subhas Bose, latterly their darling, would have prevented the partition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-August-1947 violence in Amritsar was predominantly anti-Sikh-Hindu. But after August, as initially the rumors and then news of the award of Amritsar to India spread, the violence was largely anti-Muslim, including that perpetrated on trains. Here is Talbot (referred to above), pages 46 to 48. It has more than I had initially thought. What it describes as the general atmosphere and trend of violence in Amritsar in the days following the boundary award in mid-August, makes such a massacre more plausible, though not definite, and therefore worthy of keeping until more definitive details emerge:
Excerpts from Ian Talbot, Divided Cities: Partition and its Aftermath in Lahore and Amritsar 1947–1957, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 46–48

"News was also reaching the city (Lahore) of heavy Muslim casualties in Amritsar and its surrounding villages. According to a US report, Muslim deaths were in the proportion of 3:1 in the city. (Footnote: 73. Telegram 19 August 1947, New Delhi to Secretary of State, Central File 845.00/8-1947, National Archives Washington) ... Mountbatten noted in his personal report of 16 August that armed Sikh bands were raiding Muslim-majority villages in the Amritsar district at the 'rate of three or four each night." In the city of Amritsar 'the casualties to Muslims have been alarmingly high' he wrote, following the disarming of the Muslim police by the new Hindu additional superintendent of police.(Footnote 81: Viceroy's Personal Report 16 August 1947, cited in Government of Pakistan, Disturbances in the Punjab 1947 (Islamabad 1995), p. 355). The Muslim constables were replaced by ex-INA men, many of whom joined rioters in the assaults on the remaining pockets of Muslim population within the walled city... Muslims had poured into Sharifpura, which was cut off from the rest of the city. In the weeks leading up to independence it had served as a kind of field hospital and military training area for the Muslim population. ... By 14 August, Sharifpura's population had swollen to 100,000. People sat in the streets surrounded with whatever belongings they had been able to rescue. This Sharifpura refugee camp faced severe deprivations in they days immediately after independence. Mass evacuation was organized through special trains which ran twice daily, taking 5000 people in each trip. 'The railway track was not far from Sharifpura', an eyewitness recalls. 'We came to Lahore by train on 16 or 17 August. Every train came under attack.(Footnote 86: Interview with Dr. Khwaja Muhammad Zakria, Lahore, 23 October 2004. I am grateful to Tahir Mahmood for conducting this interview.)

