Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 24	July 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ‎This is not about splitting hairs but whether there are independent, secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage to establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines and standards. . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rohatgi

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

There is not a single direct and in-depth independent secondary article about him. Seems very non-notable business executive, clergy, motivational speaker. WorthWobble (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— WorthWobble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CDO of bp, #22 in the Fortune 500, is non-notable figure? 98.118.86.149 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC) — 98.118.86.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Without sourcing, yes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hi. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm just getting my feet wet. I've gone through the tutorials, but I have some questions. Please be patient as I work to better understand, because I'm a bit confused about notability and primary vs. secondary sources.

For example, his link is not enough because it is just stuff from his wiki entry, which is referenced in his profile :https://www.ranker.com/review/roger-rohatgi/33496792?l=101186

This link doesn't work because it isn't an article, just a profile, even though it was a talk run by Harvard Business Review: https://www.alumni.hbs.edu/events/leading-with-ai.aspx

This link isn't enough because it isn't about him, even though he was a speaker for the economist, is this correct?https://viterbischool.usc.edu/news/2023/10/usc-viterbi-at-the-economist-space-economy-summit-in-los-angeles/

This video doesn't work because it is a primary source, as it is a recording of him speaking

This is a secondary source, but because he is only mentioned as a speaker, but it isn't about him, this wouldn't make the cut, correct? https://medium.com/techsonar/my-thoughts-on-the-iot-world-and-ai-summit-2022-in-austin-tx-131addde76b2

This article is an interview with him, which makes it Primary, even though there is a transcript. Are transcripts primary or secondary? https://www.designit.com/stories/point-of-view/design-the-future-featuring-roger-rohatgi

As a follow up to the above link, it is also a Podcast where he is brought on to be interviewed. That makes the Podcast primary, correct?

This blurb is technically a secondary source, but it has information that can be found elsewhere. What I mean is: I've read this while searching for these links. It is too short to count, right? https://augmentedenterprisesummit.com/speakers/2024-roger-rohatgi/

Same for this, correct? https://www.rca.ac.uk/research-innovation/research-centres/helen-hamlyn-centre/session-6-social-sustainability-the-role-of-inclusive-design/

This is too close because he literally works at bp: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/careers/life-at-bp/our-stories/rogers-story.html

I'm not saying that this is a great example, but would this be a secondary source?

I apologize for the wall of text, but since there were vet editors here, I thought I should ask. These links were found with ChatGPT, but Wikipedia editing is my new rabbit hole :) Illunadin (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC) — Illunadin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, sorry. One last question. This is secondary, but it doesn't actually provide much ABOUT him, just what he said. Should these be considered? https://www.wired.com/story/fast-forward-the-chatbots-are-now-talking-to-each-other/ Illunadin (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC) — Illunadin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Same as above. It mentions his job and role, but it isn't about him in particular, correct? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2024/01/24/bring-virtual-connections-to-life-with-microsoft-mesh-now-generally-available-in-microsoft-teams/ Illunadin (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC) — Illunadin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Little to no coverage of this person, this is about all there is [1], Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to bb article. Seems like he initially began his career as a film director and received a notable award, which satisfies WP:ANYBIO criteria. And later, he shifted his career focus and went on to win also the Oracle CX Innovation Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.147.18 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — 87.241.147.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as nom said, there's nearly no WP:SIGCOV about this individual. Also, WP:ANYBIO requires a well-known and significant award, which the "Oracle CX innovation award" is not, and as for the bare bones festival award, I'm doubtful as to its notability (and anyways I can't find any trace of it anywhere). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Online sources only? Illunadin (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC) — Illunadin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Some sources from the 2000s have not been properly archived, making it difficult to find digitized ones, and the awards received look quite notable for WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.151.73 (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — 87.241.151.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: There is a great deal of information about him out there. Far too much to be a flash in the pan, and he is obviously a go getter who is in the papers.

After finding so many articles about him, it seems almost like we are splitting hairs and being a bit too strict about deleting them in an arbitrary way.

"Well known and significant award". He has been given many awards within specific industries and fields, and multiple times. Just because the award is not familiar to us doesn't make it not notable.

He is obviously also a prime mover in the AI field, and works directly with others. I would keep it because it will grow and mature, as can be evidenced by this discussion. Illunadin (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC) — Illunadin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Case in point: https://archive.org/details/81a-8f-46d-482c-4732-a-49f-2b-329862608a Illunadin (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC) — Illunadin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The article is a WP:REFBOMB that brings together apparently every speaking engagement, blog post, paid placement, WP:TRIVIALMENTION, corporate bio and self-authored content ever published about the subject, and yet none of them constitute WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary and reliable sources. The awards he has received are non-notable. There is no evidence the subject clears WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. It’s important not to undermine the value of merits and awards. For example, The Atoka County Times recognized him as a major figure in Hollywood and New York and provided a film review that aligns with WP:FILMMAKER standards. The apparent lack of sources for SINGCOV is due to the original sources not being properly archived, which has created a perception of inadequate reliability. This is a common issue with many articles from the early 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.150.94 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)— 87.241.150.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The Atoka County Times is a rural weekly newspaper, and it was not reviewing the film but promoting the production of it, which took place locally. It's the kind of booster-ish content one would expect in such a publication. Also, the link provided by @Illunadin (you?) above doesn't say "major figure," it describes him as an "emerging force." I am not sure how much weight we should give to an unbylined article in a rural Oklahoma weekly newspaper to determine who is an emerging force in Hollywood, but by no means does this single article help the subject clear WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi hi, sorry, no, not me. I appreciate that you think I understand the WP: ****** syntax. I'm not there.

