Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 12

< October 11 October 13 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rosen (writer)

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

Cannot find much anything notable in google search. The current sourcing on article is shakey and not WP:RELIABLE as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I, Robert Rosen, may say a few words in defense of the significance of my work and the especially puzzling idea that nothing notable comes up in a Google search:
What follows is a sample. There's plenty more, which I can send on request. But I think there's enough here to prove my point.
In the 25 years that I've been publishing books, my work has received coverage in such places as...
The New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/nyregion/a-demimonde-in-twilight.html?scp=1&sq=a+demimond+in+twilight&st=cse&pagewanted=all
NBC News:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/john-lennon-yoko-ono-s-former-palm-beach-estate-listed-n1203626
The Wall Street Journal (paywall):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-lennon-and-yoko-onos-onetime-palm-beach-mansion-sells-for-36-million-11604076391
Huffington Post:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/conversation-with-author_b_7498668
and: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rock-n-roll-watergate_b_8634020
and: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/imagine-12-great-books-ab_b_8665582
NY Daily News:
https://www.nydailynews.com/2000/02/18/memory-serves-authors-final-days-of-lennon/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2013/07/24/no-porn-please-were-british.html
Architectural Digest:
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/john-lennon-yoko-ono-former-palm-beach-house-for-sale?fbclid=IwAR1gNv9bdvSQvYIEyTNdCSKgcoeTYRtMydY-7W3an1fZRRIa5PBsa0m3Dgc
The Times of London, not available online, but you can read it here:
https://www.robertrosennyc.com/blog/posts/16846
And such niche publications as Christianity Today:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2001/01/10-best-books-of-2000/
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2000/06/popular-culture-ballad-of-john-and-jesus/
My work has gotten even more extensive coverage throughout the Spanish-speaking world. Here are a few examples:
Spain:
https://www.diariodesevilla.es/ocio/Robert-Rosen-libro-Lennon_0_1870013916.html
https://www.abc.es/cultura/musica/abci-mejores-libros-sobre-vida-y-muerte-john-lennon-202012060122_noticia.html
https://ileon.eldiario.es/cultura/musica-literatura-biografias-imprescindibles_1_9386407.html
https://www.abc.es/cultura/abci-ultimo-capitulo-diarios-john-lennon-201711211203_noticia.html
Mexico:
https://www.proceso.com.mx/cultura/2003/6/23/habla-robert-rosen-autor-de-nowhere-man-john-lennon-en-el-corazon-de-las-tinieblas-77261.html
https://www.proceso.com.mx/cultura/2016/8/25/lennon-al-desnudo-por-su-biografo-robert-rosen-169554.html
https://www.jornada.com.mx/2005/10/09/index.php?section=espectaculos&article=a08n1esp
https://www.jornada.com.mx/2003/05/10/02an1cul.php?origen=index.html&fly=2
Argentina:
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/2000/suple/radar/00-07/00-07-02/nota1.htm
Colombia:
https://www.soho.co/historias/articulo/trabajar-con-john-lennon-por-robert-rosen/2179/
Chile:
https://www.latercera.com/culto/2020/12/08/los-enigmaticos-diarios-intimos-de-john-lennon/
Also in Brazil (Portuguese )
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fol/cult/ult30052000034.htm
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fol/cult/ult30052000038.htm
And France:
https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2000/04/22/87963-la-vie-sulfureuse-de-john-lennon.html
And Italy:
http://www.corriereetrusco.it/2011/12/05/piombino-al-centro-gio-omaggio-al-leader-dei-beatles/
I rest my case--Robert Rosen 2603:7000:3802:27B4:A0CF:E8AB:C126:5BAA (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to add one more piece of evidence about the cultural impact of my book Nowhere Man that I somehow neglected to include in the above: a Jeopardy question. Since YouTube is a blacklisted Wikipedia site, I've provided a link to the video on my own website. Scroll down; it's at the bottom of the post:
https://www.robertrosennyc.com/blog/posts/43472 2603:7000:3802:27B4:AD02:4EEC:599F:E78 (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not in the greatest shape, but the sources provided above seem to show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Not in Google search is a weird statement as well - even if there wasn’t on Google, ProQuest is a necessary search for most authors/literary works and there seems to be a lot about his works on there PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The NY Daily News and La Depeche are reviews of his book on John Lennon. Not sure the other ones given above are helpful, but should at least pass AUTHOR with these sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 14 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex MacKinnon

[edit]
Alex MacKinnon (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. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:29, 12 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Anstey

[edit]
Albert Anstey (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. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't cite any sources and the external link isn't something that counts towards notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Grant (darts player)

[edit]
Alan Grant (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. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Caves

[edit]
Alan Caves (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. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:26, 12 October 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. It seems there was a fair bit of change and improvement during the debate's time that is open. If any editor still feels like this doesn't meet GNG, I've closed as no consensus which allows for a relatively immediate re-nomination (and this close can be cited as specifically not precluding that from occurring). Daniel (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Terran

[edit]
Jennifer Terran (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)

Long-term concerns about notability, no chart success, very little in-depth coverage. An interview from 1997 was conducted by SoCal radio station KCRW[1] but interviews do not count toward notability. This UnCut album review from 2003 doesn't cover the artist's life or career; it just calls her an "independently-minded pianist-songwriter". The Sputnik page about Terran has no signed author. It appears to have been written by a family member. AllMusic's page about Terran does not have a signed prose review, indicating less notability. And none of Terran's albums have a signed prose review on AllMusic. The 2008 interview with Full Circle magazine cannot count toward notability; in any case it is a essentially a blog post published through Google's Blogger platform. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The nominator nailed it, as the musician received some very basic media notice but nothing useful for encyclopedic purposes or our notability requirements. I also can find no confirmation for the claim about the Sunday Times in the article, which appears to be an exaggeration that spread across social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of Sunday Times listing here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing my vote thanks to this research by Atlantic306. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are these press quotes on her website:JENNIFER TERRAN PRESS QUOTES

"Endowed with a voice or heartbreaking purity and melodic talent, Jennifer Terran will most likely rise rapidly to the level of the greats."- TELARAMA (Paris, France)

FOUR STARS Jennifer Terran “THE MUSICIAN” — ROLLING STONE (Germany)

"Breathtaking... timeless... pure... monumental.... Categorizing Jennifer Terran is impossible. Terran is a style of her own." — OOR MAGAZINE (Netherlands)

"She speaks of the unspeakable, with great touch and skill in production, the arrangements and the songs. Jennifer Terran did show her nakedness on the beautiful pictures of 'The Musician', on 'Full Moon In 3' she is naked in the head of the listener. In my mind I give her a kiss." 5 STARS for 'FULL MOON IN 3' — HEAVEN MAGAZINE (Netherlands)

"The Musician is Terran's third album, but strangely enough it has the innocence of a debut. The compositions are fluent and playful, both rough and soft. Terran produced and mixed everything herself, but has succeeded in preventing that the spontaneity of her music was killed by perfectionism. At some point Tori Amos had that same gift, but in the meantime she has become a phenomena. Let's hope that Jennifer Terran will never become world famous." — PLATOMANIA (Netherlands)

"The music of Jennifer Terran is so beautiful it hurts."- CULTURE (Netherlands)

