Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 31 August 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Torah Institute

[edit]
Pacific Torah Institute (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)

Lack of notability. I can only find two reliable secondary sources, both published by the same news organization. Bear of Tomato (talk) 00:11, 2 August 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! 04:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Surya

[edit]
Sagar Surya (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 meeting notability requirements, sourcing is largely fancruft or fluff, thanking the cast etc. Oaktree b (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 1 August 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 without any prejudice against merging or renaming at editorial discretion. During the discussion a series of edits made to the list, sourcing each entry. After that the argument for keeping has become stronger, and the direction of the discussion has shifted. Still, I am calling this a "no consensus" rather than an outright "keep" because there remain concerns made early in the discussion over undue promotion of a technology that has yet to become commercially viable. However, the potentially decisive problem, lack of sources and references, was resolved. The remaining problems have other possible resolutions so deletion is not mandatory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial fusion

[edit]
Commercial fusion (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 actually recommend a merge to a relevant section of Fusion power, minus the list of "Commercial Fusion companies" that serves no encyclopedic purpose. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not opposed to a straight delete (I did nominate the article, after all). It's possible that the "First fusion electricity to the grid" section could be a paragraph in the Fusion power article, without that weird section title, though. I'd be okay with a merge or delete, whatever. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly new here, so maybe I misunderstand how this works, but is there no opportunity for the article to remain (and be edited, and improved, and refined) for a period of time before people decide whether to delete it or not? There are lots of articles that are stubs and are given opportunity to fulfil potential. While commercial fusion is definitely a sub topic of fusion power, so are many other separate articles. I found the fusion power article to already be very unwieldy - lumping more things in there may not help with that article? Lemondizzle (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously not a new user, your "first" edits show you had plenty of experience already. Tercer (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tercer here, and I'm about to file a sockpuppet report, but I'll give Lemondizzle a day or so to come clean before I do. The Bapfink vote is highly suspect. Ball's in your court, pal. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lemondizzle and Bapfink are probably sockpuppets or meatpuppets and new to Wikipedia. I don't think Lemondizzle's first edits show any more sophistication than my first edits as a registered editor -- after dozens of anonymous IP edits. Stuff like formatting tricks you can get just by looking at the rest of the page. A long-banned editor is more likely to play the drama boards like WP:ANI; new editors start with articles. I doubt they know all our rules yet -- please don't nuke them for now.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree that a list of companies has no encyclopedic purpose - Wikipedia even has lists of lists of companies! See Lists of companies. The list provides a clear view of the approaches being pursued and the favored fuels. However more content would be useful, for instance describing or showing what progress they have made versus the big government funded projects. Bapfink (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because we have articles on other companies, some of which are organized into various lists, doesn't mean that this list serves any purpose or has any justification. Why is this a good way to explain the approaches being pursued or the favored fuels? XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, but I did create the article originally so that's not surprising. My rationale was that the term 'commercial fusion' is now widely used, and an objective Wikipedia article would be of value to anyone not familiar with the industry. This is important as a lot of hope is being pinned on these companies, and more importantly taxpayers in many countries (UK, USA, Canada, China...) are part funding them. Moreover, the online coverage is not always objective. Typically I find a wikipedia article useful to give me a balanced view of industries like this, but a simple search for commercial fusion turns up nothing of the sort (e.g., Google search for Commercial Fusion). I'm not particularly wedded to the list of companies which seems to be causing controversy - that list is just taken from the Global Fusion Industry report which I cited on the page. I thought it might serve well to link to all of the articles about the separate companies, and give an overview. I suggest deleting the list if it is deemed unsuitable, but don't delete the whole article. The article clearly needs work and contribution and insight from other users (as do so many other articles), but I thought that was the whole point of Wikipedia - we all contribute and work on an article, rather than have to post the finished article in version 1? Lemondizzle (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article currently serves little to no purpose overtop of existing fusion articles. Article as a whole is basically just an exemplar of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zero prejudice against re-creation when fusion power actually practically exists. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 2 questions to address.
  1. Notability: Commercial fusion is clearly notable. Notability is very well established by multiple reliable sources.[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
  2. Suitability: If this is a list article, is it suitable for inclusion per our Stand-alone lists guideline.
    • Is this list useful?
      • Yes, if you want to see what's going on with commercial fusion activity.
    • Are the 2 new editors likely linked to Vancouver-based General Fusion?
      • Yes.
    • Is that a conflict of interest?
      • Hmmm -- they've made a big list of …competitors?
        • They've got to be engineers. Marketing would never allow this.
    • Do we have this information anywhere else?
      • No.
    • Will a lot of the companies fail?
      • Yes.
    • Do many of them have serious financial and technical resources committed to them?
      • Definitely. Succeed or fail, collectively these companies are encyclopedic.
Note that our lists guideline requires that every company listed either needs its own article or it needs to be verified with a reliable source as qualifying for the list. So the list entries will need citations (note: cleanup ≠ deletion).

Note for reviewing admin

[edit]