I may not have remembered as precisely, but my general observation is borne out in Talbot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have now added two modern secondary sources: Marian Aguiar, University of Minnesota Press, 2011 and G. D. Khosla, Oxford University Press, 1989, along with a primary source from 3 October 1947 (with quote) footnoted in Aguiar. I think the sources are pretty watertight. It is time to end this AfD as Keep. Pinging @UnpetitproleX, JMWt, Necrothesp, TrangaBellam, Vanamonde93, Alexandermcnabb, Mgp28, and Capitals00: Thanks UnpetitproleX, for bringing this up. Finding the sources was fun, especially the quote from the British Railway Gazette, October 1947, quoted in Maria Aguiar. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is the precedent this sets. During the August to November period a large number of these massacres happened. The one at Kamoke is covered in some detail by Ishtiaq Ahmed, including an eyewitness account.[2] He cites the GD Khosla report, a Tribune article, and Disturbances in the Punjab, Islamabad: NDC, 1995. If we take bits and pieces from contemporary news reports and modern scholarship, dozens of such articles can be concocted (Kamoke, for instance, can be written right away). Which is why I believe a single article on the train massacres is much, much better. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue with a dozen such articles where they are supported by reasonable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your improvements, Fowler. And UnpetitproleX, I am sure an article about the train massacres will be very valuable, but I also think that having well-sourced information about individual massacres enhances rather than detracts from this. Thank you all, Mgp28 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to create a page on Partition violence in Amritsar, I would have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ahmed, Ishtiaq (2012), The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First-Person Accounts, OUP Pakistan, Chapter 7, ISBN 978-0-19-906470-0, A vicious attack on an incoming train took place just outside Amritsar at the Muslim suburb of Sharifpura, in which Hindus and Sikhs were hacked to pieces. It was another trigger for communal violence in Amritsar in early March.
  2. ^ Ahmed, Ishtiaq (2022) [2011], The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Rupa/OUP Karachi, pp. 456–457
  • Delete One of the many attacks that happened in the partition. A mention on a broader article would be fine but a separate article for this incident isn't right. Orientls (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to Fowler for some excellent digging. I do worry very much indeed that there is a subtext here among users effectively seeking to downplay these events. One article is enough to cover all massacres because there were so many and so many died so why would we condone celebrating every little massacre? is an argument I actually find chilling. I also worry about 'this is complicated so let's just leave it fuzzy'. If these incidents occurred (and they did) and they were documented (and they were) and with a little work we can create accounts of the events (we can), then why would they not merit standalone articles where there is enough depth to justify such an article? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also point out that other horrendous periods of history commonly have articles about individual atrosities on en.wiki. I don't even want to devalue the pages about events where thousands died by casually linking to them here - but we surely all have seen and read them. JMWt (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (was pinged). While a train massacres during partition article is an excellent idea, each incident probably deserves its own article as well. I agree that documentation may be hard to find but if there is any documentation (contemporary news reports for example) then we should have a corresponding article. --RegentsPark (comment) 06:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the many attacks that happened in the partition.Nothing significant for a separate article and it lacks sources.122.164.114.13 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The above vote being this IPs sole contribution to Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting quite tired of seeing repeated statements that suggest this event is insignificant when thousands of people are reported to have died. I don't know if I've stumbled into some kind of slow motion edit-war vortex about this period of history or something, but in my view we can't continue a calm AfD discussion when this is continually being repeated. I suggest that a passing uninvolved Admin now close this "debate" as no consensus and I'll attempt to formulate a form of words for a RfC where we can put to bed this argument once and for all. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't worry about doing an RfC. This AfD is going to die a natural death. I'm sure more sources exist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, and in sympathy with your view on this, as the discussion stands it's a solid 'Keep' and I think this AfD could close as such and an RfC could then be opened on the subject of other similar incidents. However, this being kept would be a strong precedent for further AfDs, so the result could and should (as we stand) be the best one. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a stronger precedent than a simple !keep. I'm thinking of starting an RfC about the concept (ie whether an argument can ever be acceptable to suggest that an event where there were many thousands who died within the context of a wider bloody conflict is insignificant). In my view this is never an acceptable !delete argument. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not disagree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above, there are plenty of sources to outline the main points of the event. Other issues do not pertrain to deletion, but article improvement.  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The issue of notability is due to the single source cited in the article. This is not a ground for deletion but indicates more sources are needed. Both the National Libraries of Australia and New Zealand have contemporary newspaper articles that describe this as India's Worst Train Massacre. So, I am sure there is ample global coverage in the newspapers of the time, but most of it is off-line, so will not be discovered by searching Google. There is a news chasam in the internet during the second half of the 20th century from when copyright still exists on newspapers and the use of the internet by newspapers during the 1990's. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources looks good. Plenty of in-depth coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first 3 sources cited in the article demonstrate notability 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 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! 06:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khowai Government Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Secondary school in Tripura, India, fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability, stub's a mess and sourcing worse - no RS presented and there's no more out there in the wild, wild web. "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Although, altogether now, we are guided against depending solely on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:50, 15 March 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! 06:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram Charles Butler[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of sources. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 15 March 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! 06:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterrânic Ensemble[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized and completely unreferenced article about a musical ensemble with no strong claim to passing WP:MUSIC. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musical groups are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and rather they must pass certain specific markers of achievement and must have third-party coverage about them in real media to validate their significance -- but this cites no references at all, was created by an editor with the username "Mediterranic" in clear violation of conflict of interest rules, and is so highly advertorialized that I'd have speedy deleted it if it weren't already over a decade old. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley X[edit]

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

Non-notable business, nothing for sourcing found beyond press-releases. Sources used in the article are blogs and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 minutes after publication but okay :) Books are not blogs. The business is not non-notable as it's top in its niche. Vellaris321 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
actually 6 mins Vellaris321 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is seen here. It's covered in relevant books. --Vellaris321 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no (well, one) books used as sourcing, that one is only a brief mention. The rest are paid-for PR pieces. Please add them here if you have better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per notability gained through combined factors: copany's strong military connection (USA and other countreis armies buy its products for military actively) and it looks like the subject is kind of the first protective eyewear company and it works since 1980s. Rodgers V (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sourcing in the article is currently sufficient to indicate general notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eynat Guez[edit]