“Jennifer Terran has become an instrument so fine that it may cut you. All the Santa Barbara songwriter's albums have been honed to her exacting specifications of sensitivity and truth; now she has gestated a suite about motherhood, a subject than which no deeper exists. It goes right to the heart, and that hurts (good). It's real art, her best. Maybe the world can stand it.”(Terran’s: Born from the Womb of Silence) — METAL JAZZ.COM / GREG BURKE (USA)

"Not everybody can be both scary and vulnerable; Jennifer Terran can. The scary part is her voice, which spirals into regions so high you fear she'll disappear or crash, and lately it has acquired a diamond-dust edge that can saw through a stack of hearts, first of all her own." - LA WEEKLY (USA)

Top 10 records of the year"Terran is a breathtaking singer. Her vocal innuendos are pure, free of the mannerism of a lot of contemporary female colleagues."- FOCUS (Belgium)

"Pure, that was this concert in one word. No setlist, no décor, only a small lady, with a voice like a storm behind the piano" — STORYVILLE MAGAZINE (Netherlands)

"ALL OF you wondering whether Kate Bush is going to release another album, or if Tori Amos will ever make another record as good as her debut, can stop bothering with such side issues. Here's the album you've been waiting for.... I don't think there's a duff track. Her voice is staggering. And you've got to love someone who can yell out a full-on, Springsteenesque '1-2-3-4!' to announce the arrival of a violin."Terran's "The Musician"- #2 BEST ALBUM OF THE YEAR — THE TIMES

If these can be confirmed it should be enough for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed they were quotes rather than the whole coverage. Anyway hopefully this doesn't get closed before I can check them out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I didn't find all of the sources listed on her website I did find significant coverage in a number of sources. Regarding the Sunday Times there was a review of her album The Musician in the Sunday Times where it was named cd of the week. This was published on 20 October 2002 but unfortunately it is paywalled so perhaps someone with access could check it out. The significant coverage I found was in the LA Weekly here, a music business magazine called Music and Media page 10 here, some album reviews here and here. There is quite a bit of coverage in German sources such as here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here,and here. Also coverage here. Together there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable, no real reliable sources that cover this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Positive critical reception of her music in reliable independent sources, coupled with sufficient secondary coverage identified by Atlantic306 to build a biographical article. There is sufficient here to presume WP:MUSICBIO notability, with high probability of more sourcing existing beyond what googling does immediately identify. I have added a number of the sources to the article to support this. ResonantDistortion 12:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This is a changed vote, and I struck out my previous vote above. The other folks above have done an impressive amount of research to track down European sources on the musician. I am not convinced that each invidiual review or interview is sufficiently descriptive per WP:SIGCOV, but there are indeed a lot of them, indicating that she has received coverage in certain esoteric quarters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article has been much improved by ResonantDistortion using the sources found by Atlantic306, and there is plenty of biographical info sourced to reliable sources now. In addition to the 2002 "Records of the Year" review in The Times which reads An astonishing album by an almost unknown singer- songwriter. She uses the template carved out by Kate Bush and Tori Amos, but takes her songs into darker territories, especially on Mad Magdaline, her epic tale of revenge against the record industry by ... an unknown singer-songwriter., there are numerous other reviews of her most critically acclaimed album, The Musician. Even before The Musician, she was featured in this 1998 article in the Los Angeles Times (there are four paragraphs describing Terran and her unconventional style – e.g. singing her list of "thank yous" on her second album The Rabbit instead of printing it on the CD cover – preceding the Q&A interview). Next, while it does include several quotes from Terran, the April 2001 feature article in LA Weekly also includes music critic Greg Burk's own assessment of various songs by Jennifer Terran, as well as a description of what one of her live gigs is like and how the audience responded (and it was all before her big break, so it's quite...colorful). In addition to her music, the reason she was notable in the early 2000s was because she started her own record label so she could maintain the rights to her own songs, as described in this 2002 Knight Ridder article, a fact that is also explored in the 2002 feature article on Terran in Music & Media identified earlier. There is a lot more in the way of magazine and newspaper reviews of her other albums as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 19 October 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 programmes broadcast by Star Pravah and then semi-protect. Daniel (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmichya Paulanni

[edit]
Laxmichya Paulanni (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)

Attempted redirect as there is no significant coverage that shows notability outside of unreliable sources, mentions, and general announcements. Created by blocked user and IPs (likely LOUTSOCKs) have objected to the redirect so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary notes why it was removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly consensus so far is to get rid of this article. However, there is no consensus yet on what to do with it - merge, delete, or redirect. Some additional discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that if a redirect is created, we will be right back here because IPs (UPEs I will bet my life on) continue to remove the redirect. If a redirect is consensus, I would request it be protected. In fact, I would recommend the title itself is protected. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and semi-protect it to prevent recreation by IP / new accounts. If it's an autoconfirmed editor, can decide then if more steps are needed. Ravensfire (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran into this issue with another page after a deletion discussion now that I am thinking of it. I think the best would be delete and then allow the redirect to be created and protected. If consensus is redirect, that would allow the removal of the redirect at anytime (since there was no official delete consensus). If it is deleted, it can be reverted if someone attempts it without consensus based on G4. Thoughts?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus at the AFD is to redirect the article, that does show consensus, just like a decision of delete does. If someone arbitrarily puts the article back, revert the edit or move the article to draft space for review there and change the mainspace article back to a redirect. Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rationale for deleting and then creating the redirect, instead of just redirecting? -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 19 October 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. General agreement that it isn't wholly irreparable. But given the delete !voters' concerns, I'd say this is a "keep, without prejudice to a future relisting if it all goes to WP:PROMO hell". asilvering (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mikheil Lomtadze (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)