I'm just trying to learn and this conversation seemed divisive enough to be a great fertile place to learn the hair splitting way I need to think. I appreciate the compliment though! Illunadin (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’ve explained why many sources are currently unavailable, but this doesn’t mean the article should be dismissed or that all other available sources should be labeled as advertising or unreliable. My suggestion keeping the article with a tag indicating the need for additional sources. There’s a clear match with WP:ANYBIO, and more sources should be located and digitized, similar to what was done with The Atoka County Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.151.225 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dclemens1971 and Oaktree b analysis. This paid version completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP criteria. Redirect to BP not required as he is not mentioned there. 83.110.107.154 (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBIO. Some of the sources used make not mention of him, Forbes is a paid placement, others are interviews/him comments and others are not reliable (blogs, etc.). Also, I note Ranker offered above cites Wikipedia as its source so WP:CIRC. S0091 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinstellar

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

This law firm's page was created a decade ago, with no significant changes. The links used to cite it are now dead (aside from their own website), and none of them seem reliable to begin with. The only information on the article seems to be the company's formation and expansion. I tried searching for some more sources and came up empty. Niashervin (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Niashervin (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Central Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources. The results of internet search are mainly directory listing and a couple of industry-related sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found one source from this legal news outlet, another from an investment news site, not sure if that is enough to salvage this article. Badbluebus (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 29 July 2024 (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 battles by geographic location#Sweden. Given the lack of discussion, we can treat this as a non-controversial redirect to the target location without prejudice against recreating the article in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles involving Sweden

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

Very cluttered, and serves no real purpose, there is a category for battles involving Sweden for a reason. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD nominated the talk page, not the article. This has a number of consequences, links not working and so on. Given the amount of scripts and automation around AfDs, is it easier to just close this and open a new one? Ping Gvssy. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, it was my mistake, I thought I was nominating the article. Gvssy (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of battles by geographic location #Sweden - I disagree with the OP's reasoning, as the page is useful and could be expanded to include useful information, similar to pages like List of battles involving Georgia (country). However, there isn't much to gain by having an entirely separate page devoted to it, as there aren't enough battles to do so, so a redirect is preferable. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 25 July 2024 (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 Cultural diplomacy. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill tour

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

Reads more like a stand alone list than an article, and I don't think it meets notability for stand-alone lists. Many of the individual tours might be notable, but I don't think there's discussion of goodwill tours as a group, or at least I can't find any. If anyone can, though, then that would be great. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Travel and tourism. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is a disaster. This seems like a well-defined term, but apart from the dictionary definition I'm not sure there is anything to say; I don't see a redirect target. Wiktionary doesn't have a dictionary definition so a cross-wiki redirect can't be done yet either. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
recommendation: Delete because wikipedia is not a dictionary and the article is unreferenced. Agreed with the above coments. Effervescent-lightbulb (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Unreferenced since 2008. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a cursory look at Google Scholar, sources exist. The article is almost unchanged since its creation but a lack of editorial interest should not be a reason to delete. As always, deletion is not cleanup. It is not the easy button for when nobody wants to the hard work. Srnec (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are those sources about specific goodwill tours, or about the concept in general? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge. Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY this page should not stand alone. I dug into the Google Scholar results mentioned above. The "cursory look" reveals lots of sources, but they are almost exclusively WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of a particular "goodwill tour" in the context of other coverage. The only thing that gets close to significant coverage is Black 2013, but even that is more about the broader concept of cultural diplomacy, to which I recommend a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into cultural diplomacy, with a redirect, which is much better than deletion. There are sources , and just because it’s neglected by editors doesn’t mean it’s neither notable nor worthy of at least a mention. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea to Merge into cultural diplomacy, I think it would make sense as as subsection under tools and examples. I would be willing to perform the merge if there's consensus. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Seminars Institute

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

Tour agency that fails WP:NCORP. Extensive history of WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. – Joe (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Archaeology, Israel, and Palestine. – Joe (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, certainly the sources in the article all rely on information provided by the company and/or their customers, therefore not "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 30 July 2024 (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!} 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haz al-Din

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Most sources are links to social media sites (specifically YouTube and X) which aren't reliable. Also, COI issues are evident and possible self-promotion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lebanon, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the current references are social media links which are pretty useless for a WP:BLP. The only ref I could find is from the Guardian [2]. I haven't spent hours searching for WP:RS. I would suggest this person fails WP:N WP:SIGCOV or WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious issues with notability, and the vast majority of the sources are directly from the subject's social media, and by no means are reliable. This article also suffers from clear political bias and MOS:PUFFERY (e.g. "He is renowned..."). The author also appears to be clearly invested in this topic and possess a conflict of interest. SociusMono1976 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this is somewhat separate from the content of this article (and therefore this should not be seen as a !vote), it's worth noting that this article was created by a user who repeatedly is seeking to recreate the page of a non-notable political party deleted at AfD, and has now instead pivoted to one about its founder (while again recreating the deleted one in two different new pages...).--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page appears to have been created as an alternative workaround after other attempts to circumvent a page deleted at AfD were removed. That being said, I agree with the !votes above regarding the current sourcing (but am open to revising that pending different sources and after further research).--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best I can find are a mention here [3] and here [4]. Daily Kos isn't a RS, the ADL was up for discussion for reliability recently... Regardless, two mentions don't work for RS and what's used in the article is primary/social media. Nothing we can use to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not a matter of what the person says about themselves, nor even what their friends say about them. Notability is a matter of what independent sources have to say.Gronk Oz (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spectacularly fails N and GNG. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. That subject doesn't have enough notability in different reliable sources.