I find it hard to believe that an account with 11 edits (Bapfink) just randomly happened to stumble onto a deletion discussion for a really obscure topic and voted the same way as the article creator, 9 hours apart, when the article creator also has just 32 edits. That's a hell of a coincidence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added links to five Wall Street Journal commercial fusion articles to Talk:Commercial fusion.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun adding refs to list entries for companies that don't already have a Wikipedia article (i.e., blue link).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As this smells like a WP:SPA to me, and potentially a COI. As for Lemondizzle and Bapfink, J'Accuse! --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheInsatiableOne, I'm not a WP:SPA. I'm just trying to improve an article.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 11:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, otherwise merge per nom. I'm not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion here, notwithstanding all the unedifying personal attacks on the article creator. Even the list appears to meet the nonexclusive criterion of WP:NLIST of having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, see e.g. [21], [22], [23]. Even if they are all scammers, a list of scammers seems like a helpful and encyclopedic thing for Wikipedia to provide. -- Visviva (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to fusion power and remove companies in the list not supported by reliable sources. Two policy-based reasons: First, Wikipedia is not about what companies will accomplish in the WP:FUTURE, and commercial fusion remains a future technology. Secondly, the focus only on privately run companies in the title of the article. Does it count as "commercial fusion" if the first nuclear fusion power generator design is worked out in a government-run lab and first offered by a public utility? Unclear. I don't think there is a blatant attempt to self-promote, but I think the discussion above shows there are some (possibly unrealized) implicit assumptions here that violate WP:POVTITLE at least. A neutral, encyclopedic framing of the topic would be something like Fusion research organizations. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 22:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Forbes72, to your concerns:
    • Reliable sourcing:
      • Since finding this AfD, I have been researching the companies on the list and adding references per our guideline. I've verified and cited 20 companies so far. Another 7 already have Wikipedia articles. I expect they'll all be done in the next several days.
    • WP:FUTURE:
      • This is a list of companies that have funding and have ongoing development activity. Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of science and commercial projects underway and not yet brought to fruition: super-tall buildings, lunar missions, stealth fighters, etc.
    • Public vs private activities
      • We already have an extensive list of mostly government and academic fusion experiments at List of fusion experiments. That article is already very long at 91kB; it's just short of our WP:TOOBIG limit of 100kB.
    • Self-promotion / POV
      • I don't have any sort of COI. These companies would never hire me.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:FUTURE, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. New buildings/lunar missions/fighter jets are reasonably routine to produce, while commercial fusion is an endpoint that may not happen for *any* of the companies mentioned in the article. If the list of fusion experiments is missing commercial efforts backed up by reliable sources, feel free to add them - it's easy to WP:SPLIT if the list gets too long. On the other hand, starting a separate article that ignores the rest of the field of research is precisely the kind of WP:UNDUE problem I am trying to point out. Finally, I am not accusing anyone of COI; I am saying that calling what these companies are working on "commercial fusion" belies some rather debatable assumptions that might actually be false. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉
  • Update I have spent a number of hours on this article. The are now 48 citations to reliable sources
All but 4 of the 53 companies have one or more reliable citations noting they are actively engaged in fusion work; there are 3 obscure companies I have left tagged as "[citation needed]" for now and another one I've tagged as "[better source needed]".
Some companies do not have plans to build working fusion reactors. They're either working on commercializing some necessary component or they are performing research under contract to someone else (most often the U.S. Department of Energy).
67% of the content in bytes and 87% of total edits now come from non-COI editors.[24]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is a concept, not a fact. I agree with most of the !Deletes, but Bejnar is most convincing. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few reasons.
    1. Meets WP:NLIST based on sources in article including [25][26][27]
      • Note also that the subject overall meets WP:GNG per sources in the article.
    2. There is no worry about WP:FUTURE/CRYSTAL, this is about entities that are documented as "working on commercial fusion" in some capacity now. Whether they ever achieve it does not affect present day notability.
    3. The context, the sources, and NLIST (from above) keep this firmly out of the realm of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
      • The context includes notes about failure to deliver on stated timelines, suggesting that this is not inherently a promotional list. More context can be added if needed, but the demonstration of context as improving the article is already present.
    4. Saving perhaps the most important for last, and demonstrating the importance of pillars 3 and 4 -- A. B. seems to have performed a WP:HEY on the article itself, changing it from a mostly unreferenced list to an almost completely referenced one.
—siroχo 04:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existence of this group of companies is at least as encyclopedic as as Barbenheimer, Vue International, or Alberta Investment Management Corporation, and arguably more so. The list is prima-facia evidence of breadth of the field and alternative ways of demonstrating breadth are difficult to reliably source (eg "15 companies include ZYX and Acme,..."). Whether ultimately successful or not, the quest for commercial fusion is notable. The problems of the article -- no context for the words in the boxes, a pointless chart for marketing guesses, lack of references pointing no commercial success, for examples -- are all things that could be repaired.
  • Rename to List of fusion companies because that's what this is (if kept). Reywas92Talk 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of fusion companies. The guidelines for Lists are a lot more relaxed that for other topic areas and in the past, it is usually left to the subject-matter experts to determine the criteria for inclusion. In addition and in my opinion, the current title is promotional and spammy. HighKing++ 14:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Art, Inc.

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

Article looks promotional, signs of promotional editing present, and WP:BEFORE check result is sorely lacking in sources that would meet our significant coverage requirements per WP:NCORP and a daily average view of 2 per day going back as long as the data is available is not a good indication of notability and it should be DELETED. Graywalls (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with the nom. Sources are mostly press releases and corporate puff, nothing for WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's BEFORE check. Normally I would still check refs myself but this sentence from the article speaks directly to notability:
    • "In 2013, Pop Art was recognized by Portland Business Journal as the 7th largest digital marketing company by gross income and the 22nd largest marketing firm overall by gross income in Oregon."
Sort of like being ranked New Zealand's fourth most popular guitar-based digi-bongo acapella-rap-funk-comedy folk duo but not as notable.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:56, 2 August 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. ✗plicit 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FILMguerrero

[edit]
FILMguerrero (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 "record label" business enterprise article that is entirely devoid of sources now and a few minutes of WP:BEFORE assessment shows low hope for the article ever meeting notability standards for organizations/companies. Graywalls (talk) 22:41, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 23:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piino Massacre

[edit]
Piino 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)

Not notable, couldn’t find a reliable sources and the references used are unreliable. As far as reliability goes this can end up being a hoax FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:04, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 00:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Islands (Massachusetts)

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

There isn't anything from this article that is not covered by Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, or Nantucket. The article hasn't been worked on that much through much of it's fifteen year existence. If this article is not deleted, I could live with a redirect to somewhere. Interstellarity (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I share the nominator's concerns. I think this article was created for this template in order to group the islands as a region rather than list each individually: Template:Massachusetts. This discussion should take that template into account - does it need to be changed? If so, how?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also have this article, List of islands of Massachusetts. It's very different from the article we're discussing.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: I removed the link from the template for now. Depending on the result of this discussion, we can decide what to do with afterward. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Put them in with Rhode Island. People there would love it, especially since they have such a tiny state. These islands would fit nicely as part of a set with Block Island.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the more serious parts of the discussion above. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:04, 4 August 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. ✗plicit 23:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adeshina Adewumi

[edit]
Adeshina Adewumi (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)

Notability has not been established with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 21:35, 1 August 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 Zwolle. The redirect can be refined as needed. ✗plicit 00:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorary citizens of Zwolle

[edit]
List of honorary citizens of Zwolle (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 1 item does not a list make. Sources are not the problem; the problem is the topic is just not notable for its own article. Precedents:

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 1#Category:Honorary citizens. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:13, 1 August 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! 04:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpower

[edit]
Hyperpower (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While some sources and some people have mentioned the term, it is not a meaningful concept that has attracted sustained and substantial coverage. The existence of this article is completely redundant, as there is already Great power, Superpower and Hegemony. The existence of this article dilutes Wikipedia editor efforts and reduces the quality of the multiple existing articles on overlapping subjects. Thenightaway (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option, please propose a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 1 August 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! 04:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing (lens)

[edit]
Breathing (lens) (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. Two of the sources are just youtube videos, and the other does not contain SIGCOV. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 1 August 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! 07:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerskin Fendrix

[edit]
Jerskin Fendrix (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 musical act, scant sourcing and no indication of notability (singing around a local pub isn't GNG). Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I disagree with the claim of the subject being 'non-notable' and 'scant sourcing'. However, to address the claim of 'no indication of notability' I have added two more sources so that there are three references to three articles in prominent music magazines (The Quietus, Loud and Quiet, Line of Best Fit) which are all primarily about the subject. Furthermore, there are five album reviews. Lastly, there is the article from Far Out. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Alfredsph (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also added a Guardian review. Alfredsph (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also added review from Irish News Alfredsph (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Ok, since there hasn't been much discussion on this, I would like to make the case why this article should not be deleted. I believe that the criticisms made by Oaktree b were not valid at the time he made them and are not valid now.
First, the subject is notable as per WP:N. He has been the subject of multiple, significant articles in reliable sources. In particular, there are three in-depth profiles featuring in the Quietus, Loud and Quiet and Line of Best Fit. These three publications are all considered reliable as per WP:MUSIC/SOURCE .
Oaktree b claims that the article has 'scant sourcing'. I disagree. Apart from the three aforementioned profiles, the articles cites many reviews. There are in-depth album reviews from The Quietus, Line of Best Fit, Loud and Quiet and DIY, which are all regarded reliable as per WP:MUSIC/SOURCE. Furthermore, there are articles from the Irish News, God is in the TV and Far Out, but I cannot find consensus on the reliability of these sources. There is also a review in the Guardian which mentions Fendrix's music twice, though its fair to say that this on its own doesn't establish notability.
Finally, Oaktree b claims 'singing around a local pub isn't GNG', referring to the mention of the Windmill pub. Again, this is mistaken. Jerskin Fendrix' relation to the Windmill pub is given significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (as per WP:GNG) which are cited appropriately.
As a result, I believe that none of the criticisms raised by Oaktree b have any merit and that this article should not have been flagged for deletion discussion. I vote to Keep the article. Alfredsph (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the sources [36], [37], and [38] - which are currently present in the article - are GNG compliant. Considering those 3, and the in-depth (but possibly not wholly independent) interviews ([39][40][41]), I think there is more than sufficient sourcing to maintain the article. —Sirdog (talk) 21:53, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 23:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crest Capital