Procedural nomination per close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 19. Please also refer to last two AfD's. Daniel (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with WP:SIGCOV in Bloomberg News (2020, 2022, both available via The Wikipedia Library if you want to review), Forbes (authored by staff and thus reliable), Radio Tavisupleba (in Georgian), and Fortuna.ge (in Georgian). Most recently, there's SIGCOV of Lomtadze in BBC and Vedomosti on his purchase of the Wycombe Wanderers. I've also trimmed some of the fluff and added some of these sources to the article. It still needs more cleanup, and I would support protection on the page to address the history of COI/UPE editing -- but the sources show he meets the notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As AfD1 closer, just stating I haven't had time or interest to review changes and support whatever conclusion emerges here. As I said in the DRV, it was probably time for a new discussion since much can change in two years. Star Mississippi 18:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kazakhstan, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Forbes article presented above is more about the company than this person. The Bloomberg articles are mostly about this person, but more about the companies that lose money. I can only find a BBC article that he bought a football/soccer club, which is minimally about this person and more about the transaction and is mostly quotes [2] from the person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the foreign language sources? And the Forbes source is definitely SIGCOV of Lomtadze. It's a long feature and he is discussed in at least half the paragraphs, and it includes numerous biographical details. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still leaning delete. This is a fundamentally, and I think irreparably, biased article about a person who's spent a considerable amount of money on PR (for example, the purchase of the minor-league football team mentioned above). A neutral article is perhaps possible. It wouldn't look anything like this. —Cryptic 02:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. Notability is not the issue, although it appears borderline from the sources: the person is certainly rich enough to arrange for whatever ostensibly third-party coverage he wants. The issue is that, as noted in the DRV and in the last AfD, this article is an exercise in self-promotion, a product of undeclared paid editing, and in the face of such a campaign there is little chance of our article staying neutral. The current article should be deleted and recreated only after submission to AfC of a draft by an established editor with no ties to the subject; such a new article should also reflect any possibly (if not likely) unflattering aspects of this person's career. Sandstein 07:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a strange reading of our guidelines to insist that a WP:BLP must include unflattering information. I’m sure said info exists (I added a Bloomberg story about a big hit to the guy’s net worth, and there’s nothing stopping other editors from finding and adding it), but to make the inclusion of negative information a prerequisite for having an article on a living person seems unsupported by policy. As for your requirement for AFC, the article was substantially edited by PaulW, a long established editor, and accepted at AFC by Dr Vulpes, another long established editor, which is indeed what triggered this discussion, which would seem to meet your condition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPs are required to adhere closely to NPOV, and NPOV indicates that subjective and effusive praise is out of place in what purports to be encyclopedic content. An insistence that our content comply with NOT is not inconsistent with the biographies of living persons policy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the effusive praise? I'm not seeing it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage provided by Dclemens1971, which establish notability. There may be some bias in the tone of the article but that can be removed via cleanup. I strongly disagree with Cryptic’s claim of this bias being irreperable.Frank Anchor 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SIGCOV identified and further explanations by User:Dclemens1971. AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies. gidonb (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per Dclemens1971 and Gidonb. I would give somewhat more weight to the BBC article, for whom this subject is the headliner. BD2412 T 03:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I agree with Frank Anchor that any bias here is not irreperable and would add that deletion shouldn't be a substitute to improving an article anyway. The tone of the article doesn't impart any praise that I can see. I do agree that the Forbes source is moreso about the company than Lomtadze in specific, but with the two Bloomberg sources and the sources for his purchase of Wybcombe, I think there's just about enough here to meet WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mostly per Dclemens1971. After going through them sources, GNG is established clearly and can be seen to cross the SIGCOV threshold too. As mentioned by others above, the article got that promotional tone still now, but something that's can't be fixed with a little rewrite. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:48, 12 October 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 Dua Lipa#Early life. The idea of redirecting was brought up by commenters on both sides and seems like a reasonable way to retain some coverage of this person without a stand-alone article. Any content that seems worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Lipa

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG. In every source, including the two suggested in this discussion, describe her as "Dua Lipa's sister". Any notability is by proxy of her sister and not on her own merits. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ItsKesha: Referencing someone as someone's sister does not automatically fail them at GNG, as GNG is about sourcing and focus of coverage. Even if you believe GNG is not met, why do you believe there is not a valid case for an ATD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If she wasn't Dua Lipa's sister, the articles wouldn't be written in which she was almost exclusively described and referenced as being Dua Lipa's sister, and therefore this Wikipedia article wouldn't exist. She has no fame of her own accord. If you/someone wants to write a sentence or two in DUa's article which make mention of Rina, fine, my vote can double as a vote for Merge. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:08, 14 October 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 Ericsson. asilvering (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cradlepoint

[edit]
Cradlepoint (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)

Scope creep previously PRODded this article, but it was procedurally dePRODded. The rationale was "Company article that fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS." Indeed, the coverage is routine and WP:ORGTRIV, and most of the sources are WP:TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ericsson - it is a subsidiary of that company as of now, and is the best candidate for it to be redirected to. I'm fine with deletion, too. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Plenty of refs that are at least somewhat targeted at the subject would make me believe that with cleanup and growth more can be found to fill this out. However, I think a re-discussion here in a few months would be appropriate as well. Perhaps by then a clearer consensus can be reached. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Media

[edit]
Hanuman Media (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 am not persuaded that this passes WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 12 October 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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bologna Violenta

[edit]
Bologna Violenta (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)

Sources on page consist of databases and a self-authored piece, so no notability there. The artist's Italian-language article doesn't seem to offer anything better. I was able to find this article which appears to be primarily about the artist, and these two which I think are only passing mentions (hard to tell because I can't read Italian). If those are indeed just passing mentions, then it appears we've only got one valuable source, and notability isn't met. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to be found, especially in Italy-specific archives that I don't have access to, but as is this does not meet our standards. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Clearly, there's agreement behind the reliability of at least some of the above sources, and there are plenty more on top of that so the case is strong. Thank you all. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:18, 18 October 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. Once I back out the non-P&G-focused contributions below, and apply reduced weight to the bludgeoning which was ineffective in providing additional guidelines-compliant info, I'm left with conflicting views around SIGCOV. The majority of tenured editors are of the view that the sourcing in the article, and additionally presented in this discussion, does not meet the threshold for SIGCOV. Crosji dissents from this view but provides little elaboration in their comment. On that basis, I believe there is a consensus to delete. Note to dissenting editors - I won't be overturning this close, so Deletion Review is thataway. Daniel (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzaib Rind