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

non-notable business person. Beyond press-releases and brief interviews, nothing found for GNG sources. Awards won are non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the Papaya Global article in depth, from what I see, it looks like trivial coverage. I might take a look later. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable woman, many good sources, see no reason for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guez is a prominent Israeli businesswoman and got a lot of media coverage, including lengthy newspaper articles. Tzahy (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. Also, there is a shortage of female business leaders and coverage. Sad that we would target a woman who truly stands out in what is still, largely, a men's world. gidonb (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would those who are arguing keep please be a little more specific as to which sources are reliable, in-depth, and have significant coverage. A little more in-depth analysis from the delete proponents wouldn't hurt anything either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A prominent Israeli business woman, who is also one of the leaders of the high tech demonstrations in Israel. She is often picked as one of the most influential women in Israel and in the global tech world. She has a significant coverage, and is currently one of the leaders of the demonstrations against the judicial revolution in Israel. She is the first and only women to lead an Israeli Unicorn.
The resources are of the leading Israeli newspapers, in all of them she got a profile story - Haaretz, Globes, Calcalist, Forbes, The Marker Vivitelaviv (talk) 21:55, 18 March 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! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 Days Campaign[edit]

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

Publicity stunt with zero lasting effects. Not subject to any sustained or in-depth coverage. Anything within can be merged into Amnesty International or related articles already in existence. Veggies (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:53, 15 March 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 & move to Hassanati Halifa. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassatj Halifa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could this be the same person as Hassanati Halifa? If so, I think there's some strong claims to notability there. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm almost certain it is the same person as both articles link to the same match report (what are the chances there was a Hassatj Halifa and a Hassanati Halifa both playing for Comoros in that match?). I also agree that the Salwa magazine source included in the French-language Wiki article is useful. I'll take a look to see if there is anything else. Jogurney (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could be soft deleted, not doing so per unanswered query.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [55], [56], [57], and [58], [59], and [60], among more sources. Clearly signifciant figure in Comoros football and received a lot of media attenetion considering how little fotoball media there is in Comoros. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the same person? GiantSnowman 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, The sources are definel;y talking about the same person, since both have been captain of Comoros and are the same age, and when you search up this article name (Hassatj Halifa), there are no results, so this article should actually be moved to Hassanati Halifa. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case keep and rename. GiantSnowman 06:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rename - Barely squeaks by with two SIGCOV sources [61][62]. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 22 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 03:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

INSFOC[edit]

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

Another most likely non-existant Indonesia navy special force unit, cannot find any reference for this unit other than wikilike websites or blogs. Hence, fails WP:GNG Ckfasdf (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 15 March 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! 04:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Eastwood[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: there is not enough WP:SIGCOV from sources I could find for the article to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion and now believed the article should be kept. The initial search I did was relatively cursory, but a more thorough search found sources with WP:SIGCOV that have been helpfully added to the article by Moonraker. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable by virtue of his honour. Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 15 March 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 Anatolia. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 02:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey in Asia[edit]

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

Unnecessary DAB that burdens readers more than anything else. A Google search of "Turkey in Asia" mostly yields results pertaining to the geography of Turkey, and it seems most likely that anyone searching this expects to end up there or at Anatolian Peninsula (to which "Asian Turkey" redirects). An anonymous username, not my real name 01:49, 15 March 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements on the A38[edit]

