Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 10

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. asilvering (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Risk & Compliance Portal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Purely promotional and no establishment of notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Internet, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is promotional with nothing to pass notability. Fails WP:NORG. I support nomination rationale. Nothing is found in Google search and sources provided are not reliably sufficient. Mekomo (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear sufficiently notable standalone. See Business and Global Governance, Taylor & Francis IgelRM (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV/WP:NONPROFIT. Appears to have global significance. See the following: [1], [2], [3], Warwick University seems to think this is an important agency/resource. There is some coverage here, [4], [5] Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT. The sources identified by 4meter4 are, upon review and inspection, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. The mention of WP:NONPROFIT appears to be a red herring, since the subject is a product of a for-profit enterprise. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. This is a government funded non-profit NGO…. At least that’s what the sources I read seemed to indicate. One went so far as to call it a UK government funded organization; although to be more accurate it’s paid for by five governments and the EU Commission. It is not a for-profit business.4meter4 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that was its origin, but the external link to it is a 404 and it has apparently been rebranded from Risk and Compliance Portal to the GAN Integrity platform, see here: https://www.ganintegrity.com/platform/overview/. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 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 Poppy (singer)#2019–2020: I Disagree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Scream To (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Too limited in coverage. Out of the sources here, two are announcements (one focused more on the graphic novel with little to say about the soundtrack), two are profiles that only briefly mention this release (one gives a small paragraph and the other just a sentence), and the review from Sputnik which has never given me the most confidence as a source. And having found nothing else, I don't see notability met. I suggest a redirect to Poppy (singer)#2019–2020: I Disagree where the subject is mentioned in prose, with potential to merge and expand it to its own paragraph. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you redirect an album page to an artist page? 2603:6010:FD00:2500:90E3:F269:6076:AA3B (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is not inherited and redirects are cheap. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's information on the album there which readers may still look for, just not enough to justify a standalone page. Alternatives to deletion are preferred. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While sources are limited, as an individual release from a notable artist, it is deserving of its own page 90.243.233.218 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is NOTINHERITED. Just because the artist is notable doesn't mean every release of theirs is or that it needs to have its own page. And it's not like I'm saying the information shouldn't be on the site at all; I pointed to a place that has some of the information already as a redirect target, and even suggested a potential merge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Poppy (singer)#2019–2020: I Disagree per WP:ATD. However, a motivated editor could probably create an article on the graphic novel Poppy's Inferno which would reasonably include the content on this album. When I looked for sources on this album, I found enough coverage of that work to pass WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 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 islands of the Bahamas. asilvering (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cave Cay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable sources, and a before couldn't find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean, Bahamas, and Islands. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of islands of the Bahamas as AtD. A small unpopulated island, unlike Cave Cay, which one of the sources in this article is actually describing. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for this redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of islands of the Bahamas per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 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 islands of the Bahamas. asilvering (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base Line Cay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No clear notability. No reliable sources, and none exist. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bahamas and Islands. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of islands of the Bahamas as AtD. A tiny, unpopulated islet. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for this redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of islands of the Bahamas per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 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. as the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet and there are not arguments to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles, Apart from that it does not comply with WP:SINGER and sources not WP:RS. Pitille02 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure a WP:BEFORE was done. Interestingly, this guy is known for his recent criminal arrest and conviction (see coverage in Panama America, En Segundos, Critica and Telemetro), but that's not in the article. Separately from the criminal activity, there is WP:SIGCOV of his reggae career in Panama America, Telemetro (which notes a major award he received from the Panamanian Ministry of Culture and Critica. So we have a WP:GNG pass. Article definitely needs cleanup and updating, but WP:DINC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added those links to the talk page for anyone who comes across the article in the future... strange that this is the 3rd nomination of the article but there doesn't seem to be a 2nd one. Reconrabbit 15:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 11 November 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 islands of the Bahamas. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of importance. No good sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bahamas and Islands. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to MrBeast - all the news I could find is of this 12-acre island owned by MrBeast that he gave away in one of his contests, was sold back to, and abandoned. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of islands of the Bahamas per WP:ATD. Oppose redirecting to a person.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per 4meter4. I've closed the other, similar AfDs with a redirect to that location and think redirecting to a person is a WP:ASTONISH problem. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 17 November 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. ✗plicit 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerónimo Lluberas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Medicine. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ TheGreatestLuvofAll

Julia Waters Tillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Maxine as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes criteria 10 of WP:SINGER. She sings on several Grammy Award winning or nominated albums and songs such as the Tapestry (Carole King album), Whitney Houston (album), and It's Raining Men.4meter4 (talk) 10:42, 15 November 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!} 23:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Golapganj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable article about Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor position (don't be confused with city corporation mayor). In the past we have deleted many mayoral articles elected to this position e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel) as the position isn't considered automatically notable per WP:NPOL. There are some refs on the article but it's completely unrelated. Fails WP:GNG.

