Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing isn't there to merit a standalone article. If someone wants to work on this in draft, happy to provide, but if it's going to molder we'll delete now vs. in six months. Star Mississippi 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Rodney Charman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Nothing in the article or elsewhere online can be found to contribute towards notability. Edwardx ( talk) 23:24, 14 March 2022 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jennifer B. Kahnweiler

Jennifer B. Kahnweiler (  | 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 seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Appears rather promotional. Edwardx ( talk) 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is relatively clear. Star Mississippi 01:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Athar Aamir Khan

AfDs for this article:
Athar Aamir Khan (  | 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)

Single event notability. No page for other peer-level District Magistrates, or 1st, or 2nd rankers. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi User4edits ( talk) 21:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this but this article was subject of a previous AFD just 6 months ago that involved a Deletion Review so more editor input is sought here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You don't have to vote once more; as nom, yours is already counted. Hemantha ( talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Rashid, Omar (11 May 2016). "Athar Khan of Kashmir secures second place". The Hindu.
  2. ^ Dhawan, Himanshi. "Athar Aamir Khan loses UPSC rank one to Tina Dabi, wins her heart". The Economic Times.
  3. ^ Jameel, Yusuf (10 April 2018). "IAS topper Tina Dabi and runner-up Athar Khan tie knot in Pahalgam". Deccan Chronicle.
  4. ^ "Tina Dabi And Athar Aamir Khan, IAS Topper Couple, Divorced". NDTV.com.
  5. ^ Mir, Ehasn (11 May 2016). "UPSC success story: From militancy-hit Valley, India gets an inspiration". The Indian Express.
Hemantha ( talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is difficult. In theory, the sources are reliable, in depth and plenty of them written by staff writers. My worry is with the reasons of coverage. Every year, UPSC will have top 1,2 and 3. I think he has got more coverage because there is a Kashmir angle. Further to that, I feel, a lot of these are announcements of his appointments. I am finding it difficult to spot coverage that discusses his work in a way that it would distinguish him from his peer IAS officers. Divorce related news has no merit. I don't even know why they are following and talking about his divorce. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 15:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree:
    • For UPSC rank, his preceding ranker (AIR 1) in the same year (Ms. Tina Dabi's) article has been deleted, as here.
    • For marriage, his wife and better UPSC rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
    • For divorce, the other party to the divorce, also the party to the marraige, and better rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
    As for references supplied, however reliable sources they might be, they appear each year in same volumes for each topper of almost all major national exams. Thanks, User4edits ( talk) 20:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sourcing here is impeccable and hasn't been questioned yet. Whatever the underlying reasons (a "marketing" angle isn't readily evident), the coverage is indeed significant enough. Tina Dabi's article was deleted in 2016/17 when a couple of these newer articles hadn't appeared. The articles that appear in same volumes in each year, are clearly about different persons with obviously different details - that's like arguing a film is reviewed in review section every day, so all of them should be ignored. Hemantha ( talk) 03:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We have to be very careful using media sources from India because the standards of journalist integrity are not the same as in the West. The sources provided above by Hemantha are unreliable as these publications often take money from the subjects themselves to induce them to write the articles. They therefore lack independence even though they have bylined authors. Further, even if this was not the case its clear that these sources have quality issues per WP:TABLOID. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you have anything more than your own claim that WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP take money from subjects, I invite you to add it to Paid_news_in_India and raise it in WP:RSN so that their green "generally reliable" entries in WP:RSP may be downgraded. Hemantha ( talk) 03:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I may do that. Even if they are independent though, the style of journalism is akin to tabloid style press in the United States which is not significant for establishing notability. We need better quality sources than these. WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
NOTNEWS focuses on events and about what kind of details are covered in an article. It has nothing to say about determining notability. In other words, it is a policy about what to include in an article once it is decided that an article should exist. The determination of whether an article should exist is being made here and for that WP:GNG (and other notability guidelines) apply.
My claim is not that the article should be written based only on the links above; my claim is that given the above references, the subject is notable per WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't in anyway refute that argument. The purpose of AfD is not to exhaustively list all possible references on which the article can be written; it's only to bring forth evidence of notability per GNG or other SNG. Hemantha ( talk) 10:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
You are missing my point. Tabloid press like this is trivial coverage (as confirmed by NOTNEWS); thereby failing the "significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed. WP:BLP1E is also an issue here. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Philip Powell (pastor)

Philip Powell (pastor) (  | 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:BIO. No significant coverage. also WP:NOTRESUME applies. Most of the sources (including the dead links) are primary. LibStar ( talk) 22:43, 14 March 2022 (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. A lot of the comments are brief, and while AfD is not a vote, the amount of detailed policy reasons to both keep and delete the article about cancel each other out. A discussion about renaming can occur outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (  | 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 appears to be an entirely non-notable meta article that could be easily incorporated into the article about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. So I propose merging the text into that article and deleting this one, unless general notability can be established. Grnrchst ( talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I cannot force you to be kind, but I will ask you to be fair: I did not advocate for what you say this leads to and I think you are at risk of escalating my point into a Straw man argument. I would say my point applies to the three articles that start "Wikipedia coverage of..." without expanding it to the extent you've suggested. I recognize I made a bold argument, I recognize my logic could be flawed, and if that is how you see it, I invite you to refute the key point of what I have made, instead of escalating it into a larger, different point and refuting that. CT55555 ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The word impossible is an absolute quantifier that, as stated, applies to all members of Category:Wikipedia. On the other hand nonsensical seems like a personal attack. We can disagree with arguments while respecting that they are stated in good faith. Now that we've had clarification: there is obviously a fundamentally difficult COI in having Wikipedians decide whether an article about Wikipedia is notable. A pattern on how to handle these cases may emerge from practice (such as this case), in which each case has different characteristics. An uninvolved ... Wikipedian will have to close this discussion sooner or later and help build up the pattern of which of these articles are acceptable and which aren't. Boud ( talk) 20:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there is simply not enough information available on the topic to make an article out of. The sources above all say nearly the same things, so this information is much better served in the articles on Wikipedia censorship, Wikipedia itself or something along these lines. Aza24 ( talk)
  • Keep While the article does not have much contents at present, the topic "as is" is notable and has the potential to be grown into a full-blown article eventually. I see various directions how it could be expanded including discussions of (third-party) analyses how the Wikipedia communities in the various language entities reacted to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a huge self-organizing structure, about attempts to undermine our neutral coverage through vandalism and how we deal with this, about censorship and blocking attempts in the Russian and Belarussian Wikipedias (and related threats in real life), and about how (Russian) users utilize Wikipedia to get a clearer picture.
Since Wikipedia is an important part of the net culture and society, not only our contents but also our behaviour as a community is under the scrutiny of the outside world. Therefore, reputable, independent, diverse and reliable sources discussing this meta topic are already available for most of the themes mentioned above (it might be a bit too early for deep scientific analyses). More will show up as events develop. Hence I see WP:GNG to be passed.
For now, I would keep the article title as it is, but depending on how the article would develop, it could be renamed to a (then) more suitable title at a later stage.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 23:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was keep. There is no reasonable prospect at this point that a consensus will develop to delete this article. BD2412 T 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Daddy, We Hardly Knew You