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Crest Capital (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 company, sourcing used is flowery and the awards won are non-notable. No sourcing found beyond confirmation of existence. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - refs are inadequate for notability.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:52, 8 August 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. ✗plicit 01:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FlexWage

[edit]
FlexWage (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)

PR items and the like, nothing found for sourcing we can use. Appears largely PROMO here, as does most sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 23:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh "Bagel" Klassman

[edit]
Josh "Bagel" Klassman (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 artist, with only links to social media and name drops found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 23:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Russell-Pinson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dan Russell-Pinson (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 sources found for this individual, what's given in the article is on non-RS sites. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 1 August 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 CIF Central Section. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Yosemite Horizon League

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

No indication of notability whatsoever; all of these topics fail WP:GNG. I could not find appropriate coverage of any of them. (Note that they were all created in a short timespan by a single editor.) Additionally nominated articles per WP:BUNDLE:

Actualcpscm (talk) 19:46, 1 August 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! 04:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tupper (physician)

[edit]
Martin Tupper (physician) (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)

Proposing deletion under WP:N failure. Subject is noted in sources mainly for:

  • being the father of Martin Farquhar Tupper and marrying into a family with notable people (WP:BIOFAMILY).
  • for having notable upper-class patients (WP:INVALIDBIO).
  • for having been offered a Baronetcy twice (both times refused). This itself indicates that perhaps the subject was notable at the time, but there doesn't seem to be any information out there to back that up, other than him being a well-regarded doctor. At least one of those times it sounds like he was a backup choice: "Dr Tupper had twice refused a baronetcy. In 1817 he had been offered by his friend Lord Liverpool the reversion of a baronetcy refused by his brother, Peter Carey Tupper (who had distinguished himself as British consul at Valencia and Barcelona). This he declined because he was the junior partner in his medical firm and did not wish to provoke jealousies among his seniors. In 1829 the Duke of Wellington renewed the offer in regard to Dr Tupper's own services, which had by then placed him at the head of his profession. Again the honour was refused, apparently because the doctor doubted whether the family fortune was sufficient to sustain it, and felt that the arrangement might be detrimental to his four younger sons." Hudson (1949), p. 53
  • for being a member of significant societies: but Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a biography of everyone who was ever an FRS or FGS.

Currently the article sources are mainly primary or relate to his son, in which Dr Tupper is only mentioned in passing. His son's main biography and autobiography don't contain anything that indicates Dr Tupper was particularly notable. It doesn't help that his famous son is also called Martin, but I haven't managed to find anything else.

References

[edit]

Hudson, Derek (1949). Martin Tupper: His Rise and Fall. London: Constable. p. 53. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, FRS is enough on its own, but one has to remember that in the 18th C, those who were developing science were a small and intimate circle, of which this gentleman is an acknowledged member, accepted into a very select group by his peers who were laying the foundations of modern knowledge.[43] He wasn't Humphry Davy, but it is quite correct that we should record who he was, as secondary sources have done. Elemimele (talk) 21:14, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 00:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gentry Brothers

[edit]
Gentry Brothers (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 23:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Green

[edit]
Amelia Green (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 has earned at least five caps for the Antigua and Barbuda women's national football team. No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:05, 1 August 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) Actualcpscm (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Van Buren

[edit]
Anita Van Buren (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. Article only uses primary sources, was PRODed for this reason and then made into a redirect as WP:ATD. Has now been restored. Secondary source coverage of the character largely seems to be about the actress S. Epatha Merkerson. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just expanded the lede with a fair amount of detail--longest-running African-American character in TV history, female lieutenant before it happened in real life, "precursor" to Benson, TV critic comment on S5 lineup etc. jengod (talk) 05:17, 2 August 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. ✗plicit 00:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Designs in Machine Embroidery

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Designs in Machine Embroidery (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 niche magazine. I can find only brief mentions, no significant coverage in independent sources. Previous AfD was in 2005 and the comments in that nomination don't meet current standards ("exists", "legitimate magazine"). Schazjmd (talk) 15:16, 1 August 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 Shekosh (woreda). ✗plicit 11:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gomaar

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

Seemingly no independent evidence that this actually exists, apart from mentions in sites pulling their content from Wikipedia — The Anome (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coliseo Mariscal Caceres

[edit]
Coliseo Mariscal Caceres (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 on 13 July because WP:BEFORE showed lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. IP reverted, providing on the talk page two potential references: a Peruvian portal link lacking in any detail, and a source describing a military ceremony without providing significant coverage about the arena. The PROD rationale still stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 1 August 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiili Hiilesmaa

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

I can't find sourcing for this person, Gnews only has 3 pages total, with various projects he's been included in. Gsearch is straight to social media, with not much else found. This is all I find in .fi websites [44] and we need more than that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leaning not-keep at the moment. Searching various newspaper archives produces a couple dozen hits, but the articles are invariably about something else (e.g. HIM (Finnish band)) with Hiilesmaa only giving a comment or being mentioned in passing, e.g. Such-and-such band is doing something-or-else, and Hiilesmaa is their producer. He seems to have been a candidate for the 1998 Emma Award for producers, but did not win. Considering alternatives to deletion, I'm wondering if there's something we could either redirect or merge to? HIM comes to mind, but he appears to have been active with quite a few different bands as well. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per my comment above. Ljleppan (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is unfortunate because Hiilesmaa is a well-connected producer who has worked with a lot of major Scandinavian bands. But WP's notability rules don't work for producers too well when they only appear in the credits for other people's works. Hiilesmaa has apparently received no in-depth coverage in his own right, focusing on his production work. For his own musical endeavors, he has been a brief fill-in member for a few bands and his own project has not achieved notability either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520 see my comment below, based on what you say he meets WP:PRODUCER "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Hkkingg (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue too much, but the key term in the cited policy is "major role", and a producer's role in the studio is often routine while the musicians are truly creating the music. Also, in your vote below, Hiilesmaa did not have any charting albums/songs. The bands that he produced did, and that raises the same problem. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - because several of the albums he has produced have charted including 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I think the most applicable term here is WP:PRODUCER, which says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." However, if a producer can qualify under WP:MUSICBIO then he also meets criterion #2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."Hkkingg (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Tales Presents After Dark: Nocturne

[edit]
Late Night Tales Presents After Dark: Nocturne (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)

Album does not appear to pass WP:NALBUMS and redirecting was contested. A before search didn't find anything to indicate that this album is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sources present? Are you counting those? --Λeternus (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 14:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Maia