Also the article is very short, there is no need for a separate article. (It can be merged with Golapganj Municipality.) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:NPOL there is nothing written like that and page like Mayor of Sylhet exist . And City corporation is also the same thing just it's the main municipal org. And Mayor of Golapganj has been featured on several notable news like The Business Standard etc. So I think there no legitimate reason to delete the page. Therealbey (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet is a major Bangladeshi city, so it makes sense that an article about the mayor of Sylhet exists. Whereas according to the infobox, Golapganj has a population of around 40,000. I don't know about any Bengali sources but in English at least, the only thing I can find is one incident, which is not enough for its own page.

And WP:NPOL does say that in the first bullet point, being the mayor of a city isn't at the international, national or state/province level, therefore there is no notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic notability, rather. Procyon117 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All though the municipal corporation is small in population 40,000 but it has its under the Upazila and in Upazila population is 3,16,149 and whole upazila count's the mayor as whole upazila mayor. Mayor was also featured in the daily star , business standard , daily observer In The financial Express . Therealbey (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about. Upazila (3rd level administrative division) is administered by Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) and not by mayor. Municipalities (aka Pourosova) are one of lower level (4th level) administrative areas in Bangladesh, as i said, Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor position isn't considered automatically notable per WP:NPOL. You have to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and talks about this Golapganj Mayor position. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check I have given those sources above ↑ Therealbey (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As it stands, it definitely eliminates, this is less of a stub. If someone can demonstrate that there is more good information to include, they can work on a draft and then try again. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I’m confused why we routinely eliminate articles about small government entities, but some folks seem hesitant to delete this one. It looks to all accounts to be a run of the mill agency. Bearian (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Golapganj Municipality#Government as an alternative to deletion. The information about the duties of the mayor can be merged. Merging and redirecting would preserve the page history in the event that this topic ever becomes notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Are there any objections to the proposed Merge? Also, a review of sources brought into this discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection for merge. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Our guidelines for local politicians are pretty strict. A mayor of a relatively small town like Golapganj Municipality is not notable. Oppose merge, as the creation of these types of redirects for local government offices should not be encouraged.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Several reasons which include the sources presented so far aren't convincing enough to warrant a standalone page on this office. The officeholders aren't considered inherently notable per WP:NPOL. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG in itself, there's no point. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:18, 17 November 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. Solid case made for why this shouldn't be a redirect given WP:V issues and the difference in Camp/Fort meaning. Star Mississippi 15:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Greene, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe I have found a hoax as part of WP:NOV24. It seems unusual to me that a US Army fort established in 1890 and was used through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and present as claimed by the article would have no online presence; newspapers.com results in North Carolina for Fort Greene are referring to fortifications elsewhere, and there's no mention of a Fort Greene in North Carolina in Hanning's "Forts of the United States". I have found some evidence of a "Camp Green" in NC that existed from 1917-1919, but I cannot find anything supporting the existence of this or the specific claims in the article. A review of the page creator's talk page suggests that the page creator had a history of creating hoaxes. Hog Farm _Talk 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Carolina. Hog Farm _Talk 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NRV. I also came across this during WP:NOV24 and found no evidence (online at least) of it having existed - Dumelow (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Not a hoax, but this is definitely referring to Camp Greene, which we already have an article on. Henry Hill and George Johnson (World War I supercentenarian) were both trained there. Silverseren^C 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be hesistant to call this not a hoax. This article claims (and has since 2007) It was established in 1890 and was used through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and present. The facility trains U.S. Army soldiers and National Guard soldiers. Camp Greene was in existence from 1917-1919, so the claims about 1890, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the present day all appear to be patently false. Hog Farm _Talk 23:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Henry Hill, Hill trained at Fort Bragg (which makes sense given his service with the 82nd Airborne Division). He was also born in 1943, meaning he couldn't have been anyplace near Camp Greene. Intothatdarkness 21:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:V and whille it may *originate* with Camp Greene it's embellished to the point of being a WP:HOAX by an author who admitted to writing hoax articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Camp Greene, per Silver seren. Even if the information currently in the nominated article is a hoax, the title can still be redirected, given the commonality of using both "Fort" and "Camp" for military installations. BD2412 T 15:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a nuance with the names, though. In US Army use Camp typically indicates a temporary installation, while Fort means the location is going to be developed further and used for an extended period. You will see camps absorbed by forts (Camp Funston on Fort Riley, for example) as their projected temporary missions become more permanent, but never the reverse. Intothatdarkness 21:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - saying the creator's talk page "suggests...a history of creating hoaxes" is putting it more diplomatically than I would have done ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A redirect may be seen as giving legitimacy to the hoax. Intothatdarkness 21:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Intothatdarkness. I don’t think our readers will search for a fort only in North Carolina. They will just type in “Fort Green”. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 17 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ TheGreatestLuvofAll