Daddy, We Hardly Knew You (  | 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 book's sources include two descriptions of the book that have no named author (because both were likely written by its publicist or some other non-independent person) and another to a primary source that mentions how the book was mentioned once in a Simpson's episode (there is no discussion of the book there at all). This article needs to show evidence of the book being the subject of discussion in multiple verifiable reliable and (most important) WP:INDEPENDENT sources that discuss the subject (the book) non-trivially (which I did not find). A loose necktie ( talk) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Question: do these reviews count as more than W:ROUTINE coverage of the subject? Or are they the kind of coverage that any book of this type is likely to receive? Are there any guidelines on this? A loose necktie ( talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure how WP:ROUTINE is applied to articles related to art--it's not similar to routine coverage about candidates for minor political offices. I suppose, in the book sense, that routine coverage would be "just" Kirkus or Publishers Weekly or Library Journal reviews... Caro7200 ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I would usually consider it “routine” for a book to be listed under “books received” at an academic journal or “books published” in a trade mag like PW, the kinds of things which basically just say “this exists”. You’d be surprised how often books don’t even get Kirkus and Booklist reviews. So I consider Kirkus, PW, and Booklist reviews non-routine/non-trivial, though they’re not always thrilling as evidence of notability, so I like to see all three and maybe a starred review at one of them to feel confident in a book’s notability. There is nothing remotely routine about getting reviewed in the New York Times. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

David Pearson (computer scientist)

David Pearson (computer scientist) (  | 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)

Seems to be a vanity article produced by the subject. The sources may not support the statements being made, or fail to report on the subject with more than a passing mention. An IP claiming to be the subject (24.207.103.36) has asked that it be deleted. signed, Willondon ( talk) 21:40, 14 March 2022 (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 Boomerang (TV network)#Spain. The history remains under the redirect. @ Samueldester1234: if you'd like it to work on in draft space before taking it through AfC, just met me know. Star Mississippi 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Boomerang (Spanish TV channel)

Boomerang (Spanish TV channel) (  | 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 doesn't appear to be independently notable of Boomerang (TV network). This article appears to be about a channel for Spain (see the only ref), rather than a more general Spanish-language channel. As such, I propose that this be redirected to Boomerang (TV network)#Spain, where the channel can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Is the discussion ended? Because if it is, I’m gonna remove the template from the wiki page. Samueldester1234 — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Generally, these things have to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor/admin. Posting a request at WP:RFCLOSE might be worthwhile if you feel that there is particular urgency for this discussion to be closed. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 01:41, 21 March 2022 (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) 14:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The Fashion Enthusiast

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

This is an unsourced article, the infobox website of which directs us to a tumblr-based fashion blog. A version of this page has previously been draftified, though the creator of this page simply decided to re-create the page in the mainspace instead of working on the draft. Part of me thinks that this is a hoax, since the linked tumblr blog has not posted since 2017 despite the photograph in the infobox (labeled as "own work" and uploaded by the article creator) being dated "March 24, 2022".(update: an IP changed the infobox URL and it appears to be pointing at the website depicted by the image) In any case, the website appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, so I propose that it be deleted. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)(updated: 13:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)) reply

Fair enough. Delete fails NWEB.- KH-1 ( talk) 00:10, 16 March 2022 (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. Proposed improvements can be made to the existing draft. I note that despite the assertion that the article is under construction, no additional improvements of substance have been made in the period of this deletion discussion. BD2412 T 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Summertime Saga

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

Fails WP:GNG; cannot find much of reliable sourcing to warrant an article. The corresponding draft at Draft:Summertime Saga has already been denied as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." –  Pbrks ( t •  c) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If it isn’t notable at this point it would make more sense to delete the article until there is enough coverage.-- 65.93.195.118 ( talk) 03:37, 22 March 2022 (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. Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 11:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Girish Panchwadkar

Girish Panchwadkar (  | 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 a notable singer. Fails WP:SINGER. No news coverage Cinzia007 ( talk) 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 ( talk) 11:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 2022 (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. Nobody is persuaded by the sources found by Cunard. Sandstein 09:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

James Kazama

James Kazama (  | 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 actor - no in-depth coverage to be found in reliable sources in English, Chinese, or Thai that I can see. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. In addition, article is unsourced, promotional and largely created by a series of WP:SPAs so WP:TNT applies. Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 溫菁莉 (2017-10-12). "【使徒行者2】Mr. White大有來頭　泰國銀行經理精通7國語言" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "It turns out that James Kazama, who played Mr. White, has a lot of backgrounds. He is an actor and a voice actor with multiple jobs. He also is an international model and singer! In addition, he needs to know and speak many languages, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German, so many talents! ... It turns out that James grew up in Hong Kong and Bangkok, so he even knows Thai! In 1997, James returned to Hong Kong to perform in theaters. At the same time, he also debuted as a voice actor, dubbing many famous films, series and cartoons in Asia."

    2. "《使徒行者2》Mr. White來頭唔嘢小　宣萱麥明詩唔同晒？". Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2020-08-20. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Qiu Zhanhui has a lot of background. He was born in Hong Kong and grew up in Thailand. He is proficient in 7 languages: Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish and German. He has worked with superstar Chow Yun-fat and Thai martial arts superstar Tony Jaa. In addition to being an actor, he is also a voice actor. He once dubbed the role of "Red Squid" in the cartoon "The Future" in Cantonese. In addition to his acting career, he is also very business-minded. He has opened restaurants in Hong Kong and Europe, and the high standard of food has won high praise from local diners."