[edit]
Shahzaib Rind (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 draftified this BLP on a non-notable athlete because I believe it doesn't meet the WP:N. Then the creator of the BLP submitted the draft for review, which I declined, but it was still moved to the main NS. I don’t think it meets GNG or even WP:ATHLETE, thus AFD'd it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s interesting that you’re familiar with the policies, especially for someone with fewer than 50 edits. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re a sock of a UPE. In any case, could you show how the subject meets the GNG? --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback. The subject does meet the WP:GNG criteria as shown by the extensive coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, including Dawn News https://www.dawn.com/news/1779610/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-world-champion-in-karate-combat-event, Islamabad Scene https://islamabadscene.com/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-ever-karate-combat-sports-champion/, and his profile on ONE Championship https://www.onefc.com/athletes/shahzaib-rindh/. These sources document his national championships and international recognition as a combat sports champion. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Gul Butt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Shahzaib Rind is a notable athlete in the field of Wushu and Martial Arts. He is a three-time National Wushu Champion of Pakistan and the first-ever Pakistani to win a Karate Combat World Championship. His achievements include a gold medal in the 3-Nations International Wushu Championship (2016), a silver medal at the South Asian Games (2019), and participation in international events like ONE Championship. He has been covered by reliable sources such as:
1. ONE Championship Profile - Shahzaib Rind https://www.onefc.com/athletes/shahzaib-rindh/
2. Khilari.com Profile - Shahzaib Rind https://www.khilari.com.pk/news/1163/shahzaib-rindh-reigning-west-asia-kickboxing-featherweight-champion
3. Islamabad Scene - First-Ever Pakistani Karate Combat Champion https://islamabadscene.com/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-ever-karate-combat-sports-champion/
4. Dawn News - Shahzaib Rind’s Karate Combat Championship https://www.dawn.com/news/1779610/shahzaib-rind-becomes-pakistans-first-world-champion-in-karate-combat-event
5. Khilari - Shahzaib Rind’s Silver Medal at South Asian Games https://www.khilari.com.pk/news/1157/shahzaib-rindh-settles-for-silver-in-south-asian-games
These references establish Shahzaib’s notability as an athlete with significant national and international recognition. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
58.27.212.244, Most sources aren't even reliable, with dawn.com being the only exception; however, it only name-checks the subject and clearly fails to meet GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the concern about source reliability. However, in addition to Dawn News, there are other reliable sources documenting Shahzaib Rind’s career:
1. Islamabad Scene: A reputable news website covering sports and events in Pakistan. Their article discusses Shahzaib’s achievements, including his status as the first-ever Pakistani Karate Combat World Champion. [Scene Article]
2. ONE Championship: A globally recognized MMA promotion that tracks fighter profiles and event outcomes. [Championship Profile]
3. Khilari.com: A dedicated sports news website that tracks national and international combat sports. They have covered Shahzaib’s participation in the South Asian Games, West Asia Championship, and his national-level accomplishments. [Profile]
These sources provide extensive coverage of his achievements and establish his notability in the combat sports domain. Please let me know if additional references are needed. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what reliable sources are. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP - your link to Khilari.com is not helpful and looks like you're trying to fake a source. Ravensfire (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate the concern about source reliability and notability. The following sources meet the requirements set by WP:GNG and WP:RS for establishing Shahzaib Rind’s notability as an athlete. They provide significant, independent, and reliable coverage of his career and achievements:
1. Samaa TV: A reputable national news outlet in Pakistan that extensively covers significant sports and societal events. The article highlights Shahzaib’s recognition and rewards after his MMA victory against India, establishing his prominence and impact. [13]
2. Associated Press of Pakistan (APP): APP is a government-run news agency known for factual reporting. Several APP articles cover Shahzaib’s meetings with government officials and recognitions, which indicates that his achievements are notable at the provincial and national levels.
- [14]
- [15]
- [16]
3. Aaj News: A respected news network in Pakistan that has covered Shahzaib’s arrival at the General Headquarters (GHQ) alongside notable figures such as Amir Khan, demonstrating his national prominence. [17]
4. Pakistan Today: This source reports on his meeting with provincial leaders and his recognition, establishing his influence within sports and government circles. [18]
5. Radio Pakistan: Being a state-run media source, its coverage of Shahzaib's achievements (e.g., winning world karate championships) indicates national recognition. Articles from Radio Pakistan highlight his success on multiple occasions:
- [19]
- [20]
6. Dawn News: One of Pakistan’s leading news publications, known for high editorial standards. The coverage on Shahzaib’s achievements, including his victory at the Karate Combat Championship, provides significant independent coverage:
- [21]
- [22]
7. BBC Urdu: Coverage by an international, independent news agency like BBC establishes his global notability and influence in martial arts. [23]
8. Geo News: Another major national news outlet that covered his recognition and achievements. [24]
9. The News International: An established newspaper with a wide readership. They covered his world championship win and other accomplishments:
- [25]
- [26]
10. Nation News: They have documented his multiple victories and recognitions, further establishing notability:
- [27]
- [28]
11. UrduPoint: A reliable source for sports news in Pakistan. They cover Shahzaib’s achievements and recognitions, showcasing his impact on Pakistani martial arts:
- [29]
12. ARY News: A leading national broadcaster covering Shahzaib’s achievements, including his international victories. [30]
13. Dunya News: Dunya’s video reports provide a detailed account of Shahzaib’s career highlights and recognitions:
- [31]
- [32]
Each of these sources provides independent coverage and has a reputation for fact-checking and accurate reporting, satisfying Wikipedia’s WP:RS criteria. Their collective documentation of Shahzaib’s career and recognitions demonstrate his significance and notability in the combat sports domain.
Please let me know if there are additional sources or further information required to satisfy all concerns. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sources you provided, but I’m still not convinced. The coverage appears to be routine and doesn't meet the significance criteria you mentioned. While every athlete gets some level of coverage, that alone doesn’t mean they pass the WP:N test, which requires meeting either WP:ATHLETE or GNG. Also, if you have any COI, please disclose it. It's concerning when an IP consistently tries to keep an article on a relatively ROTM athlete. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your feedback. I want to clarify why the sources provided are not routine and meet the WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE guidelines:
1. Significant Coverage: The sources do not merely document event participation but discuss Shahzaib’s career trajectory, achievements, and influence in detail. For example:
- Dawn News and BBC Urdu have published feature articles discussing Shahzaib’s impact on martial arts in Pakistan and his journey to becoming the first-ever Pakistani to win a world Karate Combat title, which is a significant accomplishment.
- Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) and Samaa TV report on his multiple recognitions and rewards, including job offers and financial support from provincial governments, showing institutional recognition.
2. Meets WP:ATHLETE: Under WP:ATHLETE, notability is achieved if an athlete has competed in a fully professional league or has been the subject of significant national or international attention.
- Shahzaib has competed at the South Asian Games, ONE Championship, and Karate Combat—each of which qualifies as a professional and highly competitive event.
- His victory in the world Karate Combat Championship brought him international recognition, as documented by multiple reliable sources.
3. Addressing COI Concerns: I want to confirm that I am participating to improve the article based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's guidelines. I have no personal or professional conflict of interest. My goal is to ensure that notable athletes from underrepresented regions, like KPK, Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh receive appropriate coverage on Wikipedia.
Given the above points, I believe Shahzaib’s notability is well established based on significant, independent, and reliable sources. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEONING — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder regarding WP:BLUDGEONING. My intention is not to overwhelm the discussion but to ensure that all relevant facts are presented clearly. I appreciate the feedback and will make sure to keep responses concise and focused on addressing any unresolved concerns. I’m happy to step back and let others weigh in if needed. 58.27.212.244 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:14, 12 October 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaziosmanpaşaspor

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gaziosmanpaşaspor (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 in 2016 as possibly not notable and the Turkish article is also tagged as unsourced. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 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 with no prejudice towards a somewhat-speedy renomination if some editor wishes to do so. The below debate probably isn't the greatest example of a discussion guided by our P&G's, with a few exceptions. However, there's no chance of finding a consensus to do anything. A merge may be worth pursuing on the article talk page too. Daniel (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Armenia Government in Exile

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

This is a non-notable entity. The article contains not a single third party source establishing its notability. It a small group of individuals who set up a website. Wikipedia should not be promoting non-notable groups with little to none relevance. --Երևանցի talk 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. looks like I found 60 seemingly ok sources that seem to be OK. 59 if you strike out Artsakh Public TV (which is clearly talking about football), and 58 if you remove Newinfo. [possibly 57 or 56, i forgot if I had crossed out Facebook and ARMINFOCENTER already or not...]
Google Search Query: "արևմտյան հայաստանի հանրապետության" -site:"www.parliament-wa.info/" -site:"parliament-wa.info/" -site:"https://citizenship-western-armenia.info/" -site:"western-armenia.eu" -"Western Armenia TV"
The source providers for the Armenian search: Israelahayer, Nt.am, mamul.am, Lousavor Avedis Hraparak, hhtert.am, asekose.am, Keghart, iravunk.com, A1Plus, Factor.am, Anews.am, Aravot, Radio YAN, iravunk on YouTube and Noyan Tapan on YouTube.
Now then, none of these sources are used in the article.
Also, I even question whether or not these are actual reliable sources, or if this even says a word about notability.
Still gonna bring that one up though.
Pressenza also allowed the Consul(ate) of Western Armenia in Argentina covers the Origin of the Republic of Western Armenia, an article on how Artsakh is legally part of the Republic of Western Armenia (actually, this source can fit into the article. didnt even know about it until now. gonna add it rq.), "The Hour of Dignity", and a Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. Other than that that seems to be it.
I wonder if that makes Western Armenia available for notability? Kxeon (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source listed. ----Երևանցի talk 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the article? Please review the sources section. In addition, a simple google search yielded 117,000,000 results. Archives908 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness! 117 MILLION?!? Keep, but because I'm not sure how many of these are actually about Western Armenia and how many are just about Armenia, it's not Strong. Kxeon (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What scholarly sourcing? ----Երևանցի talk 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we should improve this article, which covers a notable and well documented entity. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 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. Daniel (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Crosby