Maxine Waters Willard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Julia as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've found a few sources about Maxine and/or her musical group The Waters. Another option would be deleting all the individual pages for the members of the group and making a single page for The Waters.

^{[1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainsage (talk • contribs) 05:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see a WP:GNG pass based on WP:SIGCOV in the Washington Post piece raised above and the documentary 20 Feet from Stardom. However, I agree with Rainsage that it might be better to create a single page for the Waters. That's a decision that can be made editorially, though, since the sources support a "keep" here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as The Washington Post, Pop Matters, a documentary film and others so that WP:GNG is passed. I would support the article being based on both Water sisters as proposed earlier, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 15 November 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 no consensus‎. Sorry about this - not trying to overrule anyone's keep position, but it looks like this needs a procedural close so that individual AfDs can be opened where necessary. It looks like there's something close to a consensus to keep Ana Coimbra but it's muddied in with concerns about the bundling. If relisting individual AfDs, please ping the participants in this one. Thanks. asilvering (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Coimbra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

We have here a good example of WP:BLP1E, a person whose purported notability is tied to a single event, i.e. a single beauty pageant event. There are three sources which are difficult to evaluate as a non-Portuguese reader; however, they note a) the pageant win and b) a couple of appearances at charity events in support of the pageant, including a (possibly public??) breast exam. This is way too thin to support the general notability guideline, and there are no SNGs that could apply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lauriela Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)
• Zuleica Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (two sources, one of which appears to be a nonexistent Facebook page)
• Jurema Ferraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)