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

Article about former footballer who made three substitute's appearances in the Primeira Liga but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is some coverage of a handball player and a journalist that share the same name, but almost nothing about the footballer (just match reports and database entries). PROD was contested on the ground that he played in the Primeira Liga, which unfortunately doesn't indicate notability. Jogurney (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage for an artist with the same name, not sure it's the same fellow. Not a RS, but could lead us down another path to follow [45] Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different person - from Brazil and not the footballer. Jogurney (talk) 16:16, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polog front

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Polog front (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 page in question has already been deleted once as redundant and duplicating other articles. Now it is created again under the pretext that it has a different content. This, in my opinion, is frivolous. Jingiby (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's the same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karadak front. With slight changes, it's still not a different article. On top of that, there are no reliable sources that use the term "Polog front". StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Detwiler

[edit]
Jason Detwiler (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)

For this opera singer's biography, 3 of the sources are Dead links, 1 is a passing mention. The article lacks sufficient in-depth sources to establish notability. There is more than once person with the same name, but after searching, I did find one press release type article where the singer is mentioned once. Article was created on 15 May 2009. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:40, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Bride

[edit]
Friends of the Bride (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 13:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet admiral (science fiction)

[edit]
Fleet admiral (science fiction) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced WP:SYNTH. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Man, no offense, but this article sucks. As per the nomination, it miserably fails WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH, not having a single citation. The fleet admiral role is not hard to liken to some in the real world, such as, you know, an admiral, the very thing the fleet admiral is named after. I'm surprised the article has survived for 19 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncompA (talk • contribs) 12:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, unfiltered, undiluted WP:OR. Completely non-encyclopedic and I find it hard to see how this topic could have attracted any interest by any reputable secondary source. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge to Admiral of the fleet in popular culture. Note that One Piece isn't even really science fiction-y, Ender was never given rank in any real sense, and Thrawn's title was grand admiral, not fleet admiral. Still... the Trek reference should probably survive in an IPC note somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Admiral of the fleet seems like the best option to me too. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current article without merging. This "fiction" article contains a lot more text than the "real" fleet admiral article, all of it "in universe". If we merge, we'll end up with an unbalanced article that tells the reader far more in-universe information about admirals that don't exist than it tells them sourced material about admirals who have existed. And besides, without sources, it's just a vocabulary word, not a notable concept. Star Trek features not only a fleet admiral but also bar-tenders, engineers, spies, criminals, scientists, doctors; there's no more reason for this article than Barkeeper (science fiction). Elemimele (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merging per nom. Utter dreck that should be court-martialed forthwith or just summarily jettisoned out the nearest airlock. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've never commented on a fiction-related deletion before but I had to chip in when I saw this one on the list. I was that gobsmacked by the bogusness (bogosity?) of this article's concept. Lots of synthesis and original research. The article doesn't cite any sources which is probably just as well since its creator was eventually banned for making sources up.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:06, 2 August 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 procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Deletion discussions for redirects should be taken to WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 15:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89 - '90

[edit]
Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89 - '90 (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 original page (Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89–'90) was deleted as it failed both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR. This redirect along with Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89 – '90 was then fixed to lead to Mötley Crüe. As the original page and its history isn't available here anymore, I think the two redirects should be deleted. 8086-PC (talk) 11:03, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kumar (actor)

[edit]
Rohit Kumar (actor) (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, no indication of notability. Both sources are largely interview and don't give much information about him. A PROD was contested due to the page being previously deleted through PROD and re-created. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 1 August 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) Actualcpscm (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Kononenko

[edit]
Maxim Kononenko (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)

Notability seems to be lacking. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- He is irrelevant now, but was relevant 20 years ago and was a household name. If we delete this article, would it also make sense to delete articles about American journalists from 1930s because nobody remembers most of them anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarloWayne (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Mirror calls him a propaganda journalist, so I'm not seeing that as helping. I can't see notability. If we can find sources from 20 yrs ago, we'd be off to the races. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link, that's about the best I can find [48] Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:AUTHOR (clause 3) through his notable work on "Vladimir Vladimirovich". While it can be challenging to locate online sources from twenty years ago, a preliminary search reveals two interviews on the BBC (1, 2). The work has been featured in a national newspaper and comprehensively reviewed in the major literary journal, Novy Mir. The work has also been discussed in several theses (e.g. Shelton, Coati) as a significant example of modern Russian folklore. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 08:57, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 11:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiinu

[edit]
Fiinu (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)

Routine coverage, not sufficient to establish notability. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article is effectively equivalent to the already-referenced FinExtra item, about the mid-2022 licencing and reverse-takeover, before heading into the broader context of other similar firms which were seeking licences at the time. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 8 August 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. Nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC(talk) 12:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hayward

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

Does not meet any of the criteria for notable academics Groupthink (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC) EDIT: After discussion (see below) I have changed my mind based on Hayward's Royal Historical Society Fellowship.[reply]

  • Keep: He is certainly notable, as per the very criteria you mention:

——“The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” His book on the Stalingrad airlift alone would quality him in this regard, having become something of a standard work. His book on the Leadership of Muhammad won the Best International Non-Fiction Book Award at the 2021 Sharjah International Book Awards. —— “The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).” He is a Felllow of the Royal Society of Arts and the Royal Historical Society. —— “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.” He has been Dean of the Royal Air Force College, and Head of the Department of Humanities at Khalifa University, to name a few of his chair-level positions. —— “The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.” The 2023 edition of the Muslim 500 named him one of the world’s 500 most influential Muslim scholars for his scholarship on early Islamic History. Addressing this ranking, The National newspaper called Hayward "eminent" and a "distinguished historian of warfare and military strategy".[1] BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad airlift: "The book is 'an advanced and exhaustive work that will become a standard in the field once it is better known.'" per cite -- this is speculation, not foundation. Leadership of Muhammed: The "Sharjah International Book Awards" is not a notable literary prize. Fellowships: Not supported by reliable sources. Chairs: Not at a major institution of higher education and research. Muslim 500 and The National: Not reliable, neutral sources. Groupthink (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fellowship of Royal Historical Society here[55]. Heading off some possible rebuttals:
  • primary sourcing may be used to prove fellowship, per WP:NPROF
  • notability is not based on the state of sourcing in the article
Oblivy (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Historical Society is indeed a "a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor," which means the subject of the article meets criteria 3 and the article squeaks by on notability requirements. I will withdraw my AfD request accordingly. I doubt that after good editing anything will be left of this article but a stub which reads "Joel Hayward is a Fellow of the RHS", but that's immaterial. Groupthink (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep echoing what BoyTheKingCanDance said, the two senior academic positions, chair of humanities at Khalifa University and deanship of the RAF College Cranwell, should satisfy WP:NPROF #5 and #6.Oblivy (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While WP:Consensus can change, you need a good-as-heck rationale if you are nominating an article which has been kept at three separate AfDs for valid reasons, and this rationale is clearly not that. Besides the fact that he very likely passes the rationale the nominator cites (WP:NPROF) as a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and as a professor in the Commonwealth sense (though correct me if I'm wrong), he also very clearly passes the WP:SNG that actually applies to him: WP:NAUTHOR. Simply looking through the articles of the ten books listed in the infobox, several have listed significant academic reviews. Additionally, there's a good chance he meets WP:GNG on its face, through articles like [56]. Per The Drover's Wife and Peterkingiron in the last AfD, the article still needs a solid trim, but I would say the subject is nonetheless notable. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work."
"The National is a private English-language daily newspaper published in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The newspaper is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi.[2][3]" Hardly a reliable or noteworthy source.
I actually attempted a "solid trim" on this article and wound up trimming pretty much everything after removal of unsourced, poorly sourced and non-notable material. So to save time I AfD'd.
"...asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article 'needs improvement, not deletion' is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility." (From Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)