    3. 黃梓恒 (2020-08-20). "【使徒行者2】Mr. White真人勁有型　丘占輝仲係飲食界猛人" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Unexpectedly, in addition to doing business and acting, he has also served as the "Digital Currency Issuance and Computing R&D Manager" of Thai banks and telecommunications companies, which is really versatile."

    4. Sherry (2017-10-12). "隱藏版極品天菜！使徒行者Mr.White真人超有才，識9種語言又有商業頭腦，上天也太不公平了～" (in Chinese). PressLogic. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "He is fluent in Cantonese and even understands Thai. The most surprising thing is that he can speak Mandarin, French, Spanish, German, Japanese and Teochew in a total of 9 languages. ... He worked as an e-money issuance and computing R&D manager at the Siam Commercial Bank of Thailand, and is now the CEO of an e-money company."

    5. Cheung (2017-10-13). "【使徒行者2】精通7國語言　Mr. White真身唔止藝人咁簡單！". Modia (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "In addition, he flew to Brussels to settle for a period of time in 2004, and participated in the Fashion Show and performances in different dramas, integrating actors, voice actors, and models! However, his identity is not only an "artist", but also a businessman. He opened the famous "La Fu" restaurant in Hong Kong in 2002 and served as the head chef."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Kazama ( traditional Chinese: 丘占輝; simplified Chinese: 丘占辉 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 12:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I added these sources to the article. Cunard ( talk) 12:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for finding these sources. I'm unconvinced they show real notability. They are pure fluff coverage that may as well have been a press release from Kazama's agent. In fact, all the pieces are so similar that I strongly suspect they were all based on a press release from his agent. They all also seem to relate only to his appearance on 使徒行者2, a HK television show. Is there any reliable coverage for any other part of his career? Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The subject received significant biographical coverage in 2017 and 2020 in bylined sources for his role in zh:使徒行者2. That he received significant coverage three years apart is sustained coverage that is sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. I did not find significant coverage that did not relate to his role in zh:使徒行者2. The articles contain some similar information and some different information. Some of the sources say he speaks seven languages (Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German), while some include Chinese dialects and say he speaks nine languages (Cantonese, Mandarin, Teochew, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German). I searched for quotes from each article and could not find any evidence that the articles are based on press releases from his agent. Cunard ( talk) 07:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Each of these five articles has James Kazama as its subject. They discuss his biographical background in detail. I do not agree that there is "no in-depth coverage" about him. Regarding "Lots and lots of PR", I could find no evidence that these sources are based on PR. The sources were published in 2017 and 2020. It would be unlikely for a PR campaign about this to last three years. Cunard ( talk) 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Just fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. While Cunard has done an admiral job in locating sources, it's my opinion that the sources are not in-depth enough to meet the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. Further, it's not clear that as an actor has had enough significant roles to pass NACTOR. As such, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is approaching our notability criteria but has not yet met the threshold. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Conn Nugent

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

BLP with lots of references, but none of them seem to be about him. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify and redirect. I am AGFing the creator that he has a whole word document that includes sources that might get us over the notability barrier, although I share the consensus concerns that Rensselear mayor may never be notable. Dellis12144, how long an article has existed is not a barrier to deletion. Please go through AfC before reinstating this article. At the moment I am protecting the redirect to ensure no out of process creations occur. Star Mississippi 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Michael Stammel

Michael Stammel (  | 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)

Small town mayor, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Dellis12144, the creator of the page, is known for editing and creating articles related to Rensselaer, New York and Rensselaer County. Given that the IP is located in that specific area, it is safe to assume that the user is editing as an IP in an attempt to sway this discussion in some way. KidAd • SPEAK 22:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Why are you tagging me? I did post a comment: since the article is a contender for being improved, it should be moved to draft space. There are plenty of valid sources on the internet for information on Michael Stammel that may be used. There is no reason to delete an article that has many reference sources available even if the subject is a representative of a smaller size community. Dellis12144 ( talk) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Did you read my comment? I tagged you because I think you logged out of your account to comment in this AfD as an IP. Am I wrong? Is that IP not you pretending to be someone else? KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
KidAd my account stays logged in 24 hours a day. Not sure how I could comment as someone else and not know. Why are you so adamant about deleting the article when many updates have been made to it? I've added more information as well as many more sources for the information. You state that the subject is not notable. I do want to let you know that there are many other local level politicians listed on Wikipedia as well. With valid resources, there is no reason they shouldn't be. If you'd like, I can send you a word document with every single news story I can find on Mr. Stammel online to prove that he is indeed notable. Dellis12144 ( talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete nothing notable found in third party sources. If he was, I'd expect to find something in the New York Times, being a paper of record for the state; only one hit on a senator giving a tour of his district that just mentions the name. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you like, I could provide you with an entire word document of every article there is online about Michael Stammel. Just because he is not a state level politician doesn't mean he isn't notable. He is notable in the local community and the county of Rensselaer. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify I don't see any reason not to, if the article creator requests it. Mlb96 ( talk) 06:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank You. Spent a lot of time editing it and adding sources. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 13:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, don't draftify lack of notability cannot be fixed by editing, so why are we even talking about draftifying the article? Alternately, I also support redirect to List of mayors of Rensselaer, New York. ( t · c) buidhe 19:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The article creator has asserted that the individual is notable. Even if we cannot find anything to suggest that he is notable right now, there is no downside to giving the article creator a few more months to find coverage. If coverage does end up being found, then deleting the article entirely will just make more work for the article creator when they recreate it. And if coverage isn't found, then the article will languish in draft space until being auto-deleted. Draftifying seems like a win-win. Mlb96 ( talk) 19:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mayor of a place with under 10,000 people immediately adjacent to a much larger and more noticed city. This is not a position where the holder is even remotely likely to be notable. I have to admit I am unsure why we have a whole article on the position, instead of a more general article on the government of the city or good coverage of both in the article on the city. I have to say in general Wikipedia artilces on cities have sub-standard coverage of their government. Far too few do we even say if they have a council-manage, council-mayor, city commission or other type of government, and even less often do we discuss the change of such government over time. Flooding Wikipedia with articles on places that were actually just a well or a mine has left us with our articles on actual cities often being sub-standard. Then we turn around and flood it with bios on non-notable mayors, instead of creating useful text on thestructure of government. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Why does it hurt to have an article with valid resources published on Wikipedia? He may not be a state or federal level government official but he is indeed notable in the local community as well as the county. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    My concern is that this article has been on Wikipedia for over a year until someone decided to redirect it. A lot of updates have been made to the article. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • The sourcing is all hyper local. It is just not sustainable to have articles on every mayor of a place over 5,000 people, especially when it is a place that is very much in the shadow of much larger communities. Wikipedia has articles exist for over 15 years that people are just now getting around to reviewing. The fact that an article has "existed over a year" in Wikipedia terms means that it is very young. Due to the ease with which articles can be created on Wikipedia, the fact that an article exists is not at all a sign in any way shape mean or form that it ought to exist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      That really doesn't answer my concern. I feel that there is absolutely no regard from those who want the article deleted about the amount of time placed in to creating the article. It just discourages editors from wanting to participate further in helping to improve Wikipedia if they are only doing so to be told their content is not good enough. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 18:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Local politician, local coverage which is mostly routine coverage of city activities. @ Dellis12144: Two points: 1) If the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, then it does not matter how many hours went into creating it. I've seen articles deleted here for which the hours spent in their creation and maintenance were orders of magnitude greater than this one, and where the AfD discussion was considerably less one-sided. 2) It's not a good look and not helpful to your case to challenge every single comment which disagrees with yours. You've made your case--I advise not bludgeoning it further. -- Finngall talk 19:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    My issue is that nobody is considering the comments from those who say Draftify. The only argument from those who want it deleted is notoriety. Those wanted it deleted have no other argument. You can say some politician is notable and I may not have even heard of that person before so I do not consider them notable. I think that is the issue in this case that people are ignoring and I don't feel that it is a fair process. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 19:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete,A small town mayor does not count as notable. Alex-h ( talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (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. If you believe a move to a different title is appropriate, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Russo-German war