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree that most of the references given above are interviews; they are articles that partially quote him, but that is rather common for articles about a person. I find the Wired, the Register, Infoworld and CRN to be independent, and together they demonstrate notability. None provides a true biography, so hopefully that will come along in the future giving us more personal, rather than just professional, information. Lamona (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would a redirect to Bromium be a good alternative to deletion? It looks like most of the coverage is more of Bromium than of Crosby. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -claims on the page are not verifiable; he didn’t create any software- “along with other Cambridge alumni including Simon Crosby and founding CEO Nick Gault created XenSource Inc. to turn Xen into a competitive enterprise product.” Bearian (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The references are troubling. They appear to be written as fan-pieces. The closest I can get to NPROF is that he was once a "tenured professor at Cambridge" but I am not persuaded that is a verification of notability. A high profile individual, yes. Made high profile by PR, yes. Notable in a Wikipedia sense, no. WP:BIO failure 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think the Wired article is probably good coverage (but I'm paywalled), but I don't like any of the other sources brought up in this AfD - no bylines, part of a PR effort, etc. I think this is pretty borderline though. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 18 October 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 Isidingo. This seems like an odd case where nearly everyone thinks the subject should be the subject of significant coverage from sources, but nobody can find it, and several commenters self-identified their support for keeping as weak. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Van Der Laag

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Karin Van Der Laag (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)

Previously deleted (WP:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag) and I don't think the new article addresses the notability concerns. I also don't see articles about the subject since the previous AfD that would add to coverage such to satisfy N. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is the lack of material? Sure, if kept, it will probably be a short article.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe that the subject (and the creating editor, who are the same person) deserve better than what may appear from the previous opinions to be a lack of consensus. My feeling is that more policy based opinions are required one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is difficult. It's coming down to, for me, whether to withdraw on account of the SAFTA award, which as I'm looking up and trying to verify, does not exactly scream to me as a "well-known and significant award or honor". I did find an article from news24.com but the limited coverage of the event doesn't induce confidence. And I don't even see any press releases or the regular congratulatory statements made about the subject following the award. I'm open to withdrawing, but at this time I still don't think see it, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure the article is very clear on this. It says "in 2011" but that must refer to the television season. The article for the 18th South African Film & Television Awards says that it will be hosted in October 2025, yet the 17th was hosted in 2023, so I don't think this is held annually, (see South African Film and Television Awards § Ceremonies). I'm not sure if the subject would have then received one for 5th South African Film & Television Awards or 6th South African Film & Television Awards. Aside from the news24.com coverage, which isn't the most RS as there appears to be some spelling inconsistencies and mistakes in the article, it is mostly WP:UGC in any of my search results of SAFTA keywords and the article's subject that is used to verify any award wins. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I will not express a formal keep/delete opinion because I have been involved with seeking, often failing, to set the creating editor on the correct path. While I view the creation of autobiographies as unwise they are not prohibited. This one certainly feels correctly neutral.
    Notability is a different matter. An actor who plays a part for 12 years ought to be notable, but, if she is notable, why is there so little about her in reliable media? In the absence of that coverage her notability seems to hang on the SAFTA award. That award is problematic. News 24 suggests she was not the recipient, other media suggest that she was.
    Is the award itself of sufficient notability for winners to be notable? Did she win one?
    Unless further policy based opinions for retention or deletion are given here to clarify matters I don't envy the eventual closer of this discussion. I believe that a 'no consensus' close would be the worst of all possible worlds even if it is the only close possible. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say, to that end, there was a previous AfD that found her not notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobby Cohn In a similar manner to the fact that we view notability, once established, not to diminish over time, we should also view notability as an attribute which can only increase (or remain unaltered). Thus participants in this discussion should be asked to consider whether there is additional referenced or reference-able activity leading to a different decision from the prior discussion.
    The articles then and now are different, The subject is the same. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified: User talk:S0091, User talk:Theroadislong, User talk:Mushy Yank, User talk:Cocobb8. Reason: These editors participated in the previous discussion. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I moved this from draft because I thought it had slightly more than a 50% chance of surviving an WP:AFD. I also have doubts about the award and it's notability and whether she actually received it, generally significant coverage of her is lacking. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isidingo. The award was in the context of that show and could, perhaps, be mentioned there. Other than that, there is no claim to independent notability. If the subject became notable in the future, the page history (such as it is) could be used from the redirectt to build a new article, but there is nothing to say here at this point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a very suitable solution. Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict): Not at all opposed, this seems like an excellent ATD per Sirfurboy above and Alalch E. below. My analysis does not see this subject meeting the GNG, NBIO, NACTOR, etc. I also think that the aforementioned awards are not a "well-known and significant award or honor." However, everything seems to be within the context of that show, and I agree with Timtrent above, notability does not degrade over time,[a] we absolutely can keep the page preserved with it's history and new credible claims of notability can be assessed in their totality with this and the prior conversation. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ I apologize if my curtness above was taken as rudeness.
  • Redirect to Isidingo Neutral (switched to neutral, as there's no point resisting the general tendency of treating any SNG pass as guaranteed inclusion). WP:SNG says: ... , topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria which includes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR, which are the only relevant SNG criteria that may apply to this topic, says: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Without good enough sources, we can't have a suitable biography of a living person. A WP:BLP must Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources ... If there are no reliable sources to summarize, and we can only have an entirely non-transformative, non-summarizing, fragmentary listing of raw facts, this is not legitimate encyclopedic material.
    Notability as such is already only a presumption that a topic merits an article as "worthy of notice".
    GNG is a notability criterion based on a belief that this presumption is justified when the topic has been significantly covered. GNG being equal to "merits an article" is a rebuttable presumption in any given case, because it may actually be that the topic does not merit an article even though it has been significantly covered: [Meeting a notability criterion] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.
    Passing ANYBIO or NACTOR while not passing GNG introduces a second level of presumption: It is a presumption that a topic merits an article as "worthy of notice", because, even though a suitable volume of significant coverage has not been identified, it is presumed that it exists, because of the inherent properties of the subject (and just needs to found over time). Here, the subject may pass ANYBIO and NACTOR, but at the same time, editors don't seem to think that a suitable volume of significant coverage exists, despite good efforts to find it. It really does not seem to exist.
    This should probably lead to the conclusion that the presumption is rebutted on both levels: The topic would have merited an article as being "worthy of notice", but a suitable volume of significant coverage has not been identified; and while it was provisionally presumed that it exists (on SNG grounds), when this presumption was examined using available evidence, it was concluded that it really does not exist. This should practically mean that writing an encyclopedically worthy biography is impossible. And it does appear to be impossible. Readers will need more and we should decide that they deserve better than being served this article for a long time to come (the sourcing situation may change in the future of course). —Alalch E. 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - After research, it appears that she does not satisfy general notability, and does not meet criterion 1 for notability for any biography, but does satisfy the criteria for acting notability.. I don't like recommending that an autobiography be kept, but she has two significant acting roles. A review of the references shows that reference 1 is a biographical profile and is not significant.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 www.tvsa.co.za South African television directory, biographical profile Yes No Yes? No
2 www.iol.co.za Mention of a SAFTA Award to subject Yes Not significant coverage for GNG. Is this a major award for ANYBIO? Yes? Yes
3 mg.co.za Mail and Guardian: Review of a film that she was a second lead in. Yes Not about the subject. Significant about the film. Confirms that she was in the film. Yes Yes
4 www.latimes.com Los Angeles Times: Review of a film that she was a second lead in Yes Not about the subject. Significant about the film. Confirms that she was in the film. Yes Yes

References 3 and 4 are reviews of The Story of an African Farm (film). They state that she had a role in the film. We already have an article on the film that lists her role.