Ahri Boy (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per proposer. The one source that isn't YouTube, X or the American Communist Party website doesn't even come close to being reliable. Furthermore, the creator of this article is suspected to be a sock of an editor p-blocked for repeatedly recreating the ACP article against consensus. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SNOW. I also add that there are many such influencers who have gotten lots of clicks but no coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2024 (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. It's obvious that no consensus for deletion will develop. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kehler

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

Appears to fall under WP:BLP1E as he doesn't appear to have done anything else worth of note outside of anger the IRS. BangJan1999 21:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Some coverage here [5] and [6]. Seems to have been notable in relation to Eisenberg as well. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Resisting taxes for years isn't a single event. And he's also well known for his anti-Vietnam War actions, such as refusing the draft which received a large amount of news response at the time, and his anti-nuclear actions, all of which received significant coverage.

Not to mention there's an entire documentary about him. Silver seren^C 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Just added another documentary that featured him. Leutha (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. There are thousands of individuals with articles who are far less notable, including dozens included in the List of peace activists. Given its stated rationale, the proposed AFD does not even seem to have been made in good faith. As already noted there are numerous reliable sources following his activities and career; he is the subject of a doc that has its own Wikipedia article; he was the leader for years of a national non-profit advocacy organization that had widespread popular and celebrity support; and his public discussion of his own draft resistance is what specifically moved Daniel Ellsberg (according to Ellsberg's autobiography) to release the Pentagon Papers. User:PDGPA User talk:PDGPA
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Politics, and Massachusetts. Curbon7 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Randy Kepler’s importance and influence will grow with time and history. 2601:193:8200:1884:EC0A:BE50:D3C9:AADE (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BLP1E concerns one event. Not a lifetime of numerous well-documented events. That's like claiming that Barry Bonds wouldn't clear BLP1E because his notoriety was solely connected to baseball. Ravenswing 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be sufficient coverage about the subject, although in local/regional publications, even before. Now, coverage is also present regarding his recent death. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - Article is self-evidently notable and we are approaching the snow. Jusdafax (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (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 Nick Fuentes. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America First With Nicholas J. Fuentes

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

Not needed, everything here is already in Nick Fuentes. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show still notable, tons of reliable sources covering it. If someone started a podcast that thousands and thousands of people listen to, and Millions of people heard of, and it's a dangerous podcast because of the anti-semitism, it should be covered to inform the audience. Yeah there's an article about the person Nick Fuentes, but I don't see a problem in covering the web-show. So many people created political shows and they have an article about them and their show. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add some of the 'tons' of reliable sources (WP:RS)? Millions of people? Finding a source for that would help. It might assist you if you take a read through WP:N to see what notability means? Hope this helps, Knitsey (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nick Fuentes: Not notable podcast, the host has a ton of coverage [7]. Podcast is always briefly mentioned in articles about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok if I add more information to the podcast that's more about the podcast itself than fuentes, can it stay? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as unnecessary, the Nick Fuentes article already covers the target article's content. Haruka Amaranth 14:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a redirect normally would be acceptable, but the show’s name is similar to lots of other entities. There’s only one reliable source in this article. I’m not sure any reader would search for the show, rather than searching under “Nick”. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hammer

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced biography of an actor. I've found and added four references, but three are from the BBC Press Office so are not independent, and the fourth is a passing mention in a local newspaper. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His two roles for which we have evidence are supporting characters as far as I can see, so I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR. The article has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability criteria since December 2023. Tacyarg (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, United Kingdom, and Australia. Tacyarg (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added yesterday. I originally decided to withdraw this discussion, saying "I (TechGeek105) have added extra sources via NewsBank to the article, so he now meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR."

Sources:

Frilingos, Matthew (30 September 2001). "The Funday Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph. Sydney: News Limited. p. F01. Retrieved 30 July 2024 – via NewsBank.
Everton, Denise (2 October 1998). "Hammer is a hit on TV". Illawarra Mercury. Wollongong: Rural Press. p. 11. Retrieved 30 July 2024 – via NewsBank.
Wood, Miranda; Murray, Cameron; Hodges, David; and Hodges, Sophie (17 October 1999). "Super scene". The Sun-Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax Holdings. Flying high – via NewsBank. Jade Butler, 16, and Anthony Hammer, 13, dramatically changed their exercise routines to become fit for the challenging circus acts.

Yesterday, I also found an unreliable blog source, related to his football career.

"2012 Victorian State League Division Two South-East - Season Results". Oz Football. Retrieved 30 July 2024.