Settlements on the A38 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTSTATS. Links to notable towns can be handled in A38 road. Rschen7754 01:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rschen7754 01:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to point to that same section of WP:NOT. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. Indiscriminate list that is mostly included already in the A38 road article. Ajf773 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Rather than deleting this article, it would be better to merge this with the A38 road article. Rillington (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT and there is no need for this when A38 road already contains a route description. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Towns can be mentioned in the A38 road article. Dough4872 11:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything within Wikipedia's scope is already covered at A38 road, the rest of it belongs in a specialist publication like the SABRE wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A38 road: redirects are WP:CHEAP and this would be better than deletion. I am also fine with merging per Rillington. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not seeing the rationale for this deletion nomination. The AfD nominator has given a What Wikipedia is Not reason of WP:NOTSTATS. In my limited engagement in AfD discussions this is the first time I've seen this policy used as the reason for deletion. I've read the WP:NOTSTATS paragraph but don't understand how the policy is being applied.
Would User:Rschen7754 or anyone with knowledge of this policy please explain how WP:NOTSTATS relates specifically to the article under discussion here? — It would be of great help in forming my opinion. Rupples (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It provides a list of the cities that A38 runs through, without any explanation. There is no reason why this information can't be included in the actual article (in some sort of narrative) - plus, there are a lot longer roads that don't have separate cities lists. --Rschen7754 23:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to A38 road. In its present state I see this article as a navigational aid to places linked by the A38. It provides a structured at-a-glance style for readers not wishing to search through the narrative text to ascertain whether or not a place is on the A38. As an alternative to deletion, I suggest the article content is merged to A38 road in the form of a collapsible navigational template box. Granted, there would be some duplication with the primary destinations section of the A38 infobox but I feel this negative is overridden by a potential loss in readership of the articles on the smaller villages and towns listed from there being one less wikilink to them should the article be deleted. Rupples (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! Noise! 03:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of settlements with a Fore Street[edit]

List of settlements with a Fore Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is trivia, we don't even have an article on Fore Street. Rschen7754 01:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rschen7754 01:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. We do not need a list of every town that has a street of a certain name. Dough4872 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This falls afoul of WP:NOT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. –Fredddie™ 01:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate trivia. The whole concept of a Fore Street itself isn't even notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted at High Street#Incidence (and Fore Street should be retargetted to that section) the most common name for the principal shopping street in towns and villages in Great Britain varies regionally, and knowing this context I understand the intent behind this list is not indiscriminate but rather illustrating this regional trend. I would not be at all surprised if there was an encyclopaedic list to be found related to this (documenting and/or illustrating the distribution of settlements where the main shopping street is High Street, High Road, Fore Street, Main Street, Front Street, etc. but this list is not it. The list as it currently exists does appear to be indiscriminate though, for example Fore Street, Eastcote is a residential road not a shopping street (the nearby High Road has a few shops, but the main shopping street is now(?) elsewhere in the settlement) and the City of London road is presently a very minor street on the edge of the Barbican estate (it's not impossible it was a shopping street before WWII but I've not looked). This latter point is tips me into delete as it means it would be of limited use as a starting point for an encyclopaedic list (especially as I'm not sure what form such a list would take). Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! Noise! 03:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2011 Arafura Games[edit]

Boxing at the 2011 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blacknut[edit]

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

Non-notable business, sourced only to Linked In. Only items I find are PR pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 15 March 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. Subject of BLP agrees to deletion, no keep !votes. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Jackson[edit]

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

Promo, not meeting GNG. Undergraduates are not notable unless they have extensive coverage in media. Having your work "recognized" does not mean winning an award. I find no mentions of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Mathematics. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For one thing, because the only notability here is academic, it's entirely from undergraduate student awards, and our guideline for academic notability explicitly states that awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify. For another, because it puts an inappropriate level of pressure on someone presumably about to start graduate study to publicize their academic achievements in this way. Wait a few years until they've started to establish themselves. Incidentally, we might also want to take a closer look at Letong (Carina) Hong, another very recent winner of the same award (not for purposes of comparison in this AfD – see WP:WAX – but as another case where similar reasoning is likely to apply.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per David. Hopefully in a few years she will be back with a better case for inclusion. McKay (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete No real claim to meeting WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As Faye Jackson herself, I also recommend deletion :)
I didn't create the article myself. Although a non-academic friend of mine did on a whim after seeing that previous winners of the Schafer prize had a page. After reading the notability requirements it definitely doesn't fit! Alittledelta (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netball at the 2001 Arafura Games[edit]

Netball at the 2001 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Netball at the 2007 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Netball at the 2019 Arafura Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Oceania, and Australia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are just sports results with no coverage in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. All three events (and any events in other years) are non notable. May I also suggest the article Netball at the Arafura Games gets bundled into this AfD as well? Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Relies either on no sources or solely on primary sources. I couldn't find secondary sources to verify the information in these articles, nor to support WP:GNG. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duffie Stone[edit]

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

Soilicitors are equivalent of locally elected district attorney. Per WP:POLITICIAN, locally elected officials are not inherently notable. Searching for this person and excluding the Murdaugh name, which this person is attached to, returns no significant coverage. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_15&oldid=1160474110"