Reference 2 states that she won a SAFTA Award. The award was not for acting, but to the directing team for Isidingo, and the recipients of the award are not listed [42]. The statement that she won a Best Actress SAFTA Award is a good-faith error. Her directorial team won a directing award for a TV series. This is not, in my opinion, sufficient to satisfy the major award criterion. However, she had roles in The Story of an African Farm (film) and Isidingo as an actress and a member of the directing them, and that is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide WP:SIGCOV? I think the subject has to pass standard WP:GNG before we can consider WP:ANYBIO. By the way, www.tvsa.co.za is not reliable. dxneo (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how it works. Please read the other comments in this discussion. —Alalch E. 06:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There may be some confusion or unclarity caused by the way that the notability guidelines are worded. Both the general notability guideline and some of the special notability guidelines state that a subject is "presumed notable" if certain conditions are met. That doesn't say explicitly that a subject is notable if any particular condition is met. The guideline appears to have been written by mustelids.
    • I will disagree with one statement. An editor said, reasonably but incorrectly:

      However, before the subject can meet WP:ANYBIO, they must first meet WP:GNG, specifically WP:SIGCOV

      No.
    • The notability guideline says:

      A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

      That's what it says, and the any biography guideline is from WP:Notability (people), which is a subject-specific notability guideline. WP:ANYBIO does not require WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
    • She does not appear to have significant coverage, but she does meet acting notability, which is a provision of notability for people. She did not receive a Best Actress award. She shared in a directing award, which is arguable. It isn't arguable, in my opinion, that she meets acting notability. I don't like to argue in favor of notability when the article is an autobiography, but the case is clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Closer - You have a difficult close that will probably end up at DRV. The issue for DRV will be not so much whether the closer judged consensus correctly as whether the closer interpreted the ambiguous notability guideline correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is the guideline ambiguous? You refer to WP:NACTOR and judge this a keep based on have to two significant roles. NACTOR lists:

    1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;

    Is two even "multiple"? That might be seen as an ambiguity I suppose. I would take "multiple" to be at least three. But that is moot because that list is under the "additional criteria" which says up front:

    People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

    It is thus a challengeable presumption of notability, and nothing more. Having had multiple significant roles, the subject is still expected to have secondary sources that discuss them. It is just that if there have been multiple roles we would expect such sources to exist and may presume notability is met. But in this case we don't have the sources. We don't have anything to write the article from. This may be because the roles are not, in fact, sufficiently notable to meet GNG, or ot may be they are not sufficiently multiple. But in either case, this criterion does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how it should work, but it doesn't work like that and time and time again this is proven in AfD. To every We don't have anything to write the article from there's a Your concern is the lack of material? Sure, if kept, it will probably be a short article (quoting Mushy Yank).—Alalch E. 21:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple is ”more than one” according to the Britannica or the Merriam-Webster. Ergo two is OK. Already replied to the rest. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so fast. The entry, which is here [43], has multiple definitions, including "manifold, many" and "numerous aspects". That dictionary lists 6 definitions (the multiple of 2 and 3), whereas the OED lists 10 including "Consisting of or characterized by many parts, elements, etc.; having several or many causes." Given the multiple definitions, you cannot settle the debate as though there is only one, and ignoring the rest. Which is why I said that might be seen as an ambiguity I suppose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. I am not ignoring anything. The only applicable definition in the present case is the first ("consisting of [...] more than one"). Can "Consisting of or characterized by many parts, elements, etc.; having several or many causes" apply to roles in a film???? This is completely ridiculous. It is obviously the NUMBER that is referred to in this case! One vs Multiple. And that is that.There is no ambiguity here. I really have no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many. Manifold. Various. Several. These are all definitions of multiple. And while we are at it, let's look up "moot". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NO. That is not the same. Several and multiple do not have the exact same meaning. And that precise guideline says multiple, not several nor many. Sorry but, again, I have no time to pursue this. Look up every word you wish and explore their polysemy as much as you desire, that won't change the fact that the guideline is pretty clear. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second meaning (consisting of many parts etc.) is the meaning in "multiple sclerosis", as in "the sclerosis is multiple", with multiple referring to how glial scars (the scleroses) are many. It's a lot different thing from the first meaning. For example a "multiple tool" (notice the singular), as in a tool with many bits, or purposes, a multifunctional tool, vs. "multiple tools" (more than one tool, the number of bits/purposes/etc. of each unspecified). —Alalch E. 00:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bad argument that we should ignore policy and guidelines because someone has ignored policy and guidelines before. The standard for inclusion is notability, and notability is not demonstrated here and the SNG is not ambiguous. It says clearly that the additional criteria do not guarantee that a subject should be included. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I can agree that "do not guarantee" means that when we can't create legitimate encyclopedic content due to paucity of coverage and can only have a fragmentary, non-summarizing listing of raw facts as a surrogate for an article, it is indicated that the topic concerned does not merit an article, but there will always be a counterargument that the non-article is actually a short article. And the latter is the prevailing sentiment. —Alalch E. 23:16, 19 October 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 mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. I also REVDELed all but the latest, highly-redacted revisions of the page, effectively erasing the work of the banned UPE. Owen× ☎ 19:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Knight

[edit]
Allen Knight (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)

Virtually all sources are local, with some sections being plain unsourced. A google search didn't find anything about him specifically, with some showing more notable people with his name. Additionally, the article was created by Greghenderson2006, who was banned partially for using hyperlocal sources to make articles which weren't notable. As a result, I think this should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable subject who is only of local importance. -Samoht27 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Belan

[edit]
Kyra Belan (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 artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The attempted notability claim here is that her art has been exhibited, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- notability on that basis doesn't derive from the list of gallery shows, it derives from the use of reliable source coverage and analysis about the gallery shows, such as reviews of her shows by professional art critics in newspapers or magazines or books to establish that the shows were seen as significant by somebody other than her own public relations agent. But this is referenced entirely to sources self-published by Belan herself and/or the affiliated galleries, with absolutely not one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US media coverage can find more than I've been able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. I am finding no reviews for the books listed. Looks like a genuine misunderstanding. Please note every Women in Red list created from wikidata states "This list of red links is intended to serve as a basis for creating new articles on the English Wikipedia. Please note however that the red links on this list may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources." --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is bordering a speedy delete for being an online CV/Resume. However, now that AfD is already in progress, it's a classic GNG fail. Graywalls (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Shaji

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Amala Shaji (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 internet personality.Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Spworld2 (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Frontier Developments. Owen× ☎ 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (game engine)

[edit]
Cobra (game engine) (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 waited a few days to see if more reliable secondary sources surfaced, but they have not. This article is currently sourced to about 60% primary sources, including numerous interviews and out-right guest blog posts done by the company itself. All of the secondary sources I could find fall into two categories: 1) A passing mention that "Game X uses Frontier's in-house engine", and 2) Elite Dangerous happened to generate a star system almost identical to one that NASA later actually discovered. (The latter 5 sources all fall into this).