There is sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to allow him to pass the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 07:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant roles in multiple notable productions. His role as Smudger Moore in Bootleg is a main role. (Smudger and Huntley are the two mains but if you just look at imdb they are way down, don't always trust them. "When chocolate is banned by the newly-elected Good For You political party, 13-year-old school kids Huntley (Steven Geller) and Smudger (Anthony Hammer) and some surprising adult collaborators conspire to undermine the new law and bring down the Government."). Had a main role as Ned in Driven Crazy. (Dad Mick takes his kids Danni and Ned on a trek around Australia.) Main cast role in High Flyers. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2024 (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 Montserrat at the Commonwealth Games. Just noting that there is not much content on either article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat at the 2002 Commonwealth Games

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

Unnecessary fork. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Many of these articles have already been deleted, see AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all others to Montserrat at the Commonwealth Games. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2024 (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. With the nominator indefinitely blocked, and no Delete views, there is no need to keep this AfD open. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tya Jané Ramey

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

Just another run of the mill model with scant general notability and nothing that I can see that satisfies WP:ENT Blanes tree (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Trinidad and Tobago. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would meet WP:ANYBIO for winning Miss Trinidad and Tobago twice and representing her country in the Miss Universe pageant. Prof.PMarini (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with Prof.PMarini that wining Miss Trinidad and Tobago twice, and representing their country at Miss Universe, would clearly indicate that they pass WP:NMODEL. TarnishedPath^talk 05:45, 28 July 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 18:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Haider

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE (a search for sources turned up little to no coverage beyond the initial reporting when the boy sadly died); and so fails WP:NEVENT. The previous AfD ended in no-consensus; but I think there's little to doubt about the lack of persistence of coverage anymore now, over two years later. Java Hurricane 17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Java Hurricane 17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also adding this quote from WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Astaire (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons set out by the nominator. WWGB (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS; didn't find any in-depth retrospective coverage or content on a search that would go beyond the routine news coverage of the event as it happened. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Edl-irishboy (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. It’s tragic news, but not encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survay Says!

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find some reviews, but they're from non-RS. toweli (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New Jersey. toweli (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find significant coverage. There's a lot of stray mentions/concert listings in small local press, but nothing satisfying the in-depth criterion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:02, 29 July 2024 (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 Bullet voting. There is clear consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone. Many arguments to keep point to the existence of sources but express openness to a merger. There is less clear consensus as to the target; the one I chose is the only one that received substantial support, but this can be revisited via talk page discussion if needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burr dilemma

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

Not notable enough. The page seems to have only one or two citations to a pair of closely-related papers by the same author, both mostly speculative. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with a related article. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a brief mention could be added to bullet voting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the citations in the article aren't the only ones that exist. Though, I wouldn't be against merging it with a related article if a sufficiently related one can be found. Loki (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study [8], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic_voting#Influence_of_voting_method might work as a merge target, if merged. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are additional citations, yes, but they're very limited (the link above only has 25 results, of which 2 are the main academic articles, and include other irrelevant topics), and don't provide any additional secondary discussion of the original articles. It's basically a non-notable neologism. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if this is mentioned in another article, either. It doesn't necessarily need to be a merge. But it shouldn't be a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically something thought up by one author. The development of that into an article with wholly uncited 'History' and 'Solutions', tied together into a story with pure WP:SYNTH, is simply WP:OR. The 'Solutions' in particular would remain as OR even if its components are cited, because their assemblage as solutions to this particular problem will remain completely in the mind of the synthesising editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article since it is related to several different pages, and I thought it is more convenient to have a single page linked from all these pages, than to include it in each page. If it cannot stand on its own, then I support, as a second-best option, to Merge it as a subsection into one of the pages that links to it, e.g. Approval voting or Bullet voting or 1800 United States presidential election or Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Erel Segal (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable thought experiment proposed by a single author and not really covered by anyone else. A merge or redirect doesn't really seem possible given that there are multiple pages with a connection to this topic and all have a tenuous connection at best. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bullet voting: very selectively. There's not enough for a standalone article, but a brief mention in the target will cover the encyclopedic content and be useful for those searching for the term. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bullet voting seems to make most sense here. We basically have just Nagel as the authority (both in the cited sources and what is on the Web) so it's enough for a short section in the target article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very basic but informed introduction to undervoting. I am an election attorney from PA. 38.107.148.75 (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plug Sports

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and Nigeria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another case of a deceptively written article. I could not find any credible claim of importance. Notability, again, is not something that you inherit. Overall, fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per rationale by HIGHKING. Best, Reading Beans 17:05, 1 August 2024 (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 15:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florinel Sandu

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

I was not able to find WP:SIGCOV sources for this footballer. The best I could find was this. Geschichte (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:05, 1 August 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Lyra Dutt

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Theatre, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok[9], Choona[10], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[11], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[12] and Sutliyan[13], which clearly fulfills the NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled GNG. It does not even require a BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. — 48 JCL 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day[14], which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.
9t5 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I provided show that she is credited as main cast, and they are from The Indian Express, The Hindu, and Variety. I do not believe these three sources have any concerns regarding their reliability. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.