I have bundled the above articles for the same reason, except that they have even less sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: The Opais link you gave here is already in the article, and I dealt with its thinness in the deletion nomination. The embassy link provides just three sentences on the pageant, one of which is about the judges and not the subject of this bio. The South African gives us a bulleted list of stuff in the pageant handout like birth place and star sign, but nothing of substance for a biography – certainly nothing that could be used to expand the article. The Forbes article says very little at all, but notes she has an afro, a red swimsuit, and an unnamed "social project", but nothing really about the person. AngoRussia, a single sentence mentioning birthplace, area of study, and country of residence, nothing more. These, like the original sources, are shallow and/or in-passing and tied to the single event, which just underscores this is a BLP1E situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An award is not an event, that passes, it’s an honour, that remains, and BLP1E does not apply imv. The guideline does not mention awards, at least, unless I missed it, whereas ANYBIO does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I tend to agree with the analysis above. The South African is a minimal source, if we had more, we could use it. But it's just not enough. The rest are trivial mentions or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:ANYBIO might apply as she received a significant award; if other users disagree redirect to Miss_Angola#Titleholders -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the fact this was a bundled Afd....my !vote was originally about Lauriela Martins. Coverage in Pt exists about her. Ana Coimbra: see above, now. Other: idem. So keep all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Check all articles included in this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep all as a procedural close. The commenters are mostly missing this as a bundled nomination, and this has been re-listed too many times. It's not clear that each individual nominee is getting looked at as there are certain people whose names have not even been mentioned in the discussion. It's too difficult for the closer to reach a clear consensus under the circumstances. No prejudice against the nominator re-nominating these individually, but I strongly oppose deleting any of these under the current process because the procedure has not worked.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As the sourcing shows that some of these subjects may be notable. No prejudice against individual renominations. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Considering she being a contestant of one of the Big Four beauty pageants, the references from Jornal de Angola, O País, and Gira Notícias passes WP:SIGCOV alone or maybe combined. Also, Forbes África Lusófona and The National News offer more limited coverage, they still mention her in the context of broader Miss Universe coverage, contributing to her recognition.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I don't think the bundled AfD nomination process has worked properly in this situation. Specifically, actual keep on Ana Coimbra (whom it seems most people are commenting on as the main subject of this AfD), and procedural keep on the other three who most people are overlooking. RachelTensions (talk) 17:40, 17 November 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 European Union Training Mission in Mali. asilvering (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Mali relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is based on entirely primary sources. Fails GNG. Curiously the article says sources retrieved in Sept 2024 and March 2022 when the article was just created. This source is not indepth and this one is a small 1 line mention of Mali. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete: Fails GNG, the only GNG-qualifying sources I could find online had to do with Ireland's peacekeeping mission in Mali. Noah ^💬 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There do not appear to be sources (independent, secondary, non-trivial) that would establish notability. Yilloslime (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As an ATD, possible redirect to European Union Training Mission in Mali, which included deployment of the Irish Army. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can support that redirect; not opposed to keep, though, given existing coverage on the news about this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The relations are more broad than the European Union Training Mission in Mali, so oppose redirect. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. Keep, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which third party coverage meets GNG for this subject? LibStar (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Royal Irish Regiment 'on standby' for Mali mission BBC (4 February 2013), What are Ireland's Army Ranger Wing doing in Mali? RTE (25 February 2020), Ireland will continue on controversial Mali mission but with reduced troop commitment (Irish Times 22 November 2022), Wagner Group disinformation endangering Irish troops in Mali, researchers warn (Irish Times 12 July 2023). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Further sourcing from last decade: "Questions to answer over Irish army involvement in Mali (Gript) 25 April 2022; Is Ireland Neutral in Mali? (The Phoenix) 10 February 2022; A Critique on Sending Irish Defence Forces to Mali (PANA) 14 January 2019; Irish troops to aid Mali regime despite ‘atrocity’ reports on all sides 14 February 2013. FWIW I realise Gript and Anphoblact are characterised as generally unreliable, however, I've cited them more to highlight the fact that the Irish mission in Mali has generated national political debate (which the PANA and Phoenix sources highlight as well). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, you've tracked down all of these sources but you haven't stated what outcome you are supporting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz - thanks for the ping. I'd originally suggested redirecting to European Union Training Mission in Mali. I'm still open to that - but I was actually hoping to hear back from @LibStar who'd made the nomination and asked questions about sourcing, but not responded to what has been presented so far. Also, looking back at their comment: "relations are more broad than the European Union Training Mission in Mali, so oppose redirect." - which is not clear to me; if the sources at this point show that relations are essentially only related to the deployment, how can it be "more"? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those bilateral relations articles that have been redirected are linked to Foreign relations of X article. So redirecting to EU Training Mission article seems to be an exception rather than the norm. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have an opinion on the sourcing I've cited? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should be added to European Union Training Mission in Mali. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to European Union Training Mission in Mali: is a very reasonable ATD per Goldsztajn. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to European Union Training Mission in Mali per above.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 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. Star Mississippi 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Sunbury earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While it was the strongest in the immediate area within the last 120 years, it had limited effects like buckled roads and cracked plaster, so I think this one probably fails WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Australia. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. WP:N(EQ) states that notable earthquakes should garner significant media coverage, which this one did (even non-Australian media outlets such as CNN reported on it) and it was mentioned in news reports into 2024 (see here). WP:N(EQ) also states, however, that shaking of intensity VII or greater is generally necessary for notability, which this earthquake did not reach, although in my view notability should not be defined by the magnitude or intensity. Personally, I would keep this article, but I would understand totally if it is deleted. Redtree21 (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Minor jolt, startled a lot of people but nothing beyond. Effects are also too small for inclusion into the 2023 earthquakes list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the same reason as User:Dora the Axe-plorer. Quake1234 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also fails WP:EVENT. Coverage only at the time of event and not lasting. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 13 November 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. asilvering (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. I'm only seeing routine coverage, and no in-depth coverage. Not sure if this is going to have any lasting effect or receive any more coverage than what's already there. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd also like to note that the title of this article is misleading. It should have been named somthing like 2024 Khanyar/Srinagar gunfight/encounter, given it was not an attack. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 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. ✗plicit 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janmat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't qualify for WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Has received very basic routine coverage which amounts it "this also exists". It is an alliance of minor parties without representation in any state legislature or national parliament, more than half of them don't even have their own articles. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Jharkhand. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 10 November 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond V-Eight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find any independent sources about this article - Jjpachano (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNews, GNews Archives and GSearch says it does exist. However, it still fails WP:CORP. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Can't see how this passes WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 17 November 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. Any content that needs restoring can be restored from the page history of the original article. asilvering (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Views on genital modification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