I cannot otherwise find any in-depth independent coverage of the engine. See the talk page for an earlier analysis plus an additional one just now.

Fails WP:GNG. I'd cite failing WP:NPRODUCT, but Cobra isn't actually sold per se so I'm not sure it'd apply. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Notability is not inherited or "granted up" and I could not find any independent coverage of the engine itself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 14:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record - I am more than amenable to merging as an alternative to deletion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 05:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article about the Cobra engine has over 13 credible references such as PC Gamer, Polygon, Yahoo, Mashable, Kotaku, Game Developer, MCV, Ars Technica, BusinessWeekly, and gamedev.net. These are reliable sources. Furthermore the engine itself is historically very significant at having powered over 16+ world famous games. It is also the only game engine that simulates the Milky Way galaxy with a 1:1 scale in Elite Dangerous. It's not a very famous engine, because only Frontier Developments uses it. However, it's popular enough that it's been covered for years and praised such as that Cobra's Stellar Forge system had a star system similar to Trappist-1 before NASA discovered it. Trappist-1 was added thereafter. -Artanisen (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't simply ignore the source analysis that I've already provided on the talk page. For example, Mashable and one of the MCV articles are both written by Frontier, making them primary sources. The other MCV article is an interview, making it non-independent. I've addressed the rest of the sources on the talk page as well and why they don't contribute to the topic's notability. -- ferret (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're neglecting the reasons and credible sources that have been provided for why an article about the Cobra engine should be kept. There are less noteworthy game engines that are also on Wikipedia. It has sufficient independent sources as well. The games that are powered by Cobra use systems of this engine which are mentioned in more articles without explicitly saying Cobra. Wikipedia has articles with only 1 or 2 references. - Artanisen (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going one-by-one through the sources you list in this comment doesn't support notability. The articles from PC Gamer, Polygon, Yahoo, and Kotaku are not about the Cobra engine, they're about the game Elite Dangerous and (importantly) do not mention Cobra even a single time. The Business Weekly article is not about Cobra, it's about an acquisition made by Frontier. The article from Ars Technica is not about the engine, it's about the game Planet Coaster. The Mashable article is sponsored and so should not be used per WP:RSP. The Game Developer and MCV sources are both interviews, so they are primary sources, and they both only mention Cobra in passing. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 15:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Frontier Developments. The mentions of Cobra in the non-primary references are trivial enough that I would consider them to increase the notability of Frontier or Elite Dangerous, but not the Cobra engine. That being said, I think there's enough secondary sources mentioning Cobra to have a short section in the parent article. With regards to the above keep argument, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~ A412 talk! 22:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Frontier Developments. Per A412 above. Pavlor (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Frontier Developments seems reasonable. There is useful and apposite stuff here, but the balance is way too far on the in-house publication/interview/incidental mention side to make comfortable sourcing for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 16 October 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. If frequent recreation is a problem, we can salt the page. We do not keep Talk pages for deleted articles or move them to userspace just to discourage recreation. Owen× ☎ 18:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El castillo de los monstruos (1964 film)

[edit]
El castillo de los monstruos (1964 film) (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 claims of notability. Only sources are IMDB and a site in Czech. It's been suggested this is a hoax. Deletion was contested. Secretlondon (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for nominating, I proposed deletion a few months ago due to there being an obvious verification issue. I don't think it is an intended hoax, but it's obvious that 1958 is the real year and film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy please; again, see Talk page, please. Again, I am the one who raised concern about the veracity of the page. I tried to fix the interwikis in Spanish but it was reverted....the wrong way. Asking here the favour to have this userfied for one reason essentially: keep the findings currently presented on the TP available, to make what he page was and why it was deleted clear in case the title, that has spread on the web, is found and one wants to recreate the page; and maybe add a link to the userfied page on the TP of the 1958 film or on Rinaldi’s TP; if not please copy and paste all the content from that TP on the Tp of this discussion (but that would not keep history of the page). It’s about avoiding more errors or repeating the same errors in the future. Thank you-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC) (Deletion was not contested, PROdding was, and that was also by me).[reply]
    It's not notable, even if it does exist. Secretlondon (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does your reply have to do with my !vote???? I am saying that I am the one who raised the veracity issue and I do think the film DOES NOT exist (read the talk page please); the bizarre idea of the possible notability of a non-existing film is absolutely not my point. My point is that we should have a page ready to avoid recreation and explain why. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Film shows no signs of true notability, and is yet another wiki article with scant sources.Plasticwonder (talk) 17:20, 13 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicoo

[edit]
Chicoo (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 google hits for the item or its references. No claim of importance. Previously rejected as a speedy but this looks like a hoax. Secretlondon (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 13:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milorad Savić

[edit]
Milorad Savić (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)

He spent most of his career in the second tier in Serbia and my own Serbian Cyrillic searches have found nothing that would indicate that he meets WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Ristić (footballer, born 1997)

[edit]
Marko Ristić (footballer, born 1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite playing 15 minutes at the top level in Serbia, I am unable to locate any instances of significant coverage when searching in Serbian Cyrillic. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Plazinić

[edit]
Ivan Plazinić (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 career consists of 1 minute in the league and 2 minutes in the cup. My own Serbian searches yielded absolutely no evidence of being able to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:50, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Mol

[edit]
Damian Mol (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 darts player. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:26, 12 October 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 Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. I see a consensus to Redirect this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight A-53

[edit]
Aeroflot Flight A-53 (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:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:58, 12 October 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 Godzilla (franchise). Daniel (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odo Island

[edit]
Odo Island (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 fictional place. Maybe could be merged into the Monsterverse article. –DMartin 07:48, 12 October 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. bender235's keep !vote has been successfully refuted and no dissenting views. Daniel (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Oliver Porsche

[edit]
Ferdinand Oliver Porsche (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)

Lacking in sources and no indication of claimed entrepreneurship. Sits on Porsche and Volkswagen boards, most likely due to his family connections as the great-grandson of Ferdinand Porsche. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, can we get a source review?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kodai Enomoto

[edit]
Kodai Enomoto (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)

Obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with his 1 cup and 1 league game. No significant and independent coverage, including in ja:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomohisa Yoshida

[edit]
Tomohisa Yoshida (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 meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 3 times in Japan's second league, the rest in amateur tiers. No significant and independent coverage, including in ja:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasa Suzuki

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

Not close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No significant and independent coverage, including in ja:wiki. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 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. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments were successfully refuted and on the topic of reliable sources providing significant coverage, consensus is that the current and proposed sources don't. I am happy to restore this to draft upon any request at my user talk page, if anyone wishes to continue working on it in draftspace. Daniel (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Barlage

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

I don't think that this victim of refbombing is notable. All refs seem to be run-of -the mill stuff which are fundamenbtally about his jobs rather than about him. TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeFriendlyGoodSir: that's an WP:OTHER argument which is roundly and rightfully ignored by experienced editors and admins in AfDs. The best way to defend this article would be to provide quotes demonstrating significant coverage of this article subject from high-quality sources. Usually WP:THREE would be ideal. Left guide (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I only mention it because someone in that AfD made the argument that "WP:COMMONSENSE must prevail". Mr. Barlage is one of the highest ranking front office officials for a team in the NBA, a top basketball league in the world. He argued that it's "a case where WP:IAR should apply". I don't know the validity of that argument but thought i should point it out. I see a Forbes article with Barlage in it. As for quotes, I will leave that to others. Keep or Delete. You guys decide. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that Forbes piece is authored by a staff writer, so should pass the reliability test. However, most of what's in that source is discussion about the Cavaliers or interview quotes from Barlage's mouth, neither of which contribute to notability. It seems to fall short as far as secondary SIGCOV that directly discusses Barlage as an individual person; the best I could extract from that source is the following:

Barlage, entering his second season as CEO, wants to change that. He has a five-year plan that includes an international component in South America.