Groupthink (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, that's not what I said. I was talking about the academic reviews of his books. If a book has been significantly reviewed in several (generally at least three) reputable academic journals or other prominent publications (like The New York Times Book Review), that is usually a sign that the book is notable. If multiple different books have received this treatment, that is usually a sign that the author is notable. Regarding The National: just because someone powerful owns a news outlet doesn't inherently makes it unreliable (I mean, Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post), but as I haven't looked into this case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; let's set that to the side and have that conversation at WP:RSN another day. I tried giving the article a bit of a copyedit; I do agree that it is in much rougher shape than it first appears (there is so much self-referencing), to the point it may warrant a WP:TNT as the prose is bordering on unworkable, but I stand by it on notability. Curbon7 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ How New Zealand born Joel Hayward became One of the World's 500 Most influential Muslims. The National. 26 November 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry

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

Only a single primary source, and doesn't appear to be actually notable. How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 07:32, 1 August 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. After three relists, editors remain divided on the merits of the cited sources, and discussion is descending into personal attacks. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Madi

[edit]
Ibrahim Madi (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)

Three appearances for the Comoros national football team and plays in the French fifth division. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree that the level of coverage does not warrant an article. I was unable to find secondary sources that don't mention the subject in passing/routine. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ortizesp. TBH I'm not quite sure why we're here when the nom has provided sources that appear to satisfy the plain meaning of the GNG. Anyway, here we have >419 words entirely about the article subject, maybe 300 words after subtracting arguably primary/quote-based content. Here we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject. Here we have an article largely about the article subject, with at least 150 words of concentrated biographical content. All of these relate directly to the article subject; all appear to be published in independent reliable sources; all cover the subject sufficiently directly that they can be cited directly without any concern over original research. All therefore appear to meet the requirements of the GNG (and the standards at WP:NBASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT, which do not seem to materially depart from the GNG here) and particularly the WP:SIGCOV threshold of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis and lack of significant coverage identified since. Madi is an amateur footballer, so it's little surprise that the coverage in LNR and LP is routine stuff like thoat match report and contract announcement (although I'll agree with GiantSnowman that the LNR match report has a good bit of background info). The word counts mentioned above are simply not accurate (for example, the LP article dedicates a single sentence to Madi as it is primarily covers another player). Jogurney (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're evenly split when it comes to a consensus here with three keep !votes and three delete !votes. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakest keep I can make arguments both ways for this one - there's just about enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, but the delete !votes aren't necessarily invalid, either, and you can make a good argument to delete. (I almost wrote neutral, but neutral does mean don't delete, so changed to weakest keep.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The LNR piece has some very marginal coverage -- essentially the only encyclopedic material is

    Just the father of Neyana (2 months), Ibrahim arrived with his family in Poitiers with Marnie, his partner. Native of the South-East, near Marseille, he is not bothered by the sun and the strong heat. After discovering football at the age of five in her village, in Burel, Madi joined the training center of Istres, in U15 Nationals. He then joined Nîmes, in U17 Nationals. The striker stayed there for three years then signed with Martigues, where he played for four years, before spending a season in Marseille.

For the other sources, Visviva is once again egregiously misrepresenting the amount of coverage on the subject. The first time I called this behavior out I thought it was just carelessness in not reading any of the text and assuming news articles with the subject's name in the title must be entirely about the subject. However, with the inclusion of specific word counts I can't see how this is anything but an attempt at deliberately misleading other editors. Does this need to go to AN?

For the La Provence piece, Visviva claims (we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject). This is an utterly routine transfer announcement about multiple players, two of whom are in the title, that in fact contains one single sentence on Madi:

Ibrahim Madi, the promising Comorian international (21 years old) who was nevertheless courted finally chose to prolong the Martegal adventure.

For Comorosfootball.com, Visviva claims at least 150 words of concentrated biographical content. Actually the source only has ~60 words of routine transactional material

At only 21 years old, Ibrahim Madi will continue the adventure with FC Martigues (National 2). He signs for a third season with club martégal which he joined in 2017. Trained at Nîmes Olympique, Madi (striker) has won to total 45 matches and 8 goals in two seasons. Young promising, he had his first selection with the Comoros last September against Togo.

All of which is derived directly from the FC Martigues instagram post:

At only 21 years old, Ibrahim Madi will already be experiencing his third season with the first team. Arriving in 2017 from the Nimes Olympique training center, Madi was able to win for a total of 45 matches. What allow him to know his first selections with the Comoros. Good news to always be able to count on his services for the coming season.

Furthermore, Comorosfootball.com is a group blog: "Comoros Football 269" is an online media founded on September 16, 2013 based exclusively on Comoros football news. We are young people who have given themselves the courage and love to serve our nation and support our football institutions by informing while promoting Comorian football locally and internationally. Our actions gained momentum in 2014 with our social media presence first on Facebook and then on Twitter before starting to write our first blog posts a year later. It has no evidence of an editorial team, no way of even seeing how article authors are, no avenue for corrections, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, would your opinion change with the updated info on the sources? JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry - I think there's just enough there to write a reliably sourced stub article on him. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From just the one LNR piece? How? We could easily write a reliably sourced stub article using exclusively primary and non-independent sources, so simply having that possible as an end product is certainly not enough to justify an article. What evidence do we have that this player has received sustained in-depth independent secondary coverage such that his article passes NOT? JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't think it's necessarily correct to discount comorosfootball.com which has several mentions of him. There's no proof there's anything unreliable about the site, and not every part of the world has the same level of quality media coverage as say the United States. The fact he's being independently reported on there isn't nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, it calls itself a blog, we don't have any info on who any of the writers are or that there are even multiple at all (although we know the site is completely volunteer-run), and there is no published editorial policy; it is just decidedly not RS. We absolutely should not compromise our BLP standards for topics we believe aren't likely to be covered in reliable media. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely and vehemently disagree about whether it's a reliable source - it only says it started as a blog. We can't expect something from Comoros to have a published editorial policy in the same way as an American paper - otherwise then there wouldn't be anything reliable from Comoros. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because YOU believe Comoros media aren't developed enough to have professional editorial teams doesn't mean we can just paternalistically ignore our policy on verifiability for Comorian newspapers.
You vehemently disagree that a BLP should not be sourced to a website that has zero evidence of any professional editing whatsoever, that readily discloses all of its content is from volunteer efforts? I tracked down an interview of the website creator that states he was a math master's student (=not a professional journalist) who manages the site on his own and is seeking volunteers. That's called a blog no matter where you are, and no matter how many amateur volunteers you get to contribute content.