Russo-German war (  | 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)

Neither entry is a war article, but rather about a front in a war, nor do people call either overall conflict the "Russo-German War". Also, descriptive terms do not make suitable dab pages. Eastern Front is where these entries belong (and are listed). Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Like the editor above, I simply don't see any reason to delete this. Is it causing problems with linking accurately to some other article? If not, what does it matter if we keep it? (I also feel the need to point out that calling these "a front, not a war" is reasonably accurate in English-language historiography, but that's not the case globally - see for example the German title of the Eastern Front of WWII article, de:Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg.) -- asilvering ( talk) 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. "Russo-German war" is a real term, found in the titles of books and articles, although overwhelmingly in reference to WWII. Srnec ( talk) 18:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Also I don't share Clarityfiend's view that Dab pages are not for descriptive terms, but for actual titles. As WP:D2D states Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. For instance, Joker, the example used by the guideline, links several works where one the character is called "Joker" even though it's not in the title. JBchrch talk 18:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ethelmary Oakland

Ethelmary Oakland (  | 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)

Oakland appeared in a few films when she was 7 and 8. I am less than convinced any of her roles were actually significant. One is listed second in the cast list, but only because it is the main role as a child. We have only IMDB as a source, which is not reliable. A search for sources produced nothign that was coverage passing GNG. Oakland lived over 80 years after she last appeared in a film and we seem to know absolutely nothing about that part of her life. She does not seem to in any way have been a public figure, and I see no benefit to having basically a short blurd grouping together her very few film roles. There are very rare people who did things at age 7 and 8 that make them notable, but Oakland does not seem to have been such a person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Don't make assumptions about why she's second listed in the cast. And playing the main character as a child is a fine reason to be second listed. What a bogus thing to mention in an AfD nomination. It's totally normal for a child actor to transition to anonymity and not get press after. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

keep per meeting GNG. Good HEY work. The nomination rationale is out of line and all of the above means that this should be a speedy keep and close, though I don't foresee that happening. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

    • How can one possible speedy keep an article for which the discussion has already been extended beyond the normal time. The notion that we should not have articles sourced only to IMDb on children who never did anything as adults is not "out of line". It is a reasonable agument, and with the other sources found in the google search having been Wikipedia mirrors and a BFI listing that had her name and the name of one 1917 film and that was it, it was not an unresonable conclusion for the easily available sourcing. What is out of line is how many Wikipedia articles lack even one source that is reliable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Double standards are not reasonable and have no place in an AfD argument. We don't treat a child actor differently than an adult actor on this website. Her age has nothing to do with anything. Ageism has no place in Wikipedia and is inappropriate for AfD. It's an entirely different issue from sourcing. Weakens your argument to include it. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • This article has existed since 2006. I at least do not think Wikipedia should have articles exist for 16 years without any reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw people were able to find additional sources that now show notability. This was not easily evident when found and the article had existed for an excessive amount of time with no reliable sources at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it! DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Request made for someone authorized to close this "withdraw" request to delete this article. -- Ooligan ( talk) 00:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. and going to salt this edition for good measure Star Mississippi 01:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mikheil Lomtadze

Mikheil Lomtadze (  | 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. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non-references used. UPE. The references are very poor and what coverage is there is routine PR. scope_creep Talk 01:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Article satisfies WP:NBIO. Dear Administrators! I am the first author of the article about Mikheil Lomtadze, and after the first remark on the article I requested some time for its edition on my personal space, however other users of Wikipedia corrected and rewrote the article.