9t5 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I've done a source assessment. — 48 JCL 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak Keep~~ - (switch to weak keep: after having reevaluated 48JCL‘s arguments) // (switch to delete: I stand by my views on policy & notability, but this specific article is progressively unearthing problems. Extremely irked by the sock puppet attempt, and that paired with Ssilvers’s comments have me feeling uncomfortable with leaving a keep on this AfD. So I am switching to Delete) — I (still) strongly disagree with 48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly untrue.

9t5 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times.
[1] -- From WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability.
[2] -- From WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability.
[3] -- Another interview.
[4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per WP:IMDb
[5] -- Another interview.
[6] -- Another interview.
[7] -- Passing mention.
[8] -- Passing mention. — 48 JCL 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?

9t5 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL Then tag the article with {{verify}}? This is a ridiculous use of AfD. 9t5 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.

I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than 48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with 48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project. 9t5 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9t5 and Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. — 48 JCL 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It not be deleted. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

You have a bizarre contribution history. Typical of a sock puppet. WP:SOCK 9t5 (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicontriiiiibute —- to the closing editor, this account is likely best kept unconsidered. The user has a very short and very opinionated history of solely AfD discussions. 🂡🂡9t5 05:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to say "Delete" for now, per WP:NOTYET and because of the mischaracterization of the roles this person has played as "3 main roles". They are supporting roles, but not within the first half dozen roles listed in the cast lists. It is very suspicious that this person has not received substantial press other than interviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply original research and IDONTLIKEIT to determine an actor's role by subjective assessment. Based on both the official billings and the sources, the subject person was listed among the main cast of Choona ([15][16][17][18]) and Paatal Lok ([19][20][21][22]), as well as part of the ensemble cast with a credit of "Also Featuring" in Call Me Bae ([23][24][25]). Large productions can have a large main cast. For instance, a season of The Boys can have a total of 16 actors in main roles, while A Murder at the End of the World has a total of 13 actors in main roles. The main roles are officially credited, and their position in the billing does not matter at all. A main role will not be diminished to a recurring or supporting role simply because the actor is not credited front enough.

Her role in Sutliyan was also referred as "principal cast" by Scroll.in,[26] and mentioned in multiple reviews,[27][28] which I do not think this is what a minor and non-notable role would be like. With at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, I still do not see how the subject person fails NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being persuasive, because you are just throwing in a lot of refs that merely list the cast, and because you are being emotional. Instead, if you cite a review or other independent article (not an interview of someone connected to the production) for each role that *states* why it is one of the most important roles in the work, or that *describes* the role's its importance to the plot arc, I will review them and see if they persuade me. Above you mention Sutliyan, but this is not even mentioned in the article. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, add all the relevant information and cites to the article that you want to discuss, instead of WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Then you can make a more persuasive point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, why would I be emotional? I always make lengthy comments on AFD, and I normally do not expand an article with the sources and information I present before the article is kept, or else that would just be a waste of my time. If you are complaining about TLDR, here is a shortened version:

The subject person's main roles are officially credited in the billings and supported by numerous sources. Three sources per WP:THREE, and the fourth sources are related to the billings, like the official website of Netflix or credits listed at Screen Rant, so I believe this is the perfect amount of evidence I should provide. But for the sake of discussion, I would simply quote all the first sources:

For Choona, Created by Pushpendra Nath, the main cast includes: Jimmy Shergill as Avinash Shukla, Minister of Urban Development [...] Gyanendra Tripathi as Baankey and Niharika Lyra Dutt as Jhumpa, among others.

For Pataal Lok, Amazon Prime Video recently dropped the Anushka Sharma-bankrolled series, Paatal Lok, which stars Jaideep Ahlawat, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Neeraj Kabi and Gul Panag in the leading roles.

For Call Me Bae, The eight-part series, also featuring Vir Das, Gurfateh Pirzada, Varun Sood, Vihaan Samat, Muskkaan Jaferi, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Lisa Mishra, and Mini Mathur, will premiere on September 6.

For Sutliyan, The principal cast, which includes Niharika Lyra Dutt as the object of Raman’s affection, is uniformly compelling.

There is nothing for me to describe or persuade, as a credited main role would not be diminished simply because of subjective disagreements. If someone comment on why they consider it is main or it is supporting, this is called original research. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Perhaps I made too many comments and my argument has been messy to follow. So for the benefit of reviewing, I will make a summary: I think the subject person passes both NACTOR and GNG. For NACTOR, she has at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, supported by billings and sources, which is a clear fulfillment of NACTOR#1. For GNG, she has a certain extent of secondary source coverage, such as from Times of India[29] or Tellychakkar [30][31], albeit not the best sources. However, this can be compensated with numerous interviews from reputable media outlets per WP:IV, including The Hindustan Times[32], Indian Express[33], Mid-Day[34], Yahoo! News[35], Sakshi[36], etc. Therefore, by combining both primary and secondary sources covering the subject person, it clearly demonstrates enough notability to pass GNG. Fulfilling two notability guidelines is a strong keep to me, and I have reservations about the opposing !votes in this discussion, as they do not seem to be based on P&G. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources i find are interviews [37]and [38]. Source 2 is also an interview in prose form. Rest of the sourcing in the article is about other projects, not about this person. We don't have articles about her that aren't primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Burian