But even if comorosfootball.com was reliable, the only real content we can source from it is the churnalized press release linked above, which per WP:RS is not distinct from the press release itself Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also most of the hits on the site for Ibrahim Madi are actually false positives from "Ibrahim Madihali", a beach soccer player 10 years older. There's only the one post tagged "Ibrahim Madi" on the site. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I count three mentions, though one is just a mention in a list of players playing abroad. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first source posted by Ortizesp is acceptable in establishing GNG. Other sources individually fall a little short, but per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One source is decidedly not acceptable in establishing GNG. And are you really saying the one sentence in La Provence isn't trivial? Because that's the only other reliable possibly-independent reference besides LNR. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to have that opinion, and we clearly differ as to whether it's relevant here. But it's worth noting that your interpretation is not supported by the actual text of the GNG, which phrases this in qualified and descriptive terms: multiple sources are generally expected (emphasis added). -- Visviva (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like more input that discusses the sources rather than just asserting passing or fails GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Spartaz, we have one source (LNR) that contains anything more than a trivial mention, and even that is little more than five sentences. Then we have one source that contains a one-sentence passing mention of him in a routine transaction. Those are the only two reliable sources anyone has identified, and this plainly fails all notability criteria. I don't think there's much more we can discuss. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with your individual interpretation, I think overall coverage is more than enough to keep already. Ortizesp (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The best evidence of what the guidelines mean is what the guidelines say. Nowhere in JoelleJay's inexplicably vituperative and personal screed above is there any assertion that the available sources fail the actual requirement of WP:SIGCOV that no original research is needed to extract the content. I see no serious argument that any of the discussed sources fail this standard. I am unable to discern any actual policy-based rationale for excluding content simply because it strikes the reviewer as "routine transactional material", an exception that strikes me as so broad and subjective that it could easily be construed to exclude the entirety of sports media. As to comorosfootball.com, I am happy to accept the correction, as I am certainly no expert on the quality of Comorian football media and simply followed up in good faith on another editor's mention. However, I do not think excluding that source changes, or should change, the outcome here. (Having once again said my piece and counted to three, I'm out; in the highly unlikely event that any further input from me is desired, please ping.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Inexplicably vituperative"? You have lied about source depth multiple times at multiple AfDs. I can AGF for a couple simple rookie mistakes in assuming a subject's appearing in a WP:HEADLINE means the whole article is on them. But it is not acceptable for an admin to present what appears to be granular, detailed source analysis with word counts and substantive text evaluation like we have at least 189 words (not sure if part of the article is cut off by the paywall), again entirely about the article subject) when the source actually has only 20 words on the subject, and to do this on multiple occasions including after that behavior has been called out.
    And now, instead of addressing this issue, you are insisting that these sources are still SIGCOV as if no original research is needed to extract the content is the only criterion they have to meet to count towards notability. Never mind that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, that the above sentence (and the comorosfootball.com source) is obviously derived from an FC Martigues Instagram post and so fails WP:RS, that routine sports news and announcements are excluded by NOTNEWS, and that such a facile reading of GNG as "one IR source with five sentences on the topic is sufficient" would permit likely hundreds of millions of biographies. JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 3 August 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 List of transmission sites. Split between merge and delete. Redirect is a compromise - whether to merge anything from the history, preferably with sources, is now up to interested editors. Sandstein 10:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FM radio broadcast transmitters in the United Kingdom and Ireland

[edit]
List of FM radio broadcast transmitters in the United Kingdom and Ireland (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)

Wikipedia is not a directory and not the right place for this kind of list with no meaningful threshold for inclusion. This is also currently entirely unsourced, but that could hypothetically be remedied; the general issue of this being an unsuitable subject cannot. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been carefully written and checked information is correct before posting same applys for the frequency table. There are many pages like this on Wikipedia where some dont have enough information that it needs and have been on this site a few years now. Also i would like to point out this article has only been on here a few days so cant expect it to be perfect straight away. It will get improved as time goes on. So i think the article being nominated for deletion is not necessary. HamRadioMan (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into List of transmission sites. The citation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY seems to miss the purpose of that guideline. Given that the other lists mentioned that serve a very similar purpose (Category:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom, Telecommunications towers in the United Kingdom), have appeared to stand without challenge, the only problem I see with this article is that it lacks significant contextual information, which can be edited in over time. In my estimation, this article is an example of WP:CSC criterion "Short, complete lists..." Agentdoge (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is far from complete, it appears to be one person's list of a seemingly random set of transmitter sites in Ireland, North West England and Essex, and even if it were to be completed, the WP:NOTDIR argument applies here. The article contains a number of inaccuracies and confuses "transmitters" with "stations", for instance in the entries for BBC Radio 2, 3 etc. Per FM Scan there are over 2,100 FM broadcast transmitters in the United Kingdom and over 400 in Ireland, and they are mostly simple non-notable pieces of public infrastructure. This article is very poor quality and unnecessary when directories of transmission infrastructure such as the aforementioned FM Scan and MB21 exist. Flip Format (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has the potential to be a good article, which is why I am not in favour of its deletion. However, for it to remain, it needs to be modified, possibly to include only major transmitters, probably those which are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. As it stands, this article does not pass the threshold for more than one reason, not least due to its randomness. It also currently contains some errors, which I would look to correct if the article is not deleted. I have now included some independent references.Rillington (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 11:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Møller Centre

[edit]
Møller Centre (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 independent refs on the page, seems overly promotional. Does not appear to have much notability as a postgraduate study and conference centre, does not appear to be a particularly notable building. Possibly could be partially merged to Churchill_College,_Cambridge JMWt (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 1 August 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 Einstürzende Neubauten#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unglaublicher Laerm

[edit]
Unglaublicher Laerm (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)

Unsourced tag since 2016. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 1 August 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 Battles of the Donetsk suburbs. With 4 or 5 different suggestions, I'm sure I picked the wrong Merger target but I don't think relisting this discussion for another week will bring back the participants to hash out one cohesive suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Krasnohorivka

[edit]
Battle of Krasnohorivka (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)

Again, we don't need articles for any random engagement during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Fighting in Krasnohorivka has been minimal. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is minimal enough where I think it makes sense to merge the information into the page of the town itself. --Dynamo128 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, per above. SnoopyBird (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On where to merge: Battles of the Donetsk suburbs as it looks to be the next up in the hierarchy of battles and the village is mentioned in that article. Not really that much to merge though. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to battles of the Donetsk suburbs per arguments in nom. Cleanly fits within that article’s scope. HappyWith (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have three separate Merge targets suggested and it would be nice to get a consensus or at least a majority opinion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Battle of Donbas, Battles of the Donetsk suburbs, or Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present). There's not much to merge anyway, as the specific Krasnohorivka isn't mentioned. Jebiguess (talk) 02:08, 6 August 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. Sandstein 10:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yadollah Khalili

[edit]
Yadollah Khalili (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)