Today I’ve read all the corrections and modifications in the article ever made in the English Wikipedia and I would like to inform you on the following: Mikheil Lomtadze is a well-known figure in Kazakhstan and Georgia. As experts state, today his name is inextricably associated with Kaspi.kz. Thanks to the Strategy of Mikheil Lomtadze, the Kaspi.kz app has become a de facto payment system of Kazakhstan, and a share of non-cash payments is more than 50%, thus contributing to a decrease in the share of the shadow economy and giving an impetus to the economic growth and GDP growth, tax revenues and reducing corruption in Kazakhstan. Ruslan Yensebaev, the Vice-Minister of Finance said, that by 2021, his team together with Mikheil Lomtadze would work out a mechanism of fiscalisation of cash settlements in compliance with the requirements of the State Revenue Committee. Financiers emphasise that such digitalisation of the economy of Kazakhstan will definitely provide a significant boost to multiple structural reforms, including the pension one. In October 2019, Lomtadze planned to hold an IPO on the London Stock Exchange and introduce Kazakhstan at the innovative world map. Experts believe, this IPO will be the first international IPO outside the quasi-state sector for recent years, strengthening the capacity of Kazakhstan and attracting investors to the commercial sector in the country. Analysts predicted high demand for shares of the Kazakhstan company. Exactly a year later, in October 2020, Mikheil Lomtadze conducted a successful IPO of Kaspi.kz on the London Stock Exchange, and according to Refinitiv, it was the second largest public stock offering in the UK in 2020 and the fourth largest one in Europe. After his success at the LSE, Mikheil Lomtadze was recognised as one of the richest and most influential businessman in Kazakhstan. Mikheil is ranking 356th in the world Forbes rating and his wealth is estimated at more than $5 billion. In 2020-2021, the success of Mikheil Lomtadze at the London Stock Exchange attracted attention of President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Zhomart Tokayev who twice held meetings with Mikheil Lomtadze and discussed the digital services development strategy and the prospects for e-commerce growth in Kazakhstan. At meetings with foreign investors Tokayev talked about the success of a Kazakhstan fintech company Kaspi.kz. In 2021, the Cabinet of the United Kingdom paid attention to the activities of Lomtadze and Kaspi.kz. In August 2021, Mikheil Lomtadze became the richest and most influential person in Georgia.

In May 2019, Lomtadze became a member of the Harvard Business School Advisory Council. In September 2019, Mikheil Lomtadze reported on entering the market of Azerbaijan and announced the further development of business in Central Asia and in the Caucasus, and in 2021 he announced the business development for Ukraine aiming to promote a digital transformation of the entire region. Thus, I think it is inappropriate to delete the article about Mikheil Lomtadze as the encyclopedic importance of his personality is undeniable. It is necessary to note that my article about another businessman with an equivalent position was published on Wikipedia. Please do not delete the article. I am planning to finalize the material in the future according to all rules of Wikipedia. I’d appreciate all recommendations for improvement and mentoring.-- Deviloper ( talk) 14:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You basically just proved their point-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 07:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Good day! If you are talking about a ticket and that the article is PR in nature or paid up, then I beg to differ with the views you have. The increased interest in the personality of Mikheil Lomtadze is quite justified. He is building an entirely new technological Kazakhstan, and all over the world are oriented on his business model. Even the Minister of England said he was waiting for Kaspi in England. Entry to Ukraine was within the nearest plans, but as now appears it is indefinitely postponed.Besides, given the events that took place in Kazakhstan in January, the British Parliament called for a series of sanctions to be imposed on Kazakh businessmen. They are now in crosshairs and everybody are wondering who they are and how they came to success.-- Deviloper ( talk) 09:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The original title, Mikhail Lomtadze, is SALTed, so this article taken directly out of draftspace without being approved by WikiProject AfC reviewers, is a direct attempt to circumvent our controls by a likely paid editor. Are we going to respect our efforts to stop subjects rich enough to buy editing help or are we just going to look the other way when this sort of thing happens? I'm honestly asking as I can't figure out what this editing community is trying to accomplish. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chris troutman: I didn't see it. I'll check this in the future. Thanks for posting it. scope_creep Talk 12:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chris troutman: I've posted a message to user:MER-C who will take a look at it. scope_creep Talk 12:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • comment I republished it from Draft. Sorry if I violate the rule. As I just told at COI page, I found that guy and Narzullo Oblomurodov abandoned at Draft space and they looked for me pretty promising. That was my intentin to work on them and publish in mainspace. I still think both Mikheil easily passes WP:GNG. There are enough Russian, Kazakh and other sources with deep coverage of the subject. -- Bash7oven ( talk) 15:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Have you seen the fact this article has been deleted multiple times and salted because it. Make sure you check that the next time instead of wasting everybodies time. scope_creep Talk 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Being rich and oligarch doesn't define notability. Secondary sources do and they're are none. scope_creep Talk 20:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • comment Dear administrators and project participants! I have checked all the references specified in the original article of the year 2019, it contains independent sources and needs to be revised. In the discussion given above, I also introduced some references in the English language which are related to reliable sources in all respects. They may be added in order the article meets all the requirements of the free Wikipedia. In the view of the foregoing, I request you to restore the article for further revision by other Wikipedia participants. Deviloper ( talk) 03:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I did some searching on my own. I found items in Forbes and Bloomberg, which are generally WP:RS, but they were both directory-type listings ("The world's N richest people" kind of thing) with no WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2022 (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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. Although there are certainly very many "keep" opinions in the vein of WP:ITSIMPORTANT that are questionable in terms of Wikipedia inclusion rules, what this discussion makes clear is that (a) the arguments for deletion are not widely supported by experienced Wikipedians, and (b) a consensus to outright delete the article will not come about here, given that there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merging the content to a topically related article. I therefore suggest that such alternatives should be discussed on the article talk page before renominating the article for deletion. Sandstein 11:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Marina Ovsyannikova

Please note that this is a conversation about how well this topic fits Wikipedia's guidelines. It is not an assessment of the bravery or morality of the action.