POV-fork (or something fork) of Genital modification and mutilation. We don't need a "views of $X" article for every article on $X, and per WP:NOPAGE such material is consolidated in single coherent places. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Sexuality and gender. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is a necessary fork of genital modification and mutilation. We don't need a "views of X" for every article on a subject matter. In this case, however, it comprised a majority of the article. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Genital modification and mutilation: Already has section that starts the article. Adding this information does not make Genital modification and mutilation to long. Demt1298 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think merge is appropriate as the first edit suggests this page came from that one in the first place. Thus there is nothing to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page is an undiscussed split of Genital modification and mutilation. The creator has attempted to cut information from that page and to copy it to this one. There is no WP:PAGESIZE justification for such a split. The controversial nature of the subject is likely to make this an unintended WP:POVFORK. Per WP:NOPAGE and per nom., this split should be reverted at both ends. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and restore content at the original article from which this was taken from. This was an undiscussed an unnecessary split. The page basically appears to be an arbitrary WP:POVFORK along the lines of WP:CRITS. Looks like it can probably be closed speedily per WP:SNOW clause. Raladic (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore content to Genital modification and mutilation. No redirect.4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 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. asilvering (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no WP:SIGCOV, just name mentions on Google News. No apparent significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one source article that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Simply fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:29, 17 November 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. asilvering (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Marland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, no substantial coverage anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:33, 17 November 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. asilvering (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Moss (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to have no significant success in the sport and has only one article with WP:SIGCOV per Google News, rest are just name mentions. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Entirely sourced with primary sources. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:33, 17 November 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. asilvering (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Sagantoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a film producer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for film producers. As always, producers are not "inherently" notable just because their films exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this just states that he exists without stating any discernible notability claim over and above existing, and cites only directory entries for "referencing" rather than anything that would get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Indonesia. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:PRODUCER. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:39, 17 November 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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krsy Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had acting roles to list -- even if you're shooting for NACTOR #1, "has had significant roles in multiple notable films", that still has to be supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them and their careers in reliable sources, and is not passed just by listing roles per se. But this article is referenced entirely to IMDb and Q&A interviews in which she and her husband are talking about themselves in the first person, which are not notability-building sources.
Simply existing as a working actor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a performer from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 2 lead roles in notable productions have her meet WP:NACTOR. Coverage includes things more or less focusing on her but allowing to verify the significance of the roles without any possible doubt for example: https://collider.com/dark-corners-trailer-kate-siegel-krsy-fox/ ; https://deadline.com/2024/06/brandon-scott-krsy-fox-topline-slasher-big-baby-spider-one-1235982810/ ; https://www.joblo.com/big-baby-spider-one/ https://collider.com/little-bites-review/ and indeed a LOT of interviews ; a redirect to Spider One could also be considered. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Little Bites, Bury the Bride and Allegoria, verified by sources listed above. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With the sources mentioned by Mushy Yank from references from Deadline and Collider, there is substantial foundation for notability. Though the sources passes moderately for WP:SIGCOV, it goes beyond trivial mentions to qualify WP:NACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:22, 13 November 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. asilvering (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deeplink (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for promotional content since October 2014, and subjectivity since February 2015, the organisation has failed WP:NCORP as presented here and has been discussed twice before at AfD, with reasonably sparse participation. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Software, and New York. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:NCORP for lacking significant coverage. Of the four TechCrunch articles, all heavily rely on public relations material and statements of company executives. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

1. Perez, Sarah (2013-05-22). "Deeplink.me lets mobile users navigate through a 'web' of apps". TechCrunch.
   This likely relies on PR material: "as Cellogic CEO Itamar Weisbrod explains…" being the most obvious tell, with the article also going into discussion of the internal deliberation of the company's tool development.
2. Perez, Sarah (2013-08-30). "Deeplink.me launches a retargeting network for mobile that sends users back to the apps they've already installed". TechCrunch.
   "According to Cellogic CEO Itamar Weisbrod" again, this time with the executive's statements making up the bulk of the article.
3. Perez, Sarah (2013-11-18). "Deeplink.me brings Twitter card support to mobile developers without a web presence". TechCrunch.
   This is a hilariously minor feature announcement: anyone with knowledge of Open Graph HTML tags knows that this is an incredibly basic feature, implementable in an hour, and TechCrunch's editorial staff should know that. The only reason it has an article is either because the company either paid TechCrunch to write it or because the magazine just copied a press release to rewrite for clicks.
4. Perez, Sarah (2014-02-04). "Mobile deep linking service Deeplink.me debuts a native ad SDK". TechCrunch.
   More PR statements from Weisbrod. The article ends with an investor-focused pitch on how the company plans to turn a profit from this, a giveaway of paid/non-independent coverage in these types of articles on startups. Hilarious call to action in last paragraph is just links to the company's products.