Left guide (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeFriendlyGoodSir is the creator of the contested article.
I would say any full-time NBA GM (although maybe not interim) is likely notable, so could see some people correlating that to any person at the same organizational level if they don't fully understand the difference between the front-facing nature of the GM position against the others. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think there's enough here. The Cleveland news stations, Cleveland.com and Cleveland Magazine should be independent enough. The news organizations decided that Barlage was worth reporting about. We can argue whether the content represents a significant amount of coverage, but personally, I'm satisfied. There's enough to build a reasonably informative article. The business leader of an NBA franchise is indeed an important role, and arguably more significant for the ongoing cultural impact of the team than any cup of coffee G-League call-up. Zagalejo (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "cup of coffee G Leaguer" likely has had SIGCOV going back to at least college, in addition to during his professional career and almost certainly has additional features done when signed to the NBA team. As for "cultural impact", I'm really not so sure as he essentially runs the arena prices and advertising because not actually the CEO of the Cavs themselves, but of the parent company. It looks like his current duties don't have really any impact on the on-court product. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the sources deployed to support notabolity are cumulatively weak enough to not constitute an acceptable foundation for an independent article. We are often impressed with corporate titles and titles are, oftentimes, awarded indeed to amplify a position's importance. He's a top manager; that is all. Not some creative force as the text makes him out to be, provided we pay close attention to the sources per se.
Forensics, amidst the avalanche of proffered links: A tsunami of typical, simple, obligatory announcements (here, here, here, and again here, more here, some more here, oh you want more, here's more and we're done, though there's plenty more; this NBA listing of every NBA executive, including our subject; come fawning text advertorial-wannabe such as this pap, ("Barlage is proud of how the renovated Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse served downtown", etc) in the Cleveland Magazine; as if the first tsunami was not catastrophic enough for the article's case, we are hit by another, this one of articles about the Cleveland Cavaliers but not about our subject, articles such as this, this, this, this, this, but you get the general idea; a PR press release about the Jeff Ubben Posse Fellows Program ("mentorship opportunities for high-achieving college students"), in which our subject is mentioned as one of the program's many hosts; a report on a youth center's renovation financially supported by the NBA, the Cleveland Cavaliers, and Kaiser Permanente, in which our subject is name dropped; then, more announcements, e.g. here; and so on and so forth, fluff masquerading as substance. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to chime in: your "fluff" link implies that the article is meant to be promotional, but I have no doubt that it was created in good faith. The creator frequently works on NBA articles, and the over citation was probably an attempt to overcome the article's draft status. (Also, please tone down the snark just a hair. Your arguments are fair, but your tone is unnecessary.) Zagalejo (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both links shared are interviews, so have no bearing on notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming WP:TOOSOON? I would not be surprised if Barlage met your notability requirements in the next year or so and Volunteer time would be wasted and at that point nobody will bother recreating the article. So be it. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying notability requirements are not met and I'm not sure they will be in the future. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to 2013 Little League Softball World Series. Daniel (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Little League Softball World Series results

[edit]
2013 Little League Softball World Series results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a listing of sports results without context. Parts of this discussed in reliable sources would fit well in the main article, which already contains sports results. Proposing deletion per WP:NOT -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, despite the fact that the results are formatted nicely. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:46, 12 October 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 all‎ except Human Griefman, which was redirected to Aion (band) as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute (Aion album)

[edit]
Absolute (Aion album) (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)
Aion (Aion album) (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)
Freak-Out (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)
Human Griefman (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)
Z (Aion album) (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)

Five articles about albums not shown to pass WP:NALBUM. Back in the day, Wikipedia's approach to album notability was to extend an automatic inclusion freebie to any album recorded by a notable artist, regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the service of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums are now independently notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about the album. But four of these five articles are completely unreferenced, and one is referenced solely to a single unreliable source directory listing that isn't support for notability.
It also warrants note that these were all briefly redirected to the band a year and a half ago for lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted within 24 hours with no actual explanation provided of what the problem with redirecting them was, and they've continued to stand as unreferenced articles ever since, without ever having a whit of GNG-worthy sourcing added to any of them. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Human Griefman to the band, the others fail WP:NALBUM, so delete them all for having generic titles. If a user is able to put Aion in brackets to disambiguate, they are also able to search directly for Aion. Nothing in the page history worth preserving, as the track lists are found on external websites too. Geschichte (talk) 05:23, 13 October 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. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle fixed gear

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

I don't think this article in its current state meets WP:NSPORT. Yes we have fixed-gear bicycle, as well as fixed gear racing, but it doesn't seem clear what this one is all about. As they say, two heads are better than one, and here I am to find the community's assessment. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sport of freestyle fixed gear meets notability. Aside from being featured in Hollywood motion pictures (cited), the very first cycling trick done on film was done on a fixed gear bicycle (this is cited in the article). A fixed gear bike was used in the X Games (in 2001 Trevor Meyer) the premier showcase of Extreme sport. Fixed-gear bicycle article doesn't contain the details or background on the community of people doing tricks on fixed gear bikes. Racing on a fixed gear isn't really related to freestyle (tricks) on a fixed gear; similar to how speed skating isn't related to figure skating. FixedGearFreeStyle (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 12 October 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) 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Britain

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Startup Britain (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:ORGCRIT. Created as promo. AfD a decade ago closed as no consensus and there's been no improvement since. A campaign which appears to have had little lasting impact after initial routine news coverage. Website is now dead. Huge sections of unverifiable text. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Hashii

[edit]
Morrison Hashii (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)

Having played 2 minutes in Singapore, for a community college and in the English non-league, this player has not picked up significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would be helpful to get a review of expansion of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PANONY

[edit]
PANONY (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)

Coverage is WP:ROUTINE, no WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG Andre🚐 04:46, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Ajker Jamalpur

[edit]
The Daily Ajker Jamalpur (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:GNG, WP:NPERIODICAL. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Ialam (talk) 04:20, 12 October 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. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alterian

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

Does not meet NCORP. The sources I found were either routine, not independent or fail SIGCOV. Badbluebus (talk) 03:13, 12 October 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 delete. per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Mahila Vidyalaya Degree College

[edit]
Mahila Vidyalaya Degree College (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)

Declined G11. I would normally draftify, but a draft already exists. Tried looking on Google, with few usable results. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:35, 12 October 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) 03:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye Action, as You Like It

[edit]
Private Eye Action, as You Like It (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 has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. I looked for reviews via Google, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Newspaper Archive, and JSTOR to no avail. There is an ISFDB listing, but it doesn't include any secondary verifications or reviews. I would redirect to the author, but this book has two authors, so I think the best option is to delete if NBOOK cannot be met. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:33, 12 October 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.