Marina Ovsyannikova (  | 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:BIO1E at this point. I salute her, but there is no indication that this minor event will have lasting implications. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from the article creator. It is indeed difficult to see whether this is going to have lasting consequences, but I am sure today and tomorrow she will be on every single non-Russian media. Such things do not occur so often.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Given that we‘re dealing with real time events here and, in the event that this is confirmed to be true, exceptional bravery which will warrant a wikipedia entry, wouldn‘t it be worth to wait some time before deleting? 77.6.157.35 ( talk) 20:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Nothing will be deleted before a week has elapsed. Ymblanter ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I support that. Act like this make history. After some time has elapsed it might make sense to include this information into a bigger article on anti war protests in Russia. 51.154.165.136 ( talk) 20:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Putin wants to delete this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.175.223 ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is an act of heroism and is a significant step in the evolution of Putin's attack on Ukraine and the west. On a personal level she warrants a page dedicated to her and it should be retained as a repository of information concerning her fate. On a global level this page should be retained as not only recognition of heroes fighting disinformation but as evidence of trolling and further propaganda. One need look no farther than the replies to my comment to find evidence of this. 4piEpsilonNaught ( talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Fully agreed and people speaking out against war and for peace should never be censored! Why is this page even considered for deletion? While not every country sees free speech as a key value, and that should be respected, the internet is a place of free speech, in these times please keep this! She is a voice for peace! Jazzooka ( talk) 23:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Marina is worthy of notice because of her long-standing work in media. She is not 'notable for only one event'. The article contains links to other notable activities by her. It is irrelevant whether she is 'brave' or to what extent her opinion is provable fact or just her opinion. The article does not imply criticism or support of her or her actions, historic or recent. It is written factually and neutrally, merely informative, it tells me what she has done in media production both historically and recently. Her most recent actions may have been contrary to Russian law (not yet proven) but that is not among the criteria for page deletion. I have viewed the criteria for deletion. None of them apply so keep the page. Milo Lawrence ( talk) 10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep If the Marina Ovsyannikova page is deleted, then other pages, such as Yulia Galyamina page would also have to be deleted as well for the same reason. Galyamina's page is over two years old, and her page is well established and non-controversial. Despite Russian State censors, Ovsyannikova carried out an action seen by millions of people (TV and Video) and she faces some very serious prison time for her actions. It is true that we don't know if Ovsyannikova page will be notable next week, but her actions may have had a profound effect and possibly be a turning point in this war. For now, this page should be a 'Strong Keep'. Dinkytown talk 05:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'd disagree with the deletion of Galyamina for the reasoning that Galyamina was repeatedly jailed, where as far as we know, this is the first offense on Ovsyannikova's part. I think you are right that we should keep the page for now, but I still would like to see where we stand by next week. I would also think that the reason Galyamina's page is non-controversial is because the subject is less-well-known than others: for example, the page has been up for two years and still has not received a rating on WP Biography. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I highly doubt Ovsyannikova will be relevant to the English wikipedia in a week from now, although I applaud her efforts. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Putin troll. It is very relevant and will be, it is an act of courage. 86.127.145.123 ( talk) 20:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I find it very funny I was called a Putin troll. Be kind. Just because I support this article for deletion does not mean I support Russia. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    No personal attacks, especially nonsense like that. Base your comments on Wikipedia policy. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Strong keep. Obviously an immortal moment in the present Russia-Ukraine conflict. As for you Muboshgu, you're quite the smug and self-satisfied individual, aren't you. A little tempest in a teapot. Erable maple ( talk) 05:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Smart move to insult an administrator of the website. Also not the correct place to voice your opinion - you should do that below. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    What about /info/en/?search=George_Floyd
    He is not forgottn. Let this page live 142.114.175.179 ( talk) 04:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    How dare you even type, that this act will be irrelevant to the English wikipedie in a week from now. This is an oustanding act, that will be remembered. Nothing like this happened before. She will get minimum of 15 years of prison and torture for this just for you to call it irrelevant and get it deleted from the wikipedia site. 85.160.33.51 ( talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I still stand by what I said. I think this will be relevant towards other language Wikipedias, but not the English one. Also, you saying 'a minimum of 15 years' is untrue, as the maximum sentencing for a crime like this is 15 years. Not to mention WP:NPA. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
RT anchor resigned on air about 10 yrs ago, it's happened before. She barely has a mention. This is a small event. We need proof that she's eligible as a journalist or news reporter. Simply holding up a sign isn't enough for an article. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The aforementioned RT anchor has her own Wikipedia article, so this precedent actually supports keeping the article. /info/en/?search=Liz_Wahl#RT_America Ramendik ( talk) 02:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
This is not a small event, Why is there such a discussion here then? Jsvahn ( talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP - it is astonishing that this is even being considered for deletion. I can only imagine a pro russian propoganda activist wants to pretend this selfless act of bravery and courage didnt occur. Question - what would wikipedia's feelings be today if Rosa Parks was deleted from history? 2A02:C7F:342B:2C00:1CE2:77CE:936E:F9B8 ( talk) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    STRONG KEEP: The reference to Rosa Parks also immediately came to mind. Small actions can make a big difference. 77.9.8.62 ( talk) 07:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We could recreate the article with neutral, third-party sources, of which Parks has many. This individual has none. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Frankly, the discussion about deleting this article would be much more substantiated in 2-3 weeks, maybe more, who knows. Now it's discussion between "the event might turn out to be insubstantial" vs "she might be an instigator of something big" and none of the sides has any real arguments. So the real question, what's with the rush? Somebody is afraid of her name having a wiki entry? At the time, she's a most public antiwar protester. Nobody is denying that the strength of Russian civil resistance might be one of key factors in the outcome of this war.
    Maybe redirecting her name to bigger article on Russian protests will be the most prudent action in the future - but for now, the rush in the act is a political statement in and of itself. As such, it goes against objectivity. 89.75.169.132 ( talk) 23:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    At the time I am writing this, there are references to the Guardian and the Washington Post, among others, and a dozen of sources of similar quality reported the incident. I can not check the Washington Post as it is behind a paywall, but the Guardian has a dedicated story on the front page.I do not think the complaint she has not been covered has merit; I think we should evaluate whether BLP1E (as nominated) applies. Ymblanter ( talk) 06:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This should NOT be deleted. I do hope Wikipedia isn't listening to Putins censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:E7FF:1:9860:6F2B:144:5D5A