TechCrunch's coverage of Deeplink was the main point of contention in the previous AfD, and I disagree with the assessment that these four articles are significant or independent coverage. They appear to be fairly uninteresting product announcements from a company CEO barely wrapped in the guise of an article.

None of the other sources appear to be reliable sources at all, so I've omitted them from the source review. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Worth noting all of those together counts as one according to WP:MULTSOURCES. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was unable to locate anything on the company in RS beyond what is already here. But this might be due to the concept of Deeplinking being most prominent in searches. However, without better evidence its best to delete.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:NCORP based on sourcing provided so far, or what I can see in quick WP:BEFORE beyond what's already in article. Graywalls (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 17 November 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. Star Mississippi 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahiba Bali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no lead role of her as an actor. Fails WP:NACTOR Lordofhunter (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record WP:NACTOR is not about lead roles only, but significant roles. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination, all coverage is in poor WP: NEWSORGINDIA sources which cannot be used to establish notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of the references focus on viral moments or provide limited career context, rather than in-depth discussions of the subject's career and achievements. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is big internet personality and actor like how samay raina is shes very notable bros shes pop with genz. 106.195.69.169 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Big Personality is not the criteria. Please share notable sources. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:48, 15 November 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!} 17:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan de Vreede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the sources are primary. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 10 November 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. No new sources brought to this discussion to help establish notability leaves us with a consensus to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derk Telnekes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of the article as the subject has received coverage from secondary sources, among them his defeat to McGeeney in the Lakeside World Championship being covered by Sky Sports. JamesVilla44 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JamesVilla44, please bring some of these sources into the discussion so that they can be assessed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sources 2 and 3 are simply match reports where this person is mentioned. There are no stories about the individual; I can't find any and what's used in the article isn't extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So the interviews don’t count as stories about the individual then JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, those are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search in google news only found coverage in darts-related media. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does feel like the deletions are just going to become a runaway train at this rate. JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 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 Draftify‎. as there is a strong case made that notability is on the immediate horizon Star Mississippi 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Motta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not currently meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone biography. The references provided are primarily primary sources (club websites, match reports, and statistics), which are not sufficient to demonstrate the player's notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. The player actually plays football matches every week, and it's a pretty good chance more sources will turn up in the next 6-7 months, unless the sources are unearthed already. Geschichte (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 16:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or Draftify – I found an article in the Brazilian media covering his good time in Bulgaria [6], as well as coverage from major portals about his previous transfers [7], [8]. As Geschichte commented, in a short time WP:GNG should be uncontested. Svartner (talk) 16:41, 10 November 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. asilvering (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article. I want to clarify that I have never touched it or asked anyone to edit it on my behalf. It is based on a page from a wiki for Shimer College, which was created without my knowledge or input, by an alum I have never met, who has no apparent familiarity with my writing. I agree that it is of very low quality, and if the community decides to delete it, I will understand. Adam Kotsko (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The "Theory and Event" and "Philosophy in Review" citations above are critical reviews of his book. The rest is gravy. We have enough to pass author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have paged through all of the umpty-dozen revisions in the article history since the last AfD was closed in 2017. It does not appear that a cleanup tag (other than a sentence-level tag) was placed on the article at any point during that time. Even supposing that AfD was an appropriate way to address article quality issues (it isn't, not at all), if that's the actual concern then it's a little weird to go directly to AfD (again) without even asking for cleanup.
  FWIW I do agree that the article has a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue in its current state. That would seem best addressed through expansion -- but BLP is a serious matter and I am unlikely to be a participant in that work, so although I stand by the remainder of my comment I have stricken my "keep" above. -- Visviva (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• On further reflection: draftify. Although there doesn't seem to be any serious question of article-worthiness, a BLPSELFPUB violation should not just hang out indefinitely in mainspace. The necessary expansion work can be done just as well in draftspace, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No dispute that he passes NAUTHOR, draftification is pointless for any article that isn’t new. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say draftify. The article has potential, but leaving it out there the way it is now reflects poorly on the subject and Wikipedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think we have a WP:AUTHOR pass by way of multiple reviews of multiple books. I have trimmed the article into a more acceptable state. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 12 November 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 13:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Riečičiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to have had a 33-day professional football career, playing 6 games in the Slovak top league in July-August 2010. No indication of significant coverage then or since. C679 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. C679 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no significant coverage in <15 articles on Google News. Less than 70 search results on Google Search. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:01, 12 November 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 13:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweta Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO, all coverage is sourced to WP:NEWSORGINDIA , the wire source only makes a passing mention of her that too for making false claims [9] - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This page was created by a sock account and has been around since 2013 with almost no reliable sources. It doesn’t meet the WP:NBIO, as the nominator pointed out. But, also it fails WP:ANYBIO. Charlie (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of coverage in third party sources. Orientls (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: wide coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lullipedia (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom

Edasf (talk) 08:36, 14 November 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 13:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Tripathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Among the Godi media anchors who get routine coverage for spreading disinformation but they are overall not notable. Totally fails WP:NBIO. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N. I am also unconvinced by the last AfD. CharlesWain (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ANYBIO. Sources indicate persistent reliability issues. Charlie (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many of the news sources have in-depth mention of her rather than only passing mention and the subject seem to qualify WP:GNG. Also, last Afd attempt failed.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And what are those sources that establish WP:GNG? The last afd was not valid because there was no rationale at all, therefore it's pointless to bring it up. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a regular Tv anchor doing their work, the references doesn’t indicate notability. majority of the sources mentioned are just about a list of boycotted anchors for spreading hate and misinformation, and I noticed there’s one biography article as reference which is an unreliable source. No independent in depth coverage is available from the Wp:RS.

Zuck28 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Fulton (English cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable by the look of it. Amateur University cricketer is no longer deemed notable by default and sourcing is a cricket database and school website. Neither meet the current standards for inclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sample of mentions in The Times (there are more)- via Wikipedia Library including:

Cox, Rupert (18 April 1998). "Students grant initiative to White". The Times. No. 66179. p. 34. - Mentions Fulton as Captain of team and mentions possibly poor decision to insert opposition.

Bailey, Jack (17 April 1997). "Fulton and Scrini stage rescue mission". The Times. No. 65866. p. 56.

• Bailey, Jack (18 April 1997). "Students sent down with all guns blazing". The Times. No. 65867. p. 45.
• Thicknesse, John (10 May 1997). "Oxford let down by batting frailties". The Times. No. 65886. p. 47.

presumably other British Broadsheets (i.e. Telegraph and Guardian) will also have similar.

Also mentioned in Wisdens for 1998 and 1999 (1998 "James Fulton...made polished first class fifties" and that captaincy handed over to him for 1998) together with match reports.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added a few more details and sources to the article - It should be noted that he was captain for a season, which does raise his importance a little.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A fairly substantial first-class career, covered by reliable sources. AA (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added stuff to this article including regarding his scoring a century at Lord's for the Army against the Navy in the Centenary match with a reference to the Cricinfo match report which features him in the headline, picture and heavily in the body of the report. Fulton is definitely worth having in Wikipedia.

  Lookslikely (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly expanded with reliable off-line sources. Passes WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 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 13:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Babyak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

His professional career lasted only 50 mins and I can't find any suggestion of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC. The best source that I can find is Bibrka Gov, a local source that mentions him a few times in a match report. Match reports aren't generally seen as significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Match reports aren't generally seen as significant coverage. As long as the news article focuses on a specific footballer and describes them in signficant detail, that might be fine in my opinion. I can say such an example is this one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would this work? [10] Ceriy (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess so, but only one source is not sufficient. It also looks like a blogspot to me... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is written in prose, most of the content is just regurgitating basic stats about the player (e.g. date of debut, number of appearances) so I would say it's fairly light coverage. As Clara says above, this is only one source and multiple sources are usually preferred. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a routine transactional announcement and so fails GNG, and furthermore is straight from the governing football federation so is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources of IRS SIGCOV identified. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 11 November 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. It is recommended that the article be cleaned-up for promotion as deletion isn't cleanup. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avrum Rosensweig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This biography is almost entirely self-sourced (or using a congregational bulletin as a source), citing blog entries or pages from his or his organization's websites or summarising the subject's opinions as published in op-ed pieces written by him. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having surfed through the sources here, I find the nom is bang on the money. Sourcing is indeed scanty and all roads lead back to Avrum Rosensweig. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI don't believe this page should be deleted, but I do agree that some things should be better sourced.

Avrum Rosensweig has literally changed the landscape of Canadian Jewish philanthropy by founding Ve’ahavta, Canada’s only Jewish rooted, humanitarian organization, in the country.

Over the years, the organization has helped tens of thousands of people on the streets of Toronto, as well as in countries like Guyana and Zimbabwe.

(See: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Michael_Seth_Silverman, where work done by Dr. Michael Silverman on Ve’ahavta sponsored trips has saved literally thousands of lives.)