NN pilot. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually appears to pass WP:GNG even with the sources in the article. Probably more Farsi-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly meet WP:GNG--Patricia (Talk) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is atrocious - the newspaper article in Donya e Eqtesad barely mentions Khalili (in a long eulogy to various fighter aces, titled 'Myths of Iranian Skies' - it merely notes "One of the best F-14s, participating in long air patrols, many times single-handedly drove away several enemy MiGs", while other pilots get paragraphs devoted to them. The aerospace talk link seems to be a forum but is in fact a broken link. The other source, rahrovan-artesh, is based on a blog and recounts his exploits in prose that makes GA Henty seem like Enid Blyton. In short, we have no RS-based factual evidence (and I note the claims in the article are not cited) regarding any record as a fighter ace and on that basis, unless someone can find reliable sources in Persian (and I note the Persian article is the same text as the English and same sources), Imma go delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is artrocious?! i dont think so. use this word: Artrocious, its not fair.--Patricia (Talk) 13:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*facepalm. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: add another source blonge to pakistan air force about subject:IRIAF badass airaces--Patricia (Talk) 13:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow, @Patricia Mannerheim... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see source no:1--Patricia (Talk) 15:11, 28 July 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! 05:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added one ref: Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad (2004), Holmes, Tony; Hales-Dutton, Bruce (eds.), Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat, Osprey Combat Aircraft, vol. 49, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1-84176-787-5.--Patricia (Talk) 15:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an Iranian ace deserves an article. But the refs just aren't there.
    • First, I checked the book, Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat. I don't have it so I went to amazon. When I use amazon.com's look inside feature and search for Yadollah Khalili, I come up with nothing. Then I look at the index and see why: the book only lists aircrew for a small fraction of the total F-14 victories.
    • "IRIAF badass airaces". Pakistan Defence - mentions Khalili once in passing
    • "Memories of the Greatest Air Fight in the World". Oral History. - good enough for me to believe, but not enough for our rules
    • مستند نبردهای تامکت پخش شده از شبکه یک صدا و سیما جمهوری اسلامی ایران. No link, no description
    • "اسطوره‌های آسمان‌های ایران". روزنامه دنیای اقتصاد in my browser's very sketchy translation doesn't seem like it's about Khalili or aircraft
    • ماجرای ثبت طولانی ترین گشت هوایی رزمی جهان. - عملیات ها و دستاوردهای نهاجا در جنگ - رهروان ارتش - links to a message board - not a reliable source
    • قهرمانان نیروی هوایی - صفحه ". www.aerospacetalk.ir -- My browser couldn't find that domain.
      • Note that the URL is: www.aerospacetalk.ir/vb/showthread.php?t=23519&page=7
        • If it's to a discussion thread, it would not meet our requirements.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:24, 8 August 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! 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Hiron

[edit]
Jacques Hiron (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)

Unsourced article since its creation 15 years ago. I did try to find sources but I wasn't really able to find anything beyond confirmation that his books exist. As far as I can tell, coverage does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. I missed a previous PROD from 2008 in the page history, so GB fan is correct in that this must go to AfD. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does a poor job of explaining Hiron's career. Hiron is a noted "tintinophile" -- that is, an expert on the Tintin universe, and the iconic French comic series' Belgian creator, Hergé. Hiron has also written his own graphic novels and comics ("bande dessinée" in French), the Le Paquebot des sables series about intrigue and adventures on the MV Moonta.
I'm still pondering notability; I'll be either a weak keep or a weak delete. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at the French Wikipedia article before coming here. The coverage I'm seeing isn't anywhere near enough for WP:NAUTHOR. I'm willing to be proven wrong but please be more specific than "sources exist", which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain Lot's of bad refereences. But I am open to seeing you review them and telling me which meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in our article suggests he is notable; writers need to meet WP:NCREATIVE (GNG) like everyone else. Having read comments above, feel free to ping me IF sources are found that suggest notability, but no such sources have been linked here so far, nor what I see in the fr wiki article suggests they are there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly, the comic/graphic-novel arts are not well covered by sources, but if anyone knows of some, please let me know! I found a lot of sales sites, a few short interviews. Even his own site gives very little information other than listing the publications. I could imagine considering him notable as an author, but I have no idea how to see relative sales of French graphic novels nor how to evaluate them. Lamona (talk) 02:11, 5 August 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! 05:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antonblast

[edit]
Antonblast (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)

Contested prod. Original reason: "Non-notable and almost unsourced. Google didn't give anything useful." —Wasell(T) 🌻🇺🇦 04:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above sources identified are highly variable in reliability and triviality, but I think they generally establish enough of a pattern of non-trivial current coverage to establish notability. That said, I think the premise of the nomination was fair; the article lacks sourcing and needs some work. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Delete WP:FUTURE, WP:NOTNEWS future product announcement. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Graywalls: I am not certain what the application of these guidelines is. As demonstrated with the sources provided in this AfD, Antonblast is discussed by multiple reliable secondary sources in non-trivial detail, going beyond merely discussing facts about the game but discussing their impressions of the trailers and demos of the game. WP:FUTURE is a particularly confusing invocation; the argument of notability is not based on speculation, rumor, or presumptions, unverified or verified. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, WP:NOTNEWS is even more confusing. It certainly doesn't fit points 1, 3, or 4. And 2, that's clearly talking about events, not product releases. The only thing potentially applicable would be in WP:FUTURE re: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." And yet, even then, that doesn't pass the smell test - Kotaku discussing Antonblast as part of upcoming indie games, Hardcore Gamer identifying it as one of the best games at PAX East 2023, discussed as part of an article about the game that inspired it, IGN citing it as one of the "games to watch" at Guerrilla Collective Showcase 2023, and Nintendo Life, Hardcore Gamer, and Destructoid writing articles about its announcement and impression of the game's demo. That's clearly going beyond simply news about its existence. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not to expand the point to tedium, but to try and explain where the above comment is coming from, the WP:NOT categories strike me as an expression of WP:GNG for notable articles on future releases to be founded on sufficient and independent secondary coverage. I do think this is narrowly established, but one could say that many of the sources are repetitions of the primary source, being the publisher's press kit. In these situations, best practice to avoid WP:TOOSOON would be to ensure secondary coverage can express an reliable and independent perspective on the game, although my view is similar to yours that this threshold has been met given that the demo has had some reactions.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I don't necessarily oppose a TOOSOON verdict, as it's not, say, Starfield. I think it barely passes, but I just find the invocation of the two guidelines strange and inaplicable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All good! Just overthinking a little. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the Destructoid, Hardcore Gamer, IGN and Kotaku source, all of which have actual commentary on the game rather than just regurgitation of press releases. It's not the strongest sourcing ever, but I'd pass it were it a draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided give it some merit. Not sure how Graywalls' assessment above works to be honest, WP:FUTURE and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really apply in this case?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:09, 4 August 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 procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Deletion discussions for drafts take place at WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 05:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Logos Retreat Centre Bangalore

[edit]
Draft:Logos Retreat Centre Bangalore (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Logos Retreat Centre Bangalore|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)

Stevannus rua (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians known for circular breathing

[edit]
Musicians known for circular breathing (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 believe this article does not meet WP:NLIST. Copying from my discussion on the talk page - Circle breathing is a very common technique among experts of many (if not most) wind instruments. At best this list seems like a fairly arbitrary, and inevitably unrepresentative, list of musicians whose circle breathing has been mentioned in articles, quite often in passing. To say they are "known" for circle breathing feels like quite a strong statement aside from a handful of people who have done exceptional things with the technique, like Kenny G's notable record. To me this seems like the equivalent of a list of "Musicians known for wind multiphonics" - an advanced and relatively uncommon technique to be sure, but rarely a significant point of notability. Thank you. StereoFolic (talk) 03:25, 1 August 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. Last year in an AFD, this article was Deleted but now there is support for a Keep so better sources must have been tracked down. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Peppers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Don Peppers (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)