Not listening to censhorship when we talk about it here. More akin to pro-Ukraine propaganda, regardless, no trolling please. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Would be better-served as a subsection in Russian propaganda or an article about the war itself Oaktree b ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. She will either be the first step of a complete turnaround in the Russian press, or she will go to jail for a long time. Either outcome is important for the history books. Mlewan ( talk) 20:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I think we should wait until something happens on that front before making this point. Deleting an article doesn't necessarily mean it has to never be remade. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not sure I think we should delete this article, but it's hardly certain she'll be either of those things. Also, going to prison for a long time is true for a lot of people we don't write about. And unfortunately, true for a number of people in Russia who oppose the regime. Julle ( talk) 20:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If she has forfeited her life for doing this, then leave this as a eulogy to her very visible brave act? AnIguana ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • This isn't an obituary site. No, we can't allow that. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ AnIguana: So one of the things that will happen here is that a lot of people who see the note on the article page will come to the discussion to argue on moral grounds, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Muboshgu, whom I don't necessarily agree with, didn't start this discussion because they want to disparage the courage or sacrifice involved, but because of their interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is like all other publications – there's an idea of what content is to be included or not. It's entirely possible to consider it out of scope here, and yet respect the act itself. A Wikipedia article isn't a measure of a good act. Julle ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree. This event may have a lasting impact. Strong keep 74.101.99.54 ( talk) 08:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • revolutions often happen in TV, for instance in 1989 the fact that communist controlled state TV flipped and started broadcasting facts about police violence towards students was an important factor, please do not delete 89.176.206.34 ( talk) 20:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • This is a good point, however I would rather see this article as part of a bigger article on Russian revolts against this war, not necessarily keeping the article. I feel that having the article separate from others would not mean as much and is still a violation of WP:BIO1E - Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The ”event“, that WP:BIO1E refers to, in this case is not the big event of Russia's invasion of Ukraine 2022 (where this action may play a relatively small role, some might argue – though I'd disagree), but high profile public resistance in Russian media, which has not been a wide spread phenomenon yet at all: This lady thus plays a major role in some minor event. – Consequently, the lemma has to be kept until further developments. --  Xantares ⌘ 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I just came to wikipedia looking for info on this person. Anyway, she will likely go on trial, receive a brutal punishment and, much like PussyRiot, may well be a continuing cause celebre for her bravery. Not deleting seems prudent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.109.54 ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The event seems highly relevant in this context and is clearly the first of its kind on Russian state TV during the Ukrainian war. There already are some quite relevant sources like this one. I don't think WP:BIO1E applies here. -- Coco ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep People need to know that everyone in Russia does not support the Ukranine invasion. 96.35.8.95 ( talk) 20:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - very clearly both notable and set to remain so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete then Redirect I agree with nominator Muboshgu's rationale for deleting this article. But, WP:BIO1E states that creating a redirect is more appropriate for a person who plays a minor role in a major event. Since Ovsyannikova plays a small role in the Ukraine crisis, her article can be merged with an appropriate article and then deleted. Just because sources like The Guardian cover what she did doesn't mean that she deserves her own article, but rather, if other people become famous for anti-war sentiment towards Russia, the sources used to create the article can be used in the said hypothetical article. LPS and MLP Fan ( Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ovsyannikova may play a ”small role“ in the Ukraine crisis, but that is not the event you should apply the terms of WP:BIO1E against; she presumably plays a big role in the public display of opposition to the Russian invasion.   χenoΛntares ⌘ 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
WhiteCherepan, Matrek, Milowent, 90.201.109.54, others: I know that the situation with Ukraine and Russia is very significant and causing reason for concern about Ovsyannikova. But, we should not let these events influence what to keep and delete on Wikipedia. For instance, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I have been seeing some keep arguments suggesting that the person will become famous for her act. But, we must not forget to adhere to policies and guidelines. LPS and MLP Fan ( Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
LPS and MLP Fan, personally I'm less swayed by this particular event than my view that English Wikipedia does a better job of doing fair articles on the fly during these events than anything else on the internet. There's no question we will cover this event as well at 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. But right now the world is searching her name, so I think the article can be kept and reassessed in a week or few weeks when things calm down. We don't have a specific rule or policy, but I've seen this be a de facto outcome many times in the last 15 years.-- Milowent • has spoken 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Trougnouf, Vrrtigo, 51.154.1.122, 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:8023:A242:95FE:C539, others: As I stated before, we need to evaluate whether this person is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. Google searches, number of sources, and personal opinions about the person are invalid arguments to make for keeping her article. -- LPS and MLP Fan ( Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep -- Russia's highly-controlled media industry is a model for autocratic regimes everywhere. It not only finds top people, but rewards them well. All of this makes for high retention, or what they might call loyalty. For an insider to rise up like this is highly remarkable. It could one of the signposts to a collapse of the war effort, or even of Russia's current regime. At least it tells us that key insiders are turning against the institutions that advanced this war. Frazierdp ( talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Could merge somewhere. Surely enough actions within Russia against the war to have an article on that. Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    We have 2022 anti-war protests in Russia Ymblanter ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree that "Wikipedia is not news", but what we see is history in the making. Googling her name in Russian - Марина Овсянникова - gets lots of hits covering this incident, even the Russian state owned Tass has a short article [16]. Knižnik ( talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The Tass article makes no direct mention of events in Ukraine, which probably enhances the argument for keeping it in at least one Wikipedia. Here it is via Google Translate:
    MOSCOW, March 14. /TASS/. A woman who broke into the studio of the Vremya program on Channel One is facing an administrative case and has been detained. This was reported to TASS by a source in law enforcement agencies. "The girl can be held liable, including under Article 20.3.3. of the Code of Administrative Offenses ("Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintain international peace and security")", the source said. According to him, the woman is currently detained. The source clarified that Marina Ovsyannikova works as an editor on Channel One, she is in the police department at the OMVD in the Ostankino district. According to the source, Ovsyannikova is a native of Odessa, she was born there in 1978. Earlier it was reported that Channel One began an internal check in connection with an incident with an outsider in the frame during a live broadcast. Videodragons ( talk) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – seems significant to me. Superp ( talk) 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:WHYN, We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.. Also, there's an influx of WP:SLEEPER accounts and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. Most keep rationale is centered on specificities of Russian media, and not the subject herself—further articulating why this should be redirected or merged with another article. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 21:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah... really can't stress the influx of sleeper and single-purpose accounts enough. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