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

With only primary sources listed, the article of this men's footballer clearly fails WP:GNG. He played nine minutes at the highest domestic league before being sent on loan to second tier then disappeared. Using the keyword "Oliver Burian", search engines mostly find other men of the same name than this footballer, failing WP:V too. My searches showed nothing better than match reports and passing mentions in online newspapers. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no basis for an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems that he hasn't disappeared completely, but moved to the third, and now, fourth tier of Slovak football (non-league). At that level there is no chance of new significant coverage, and agree that anything existing is far below the required standard. C 679 15:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2024 (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 2024 Formula One World Championship. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mexico City Grand Prix

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

Too early to establish notability. Typical practice is to start the article the week of the race, which tends to be when reliable sources begin to exist about the race. This event takes place in 3 month and there is no evidence of this meeting WP:NEVENT. Should be redirected to 2024 Formula One World Championship as it was before. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily restore redirect - Standard practice is already in place here for a reason. Page shouldn't be created until the week of the event. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, page shouldn't have been created until notability criteria is met. This is usually 1 week before. But there is no reason it couldn't be six months before. In this case it isn't. But arguing any outcome because this article does/doesn't meet an arbitary time frame is nonsense. There is no rule (official or by implied consensus) that this has to be the case. SSSB (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was covered in my "standard practice is already in place here for a reason" statement. This discussion or variations of it have been had many times because it's fairly well-established that these events almost never meet the WP:GNG until the week of the event. It shouldn't be necessary to restate the same thing every time one of these articles gets made months in advance unless there's some compelling evidence presented to the contrary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it's fairly well-established that these events almost never meet the WP:GNG until the week of the event." but sometimes they reach GNG more than 1 week before the event in which case creating an article is justified. The reasoning here should be "GNG is not yet met, but may be met in the future", or "WP:TOOSOON". This idea that a Grand Prix article cannot be created more than a week before the event is nonsense and a Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Subject age argument. "It is more than one week until the event, so GNG cannot possible be met." Please provide an actually policy based arguemnt in future. SSSB (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying there aren't exceptions? HumanBodyPiloter5 is completely correct in their statements and, in case it's not glaringly obvious, you actually agree with each other. We all edit in the same space, have done for years, and are on the same page when it comes to this discussion and the correct practice when creating race reports, there's no need to patronise each other here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We have zero information because it is a few months away and it fails the Wikipedia Crystal Ball policy. Felicia (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – No reason to delete. This was and should be a redirect. It could've been dealt with proactively—with a revert—instead of opening a whole AfD. MSport1005 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted to a redirect but then the user reinstated the article. Thought it best to get consensus in the easiest way possible instead of edit warring. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the nom is clearly asking for redirection instead of deletion. Perhaps next time, Cerebral726, you could bold that part. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Formula One World Championship: For the reasons mentioned earlier. WP:GNG is not met. Let'srun (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There's consensus that the article meets the General notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Nobody (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any.do

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

It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources? LusikSnusik (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Software, Websites, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool. gidonb (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep: despite what @Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per WP:SOURCESEXIST. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep per last sources brought up by Skynxnex. I'm not sure the whole Max World, Mac Life, and Micro World bunch is reliable, but with that Forbes article it adds up to enough for WP:GNG for me. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might have been a bit quick with the "promotional" and it's only about the two by Sarah Perez, I can't help but have doubts whens someone writes about a beautifully designed, deceptively simple, gorgeous new app with an attractive design that stand[s] out of the crowd and is working towards building out a smarter, more intelligent system. They do look a bit like PR pieces. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you reached the same conclusion after a more thorough review! gidonb (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some more reviews (many of these links are wikipedia library links, I'll try to provide enough context to show how relevant they are):

A Task Master to Beat All; Any.do is perfect for sailors who like to keep their boats organized by Donald A. McLenna in Sail, November 1, 2014. A five paragraph positive review from the perspective of a sailor. (I didn't find these articles easily but it mentions that "It won Apple’s 2012 'Intuitive Touch' Award, Android’s 'Best App' for 2012 and a nod in my 'Top 5 Apps for 2013' in the December 2013 issue of SAIL", as a sign of more continuing coverage.)
Any.do's Life-Planner Adds Another 4 Million Users, 3/11/2014, by a (former) Forbes staff member so probably reliable and contributing to notability?
Any.Do 3 Review: Don't like apple's reminders? You might like Any.Do, By: Loyola, Roman, Macworld - Digital Edition, Jun 2015. About six functional paragraphs ending with "The different list views make the free version of Any.do better at organizing your task list than Apple's Reminders. And the ability to create subtasks and add notes and attachments is handy. The premium version of Any.do has features that'll make you seriously consider using it instead of Reminders, but you have to be willing to pay for it on a regular basis."
Any.do by Joseph, Cliff. Mac Life, Oct 2019. Four-ish paragraph review starting with "The marketing blurb for Any.do is a bit intimidating, as it seems to be aimed at budding business tycoons and “results– driven teams”. But it turns out that the basic, free version is simply a rather nice app for making to–do lists.".
App Battle Any.do Vs Todoist, by: Leane's, Rob, Micro Mart, 2/25/2016.