While Rosensweig retired years ago, and is no longer involved in the organization, Ve’ahavta continues to thrive as Canada’ s only Jewish humanitarian organization, living up to the universal ideals and values that he began the organization with.

So again, I think that the sources could be improved, but the page should certainly stay. Uiaeli (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is no coverage to be found of this person in .ca websites, other than social media and primary sources. This appears to be PROMO, a rather long-winded, wordy article that doesn't have much sourcing that isn't connected to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am familiar with this person's name in Canada, specifically through knowledge of the NGO he founded. That and some other elements on the page fall under encyclopedic content. I have not contributed to that many pages, but I would like to spend a week or two cleaning this page up/re-sourcing to save this page from deletion if possible. Colinwhite613 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see a issues with listing involvement in the synagogue where he served in a leadership capacity as long as the information in balanced evenly and objective. As I understand it, this particular one was build by Holocaust survivors.

  ~~ Reehabmail (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is also a point I wanted to bring up. These sources, while very real, would benefit form outside sources, there may not be a lot but there will be some, based on his written contributions published and the work with Ve'havta. this NGO is encyclopedia content. I hope this will be weighed, and the recent changes taken into acct. Uiaeli (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are many notable pages on Wikipedia that are contributors on various media sites that do not have a lot of sources in which others write about them, but their writing and exposure to their communities and audiences have made impacts. I am researching more sources now for this subject's namespace. The page looks like it has been cleaned up, and promotional material was removed (a lot of it). Some more summarizing and copy edits on expanded articles could be streamlined. I will post on the user's talk page with suggestions for the original contributor and will add some/remove other areas deemed not worthy. Ve'ahavta should not be ignored. His roles in my research is substantial, as well as his exposure to his community and messages against anti-hate campaigns/antisemitism.
  Reehabmail (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on this above, the suggestion would be to remove television content since its not a encyclopedic in nature at this time. There is a source for radio, but perhaps it is seem as PROMO. I hope sone contributors tske some time to edit. Uiaeli (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Uiaeli: @8barzmusic: Well, given that it was sourced from an article in The Forward, the fact that he had a TV show is one of the few facts in the article that actually has a solid citation. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. For the subject's work in radio, The second citation "CFRB History in broadcasting" is cited as well. I will look for something else to cite and contribute if I can Colinwhite613 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be enough secondary sources among the non-independent publications to pass WP:SIGCOV/ WP:BASIC. Some of the content that is not independent is in compliance with WP:ABOUTSELF and can be appropriately kept. Others should be weeded out as inappropriate That is really more of an editorial issue that cannot and should not be solved through the AFD process. In short fix the issues through editing. Get to work.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 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 13:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Shostka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article may look well sourced at first glance but, in actual fact, it's just a WP:REFBOMB of database sources, none of which confer any notability per WP:SPORTBASIC. His 8 matches in the third tier of Ukraine might provide a very weak presumption of notability but, ultimately, Shostka needs to have significant coverage from independent sources to have an article. Looking at Ukrainian Wikipedia and online, the best that I can find are Desna 1 and Desna 2, both of which are published by his then-employer so are neither independent nor reliable (see WP:RS and WP:IS). Please delete unless independent and significant coverage can be found for Shostka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. No significant success in the sport, less than 10 professional matches at present. Less than 50 Google Search results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:18, 12 November 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 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravko Dermenov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Dermenov has had an unremarkable career to date and the article is currently nothing more than a stats stub. Blitz was the best source in my searches but it's only a match report for a match in which he received a red card. Other sources like Novsport and Gong are only trivial mentions. No indication of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. More so an unremarkable, he barely had any career at all. Geschichte (talk) 15:16, 10 November 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 01:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Biemans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as again, after doing a WP:BEFORE (voting), all I can find him in are darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing, fixture) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. I would suggest all these darts articles be prod'ed but someone's been undoing all User:ItsKesha's prods with the same edit summary accusing them of not having done a WP:BEFORE and wanting to take it to AfD, so here we are I guess. I'll try to WP:BEFORE and !vote on as many as I can find time to. MolecularPilot 06:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost all of the google news hits are from darts-related media. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 11 November 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 23:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Federico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a WP:BEFORE (voting) search only revealed automated databases (that list most semi-professional darts players) that don't meet WP:SIGCOV - mainly with limited biographical info like name, age, matches played - see [11], [12], [13] etc. No news or other coverage thus doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT per "if they have SIGCOV, i.e. multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable (these have no evidence of editorial checking). MolecularPilot 08:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. MolecularPilot's search demonstrates a lack of coverage for this person. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 10 November 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 23:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Watton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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