Appears PROMO. Any sources I find are PR items, Gsearch is straight to social media and websites for booking this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews, etc.:
  • The One to One Future (1993) with Martha Rogers in
    • Journal of Marketing[80]
    • Journal of Consumer Marketing[81]
    • Journal of Sport Management[82]
    • International Business Review[83]
    • Inc. (recommendation from editor)[84]
  • Enterprise One to One: Tools for Competing in the Interactive Age with Rogers in
    • Library Journal[85]
    • Publishers Weekly[86] (this is an article/interview)
    • Informationweek(substantial)[87]
  • Life's a Pitch...Then You Buy
    • Publishers Weekly [88]
    • Sales and Marketing Management[89]
    • Dayton Daily News[90]
    • Inc.(very brief endorsement from editor)[91]
  • One to One Manager in Sloan Management Review[92]
  • ONE TO ONE B2B: Customer Relationship Management Strategies for the Real Economy with Rogers
    • Publishers Weekly[93]
    • Marketing[94];
    • Booklist[95]
    • Harvard Business Review (brief)[96]
  • The One to One Fieldbook (1999, coauthored) in Décisions Marketing[97];
  • Rules to Break and Laws to Follow with Rogers
    • Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries[98]
    • Library Journal (audiobook)[99]
    • T+D[100]
  • Extreme Trust with Rogers in Canadian Business (brief)[101]
  • Return on Customer with Rogers
    • IIMB Management Review(academic)[102]
    • Financial Times(a combination review/profile, but with substantial coverage of Pepper outside of interviewing)[103]
    • Management Today (capsule)[104]
    • Automotive Design & Production[105]
    • Across the Board[106]
    • Financial Executive[107]
    • Entrepreneur[108];
    • Direct[109]
This Sept. 2005 review sparked an intense controversy that played out across several more issues of Direct.[110][111]
Article based on his books with Rogers in Harvard Business Review[112].
There's a series of articles in the Fairfield County Business Journal that editors may not be willing to count for notability, but which help source the article[113][114][115][116]. And this is a brief profile of Rogers that adds some more details for verifiablity[117]
I'm posting this now, but will continue to expand--Jahaza (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If those are about him, we'd need to TNT this. Very promo feel to the article now. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure about this one - there's plenty of reviews/coverage of his books, but the links above that I can actually access just look like promo blurbs. I don't know if he passes WP:AUTHOR. Is he regarded as important/widely cited by his peers? He might be - but I'm not sure I love the idea of keeping an article because the subject had a short bio in a reputable paper about them switching jobs. Agree that a lot of what's written seems promotional, and if kept, should be edited. Kalethan (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're "agreeing" that "a lot" of what's written sounds promotional to an almost entirely new article. What exactly have I written that's "promotional"? Jahaza (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That might have been the wrong phrasing - I apologize. I think what was bugging me was that half the sources on the page (excluding those authored by Peppers) are executive speaker profiles or book blurbs, both of which are trying to get the reader to give them money. What's left is a few bios of his career and what companies he worked for, and when I look at that, I want to say, "Why is an ad exec with a couple career bios notable?" But his career was selling stuff, so...I guess that makes sense that it would read as a little promotional.
    Anyway, although I can't read them, you and another user farther down have linked a bunch more sources. It's also probably just my general distaste for marketing getting in the way here, so I'll withdraw any support for deletion on this one. Kalethan (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject has passed the notability criteria, and has several media coverage from Wikipedia independent reliable sources, the page shouldn't be deleted. 11:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.47.91 (talk)
  • Keep Lots of articles in the business press and some are NOT press-releases or other promotion:
  • PERRY, DAVID. “Peppers Highlights Importance of ‘Trustability.’” Furniture Today, vol. 38, no. 40, June 2014, p. 12. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=96394271&site=bsi-live. "Furniture today"
  • "Profile - Don Peppers: Peppers finds life after CRM." Precision Marketing, 3 June 2005, p. 12. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A133036960/ITOF?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=aa89fa53 Precision Marketing
  • Sterk, Leo G., and Jim Wheaton. "The Chutzpah of Don Peppers and Martha Rogers." Direct, vol. 17, no. 16, 1 Dec. 2005. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A139150113/ITOF?u=sfpl_main&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=6ae267da. Direct. Lamona (talk) 02:33, 5 August 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! 04:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Business Network

[edit]
Catholic Business Network (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 only two sources I found were: https://catholicnews.sg/2009/11/15/one-year-old-catholic-business-network-a-work-in-progress/ https://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/singapore-catholic-business-people-bearing-witnesses-to-christ-even-at-work/45911/1

First, I have doubts on whether they are independent sources because they are local catholic newspapers, not general news outlets. Greater likelihood of the posts being promotional.

Overall, I do not think these pass the bar to keep this article: it is a pretty run-of-the-mill organization. Kate the mochii (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)> striking statement by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Per Kate the mochii's doubts regarding independence, I wanted to make an important distinction on Catholic (and all sectarian) media. Catholic and Catholic-interest news agencies like Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News) are generally considered independent sources from other Catholic media groups and in coverage of Catholic material because they are not directly affiliated with a central incorporation nor share joint ownership. However, in situations such as CatholicTV where the entity is owned by a particular diocese (in CatholicTV's case, the Archdiocese of Boston) and shares its ownership with another news agency (in CatholicTV's case, the The Pilot), the news agency would not be considered independent when referenced for topics pertaining to the diocese that owns it or the other assets possessed by the diocese. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 1 August 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! 07:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BibBase

[edit]
BibBase (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 Jprg1966 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw the relist so took another look. I did a very minor expansion on the article with a couple more sources that have moderate coverage. Note that one source above was not independent, though as a published journal paper that presents the software, still might be a good reference for further reading. I'm still quite convinced this software is notable by GNG, as there are even more sources I haven't delved into yet (or cannot access to evaluate) —siroχo 03:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Review after recent changes to the article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 25 July 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! 02:04, 1 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EnergySage

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
EnergySage (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, all sources found are PR. What's in the article is brief mentions of the company in otherwise RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true at all. I was very careful to use only legitimate articles and coverage. QRep2020 (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Business is notable simply for the scores of journal articles and policy papers that reference its data, per https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=%22EnergySage%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,22. The company is a significant subject of all referenced sources and none of the sources come off of newswires or purchased media. The material from government websites like energy.gov are hardly press releases.

I recognize that someone else tried to pull a fast one back in 2015, but independent coverage of the company is leagues beyond what it was then. QRep2020 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this please? Clearly there isn't any interest in removal and I suspect that the nomination jumped the gun. QRep2020 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis and further input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: I'm not very impressed with most of the sources currently on the article, as they are largely either not about the company, is corporate puff, or are passing mentions, as mentioned by the nominator. I also am not impressed with the reasoning from QRep, as many articles listed at the link are likewise not about the company. The reason I'm voting weak keep, though, is there appears to be a couple of decent RS here: [[121]] If the decision is against keeping, I'd suggest draftifying this one as there does seem to be indicators that more coverage will emerge here shortly User:Let'srun 02:50, 1 August 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. ✗plicit 14:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Wittler

[edit]
Stefanie Wittler (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)

Former beauty pageant contestant that does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage of her participating in the pageant, nothing since. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 1 August 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_August_1&oldid=1169521312"