there's more reviews/coverage about the same level as well, so I think definitely meets WP:GNG and our general guidelines for software. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Skynxnex provided plenty of sources. Whizkin (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (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. per WP:SNOW. The only “opposition” is from the nominator. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans 03:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Reading Beans 03:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Eme

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

I'm surprised this article made it through the draft review process, given that the subject has zero press coverage outside a few paid Nigerian blogs and the accolade "Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria" doesn't seem like a particularly notable award. On the contrary it sounds quite sexist. Blanes tree (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria is clearly a notable award, (sexist maybe, but surely no more or less than any other national beauty pagent). But WP:NMODEL is not met with just one notable award, so WP:SIGCOV must be met instead, which I'm not sure it is. Vanguard can be considered marginally reliable when, as in this case, the article is not explicity paid content. Curiously, I couldn't find a previous discussion on VON or RadioNigeria but maybe those two being state outlets counts for something? Even then the articles are pretty short, bordering on routine. So I am on the fence here. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess, you're going to wait until day six then flip you're position to keep? Blanes tree (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, why would you think that? I could hop off the fence with more evidence given either way but have no plans to do so as of yet. (besides: whichever field I land in, it would not be a flip - there isn't an opposite position to neutral). -- D'n'B-t -- 19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep: I'm now satistfied that there's enough reliable, independent coverage based on these discussions - but I am holding onto my reservations about depth of coverage: I feel that SIGCOV is met but only just. And NMODEL is still not. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is lots of in-depth coverage of this person. See Google news. Even if there wasn't, this person meets WP:ANYBIO #1 as they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor". Clear keep in my view. I suggest the nominator withdraw. C F A 💬 18:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Without even looking at any source, MBGN titleholders is an easy keep. Biggest paegent in the country to determine Miss World representative. Pretty sure all Miss USA winners will also have wiki articles. As soon as I verified she was truly an MBGN winner, I didn't even bother reading the other rationale in the nom statement. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets GNG (ex: [39][40][41][42], etc.) and ANYBIO for that matter. I don't think the nominator did a BEFORE. C F A 💬 03:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. your statement that the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria award sounds sexist is quite laughable and somewhat insulting to the people of Nigeria. This award is the highest beauty pageant award in Nigeria and the winner deserves a Wikipedia article.

SuperSwift (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient notability, significant competition/award as mentioned by the commenters above; enough coverage. Prof.PMarini (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I'm failing to see why this was nominated. This clearly passes WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 28 July 2024 (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 12:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-monarchism

AfDs for this article:

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

The lead sentence of this article describes the subject as a "fringe theoretical political philosophy", which is already quite the shaky start, but I think even this description gives it more credit than it's due, as the term is not popular enough to even show up in Google Ngrams results.

Of the cited sources in this article, and the ones I can see on Google Scholar, there appear to be three broad uses for the term: one is a throwaway term used by Peter Lamborn Wilson (see Grindon 2004; Fiscella 2009; Fiscella 2020); another a descriptor for Tolkien's political ideology, largely based on a single letter he wrote to his son (see Hart 2010; Siewers 2013; Hayes 2017; Davis 2021); and finally as a generic throw-away descriptor for neo-feudalism (see Turan 2023). One other source describes Rodolphe Crevelle, the founder of Lys Noir, as an "anarcho-royaliste", but again in a throwaway line that almost reads as mocking.

Something that quickly becomes apparent in all of the sources, is that none of them give significant coverage to the subject. Almost all of the references are throw-away mentions, sometimes relegated to footnotes. The only source that goes in any depth is a student paper, which is quite clearly not a reliable source. I doubt this article will grow any larger than the stub it currently exists as.

As I stated, calling this a "fringe theoretical political philosophy" is generous, as it doesn't appear to be a real thing at all. Its references are all throwaway lines, usually either attributed to Peter Lamborn Wilson or describing a single letter by Tolkien. There'd barely even be enough to merge into Wilson or Tolkien's own articles, the sourcing is that thin. As there appears to be no significant coverage of "anarcho-monarchism" in reliable sources, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Philosophy, Politics, Royalty and nobility, France, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Grnrchst's careful analysis and I don't agree with the edit summary used for recreation - "Created page, many new sources since the last deletion discussion" Mujinga (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's quite a few Google hits for the French translations of this term, from reliable sources, however there's no French Wikipedia article for it, just a Wikitionnaire entry. I don't think it meets WP:GNG and agree with Grnrchst that the mentions in the sources are passing. Orange sticker (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a similar read when first reviewing this article. It's a term used as an epithet in passing but does not cohere between reliable sources into a clear system of ideas nevertheless one that is in active consideration (sigcov) by sources. czar 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you make some great points. While the article is better than it's original form, it's lacking in many areas. Could it be transferred to my userspace for archival purposes? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to keep working on it, yes, the closing admin can help, per WP:DRAFTIFY. If you are looking to just keep it for posterity, I recommend saving an offline copy since Wikipedia does not hold drafts indefinitely. czar 19:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly not notable. Cinadon36 22:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the well- reasoned nom. I know someone who advocates this, but his Facebook page isn’t a reliable source, and even there there’s no significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (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 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordfarm

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference is the company website and the other one seems more like a listing in Poets and Writers which is behind a paywall. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability and significant coverage requirements. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. The article is somewhat misleading, because some of the blue links to authors are not notable themselves. In several cases, there are red links. Is this a “walled garden”? Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2024 (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) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen metabolism tracker

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

Only routine and occasional (press-releases style) media coverage with no NCORP reliable sources. TealBass (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the company's web page and thought it looked like a typical piece of quackery of the sort one sees all the time in TV advertisements for slimming methods. "Hear from the experts": three "experts", two of them "best-selling authors", none of them with any clear qualifications in physiology or biochemistry. Athel cb (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I can find lots of routine product reviews, but there are a couple of in-depth sources on the product: [43], [44], as well as one small research study: [45]. Any product claiming to "hack your metabolism" pushes my bullshit needle into the red, but there does seem to be some coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not opposed to keeping the article based on Outside and Slate, and I agree that perhaps a procedural keep is the best option here (the nomination seems... a little suspicious to be honest) but I do feel the need to point of that the BrandBlend section of Jerusalem Post is pretty much just advertising WeirdNAnnoyed. It's only blatantly obvious for the ones that are marked "PR" or "In collaboration with <brand>" or "Walla!", but while it's easier to miss the for the rest I would heavily caution against using similar articles as RS unless there is no other choice. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified, now and before, and also procedural keep as this article has just been kept. gidonb (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moath Al Qadi

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

This player has not played at the international level, nor in a fully professional league. فيصل (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Football. فيصل (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even the basic information is incomplete. Svartner (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2024 (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 Kappa Kappa Gamma. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity

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

This article, while purportedly about a court case, seems to in fact be a bio of one of the participants in the court case. Either way, neither she nor the case itself are notable.

For the case, it received some news coverage in 2023 when it was first filed and when it was dismissed, but only one story has been written about it this year, despite the fact that it went to the 10th Circuit. It was later dismissed by the 10th Circuit under procedural grounds, which was not covered at all. As the case was dismissed in both venues it appeared in, it is very unlikely it will have any relevance going forward, whether to the parties themselves or to the status of case law on transgender people as a whole.

For Artemis Langford, BLP1E applies as she is not notable for anything outside of this case. She's not even a party to the lawsuit as it currently stands. As neither the case nor Langford seem to be notable, I propose deletion. Pinguinn 🐧 03:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Sexuality and gender. Pinguinn 🐧 03:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kappa Kappa Gamma where this is rightly already covered.—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to !vote as I created the article and still believe the subject to be a notable one. I do see continued sourcing including last month as the future state of the lawsuit remains unsettled. Would prefer redirection suggested by S Marshall to outright deletion should consensus land that it isn't a notable lawsuit. Star Mississippi 13:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kappa Kappa Gamma. Current article seems to largely fit under the umbrella of the section in Kappa Kappa Gamma . I'm not sure what articles would be similar to this, the closest that I see from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist is probably DePauw University Delta Zeta discrimination controversy which I'm not sure this has reached the level of. As a note, this article wasn't on the WP Watchlist so I'll mention it at the Wikiproject to make sure others there see. I don't think this counts as canvassing, I fully expect one or more people there to want to keep it and/or add to the article. :) (Couldn't find any other articles on Lawsuits on membership, the closest that I found is the info in Iron Arrow about their anti-title IX lawsuit, most lawsuit mentions that I can find are part of the aftermath of a hazing incident) Naraht (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This article has adequate sources to meet notability because of its national coverage. However, because the court case didn't lead to anything significant, this content is best suited for the Controversies section of the Kappa Kappa Gamma article. There is already a subsection on this case in the Kappa Kappa Gamma article; it would be a good idea to see if any of the content from this article should be merged prior to its deletion. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2024 (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 Chandragupta II#Punjab region. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh

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

One of those seemingly cursed articles, created by a subsequently blocked sock, that becomes an eternal battleground between editors claiming it's historical and those claiming it's legendary. Either way, my review of the English-language sources finds no WP:SIGCOV of this campaign, just brief mentions. I propose to redirect to Chandragupta II#Punjab region where this campaign is already covered at only slightly shorter length. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2024 (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 programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Newscasts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PTV Newsbreak

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was redirected in previous AfD. Recreated with no sources, still fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Newscasts Another Filipino news brief article better served with redirection; view hasn't changed from the last nom. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Newscasts per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Newscasts, article has not changed (if not, not much) since last time, better as a redirect. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Newscasts. Fails WP:NTV per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Doctors Medical Center

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

Tagged as having problem in complying WP:NORG since 2017, virtually not supported by reliable, secondary sources since the article creation in 2012. A check on its version history shows it was originally meant to be an advertisement for the hospital (and was tagged with such problem once). Years passed, no significant improvements other than removing most promotional tone and adding an infobox. No improvements with regards to addition of sources that are reliable and not connected to the hospital organization (in accordance with WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. No inherent notability of hospitals. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This version should have been speedied in 2012. It certainly should not have been left in this awful state with zero sources. There's nothing here to demonstrate any kind of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCall Salmon

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

Subject lacks the needed reliable coverage from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. The sources currently in the article are either school websites or student newspapers, neither of which are independent. A check for coverage elsewhere didn't reveal anything more. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Softball, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent sources and none found online '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 July 2024 (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.