strong keep! i disagree. she set an example for millions to follow. her name should not be hidden as a footnote in an artikel about russian media. she stands out ! btw.: most delete rationale wants to merge (i.e.: hide) or brings up technicalities. that's how a lawyer would argue to prevent something. yeah...i really can't stress enough the influx of people who want to prevent the truth from beeing spread ! i wonder who they might be working for... 51.154.1.122 ( talk) 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ PerpetuityGrat: Please don't denigrate people who disagree with you by calling them "sleeper and single-purpose accounts". The topic under discussion here, or generally on Wikipedia, is not other wikipedians. Silver hr ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Silver hr: how am I denigrating others by calling a spade a spade? Literally half of the users on this talk page are brand new accounts, or spontaneously came back after taking a multi-month hiatus. Just calling it like it is, how does this denigrate users? -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ PerpetuityGrat: Your accusations imply that some people participating in this conversation aren't equal participants. Everyone is an equal participant until proven otherwise. If you have concerns about some accounts being sockpuppets, raise an issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If your concern is not with sockpuppetry, but other forms of systematic manipulation of Wikipedia, I suppose the appropriate venue would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Silver hr ( talk) 02:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I never said the users are socks... you shouldn't assume such, and obviously WP:SLEEPERS and one-purpose accounts are NOT the same as socks. Please do not conflate those things. One might get the impression you are trying to debase my input. You assumed I was denigrating users. You are wrong. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 02:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-war-russian-anti-war-protester-interrupts-state-tv-news-broadcast Callmesolis ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
– I get 27000 hits when I search for her in Russian (with quotation marks, so only her). More references than many other journalists who are featured on Wikipedia. Also more than enough material for a whole article. MahaNakhon ( talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
386'000 hits in diff. languages, 22'24 GDP, 14.03.2022 51.154.1.122 ( talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Your own definition totally shoots down your suggestion to delete. We require "significant coverage"? She is being covered on every major news outlet I've seen today, from Washington Post to The Guardian to Sky News, down to every minor news outlet as well. Some of them are providing pages of background and commentary. Her actions are getting extremely significant coverage. 220.245.146.177 ( talk) 05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or give a chapter in a relevant article - it's very difficult to get the message across to Russians relying on their national TV only. They've been lied to for years and are predetermined to view current reality basically upside down. What this lady has done is nothing but heroism, and may well serve as a trigger in changing this current tragic status quo between Russian and Ukrainian societies. Peace everyone. 86.38.230.141 ( talk) 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    if adds any weight to the argument, I'm a former admin on a foreign wiki, but it's been a while so forgot login info. I've spent these several weeks trying to talk to Russians on social media, those who either don't know or deny Russia's invasion to Ukraine, I don't know how successfully since now they legally are prevented from voicing any opinion departing from Russian institutional stance. But generally it's like trying to talk with hundreds of hungry wolves. So in the context of this, it takes such a courage and will to do as this woman did, it's even difficult to find words to describe it. I believe her story will be significant. 86.38.230.141 ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now / Wait. Let this article and topic few days to solidify. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. Let's see where this is going. No opposition to community reassessment at a later date, once the dust has settled. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Why would we delete a part of history? -- Trougnouf ( talk) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the moment, because we are not in the business of crystal-ball-gazing. I cannot recall an event like this ever happening before, so we are not in a position to predict whether her act will have lasting consequences that go down in history, or what her future will hold as a highly-visible opponent of war. If, in months or years to come, it becomes clear that she or her act are better recorded in another article, part of a bigger picture, we can do so. For the moment, it seems a pretty big act, a unique situation, likely to attract a lot of attention, so let's wait and see. Elemimele ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into the Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: while as of right now, I do not think that her article is relevant on its own, and it does violate WP:BIO1E, I do feel that her actions warrant at least a mention in the Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. If she did something else notable before or if she does something notable after this, then I would support creating an article just for her. 2604:3D09:E284:C800:3D7B:4698:306C:E94D ( talk) 22:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep her actions have already turned her into a well-known figure. The incident of her protest will be an important part of the history of the conflict. It already is! If the coming weeks do not bring any additional information, It would probably be best to merge it into a large article. Hawks ⁠ Talk/ Edits⁠ 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, this is a historic event. Digimag ( talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per others Ecpiandy ( talk) 22:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, She is already history and has been compared to Tank Man of '89 student protest in china by major news media. HansClumsy ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If it was not for those who heard it would Paul Revere be relevant? He was just a silversmith. This article should remain until the relevance has been judged by time. One year should pass before any talk of deletion should occur. Sparks appear insignificant unless the ignite something. Let’s wait and see. 2601:348:4100:2150:E98C:554F:B473:8EBC ( talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I would argue that there is a strong consensus already, and that the Articles for deletion tag is degrading ms Ovsyannikova just as a deletion-tag on the Tank Man would degrade him and his act and play into the hands of China fascist censorship. I suggest removing the tag immedeately. This does not mean that this discussion has to stop. Only the tag is Putin-friendly. HansClumsy ( talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP - it's sad that in such sources like wikipedia, the article would be considered for censorship by kremlin propaganda trolls. Admins, seriously? The war erupted and then the aggressor wants to delete evidence of that and you allow it? Wikipedia article is not a reward, it is information note. I think Marina is not somehow relevant for reader outside of context of this protest, so the article should be about protest, because it's simply not enough to write about Marina herself 95.24.224.82 ( talk) 23:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - the article is notable. 89.8.146.21 ( talk) 23:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep! She made a heroic gesture. Heroes are worth of being in encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9082:A701:7155:AF55:74D8:A361 ( talk) 23:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • PerpetuityGrat is right – note the suspiciously high amount of WP:SLEEPER accounts and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts commenting on article's deletion. This is likely to be coordinated, the question is why. MahaNakhon ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think this is exactly what's to be expected if we put a big box telling people that the thing they found so heroic and wanted to read more about is up for deletion, which reads as "we think this isn't important enough", with a link in bold to this discussion, telling them they can make their voice heard here. Julle ( talk) 02:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Obviously relevant, covered by media all over the world. TiagoLubiana ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rename article to something like «Anti-war protest on Russian government TV» and make it not about person, but about incident. 95.24.224.82 ( talk) 23:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think this is a decent solution, however I'd still argue for deletion, unless until/if more protests come out on television against the war, or something of the sort. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for now It's been what, four hours since this happened? That's not enough time to make a choice to delete on 1E. If it is eventually deleted, the content should be merged into one of the other articles on domestic Russian protests due to the significant media coverage. Intralexical ( talk) 23:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    RIGHT NOW everybody wants to know who she is, and Wiki is saying - with a red warning tag - yeah, well, she is up for debate. "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." The tag doesnt explain to the reader why article might be deleted. Is she not trustworthy? Did it really happen? The tag should be removed NOW. Wiki has a problem when a minority (4 out of 32) can cast doubt on a person with a tag like this obviously created for a diffent context but playing into the hands of a dictator. HansClumsy (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC) HansClumsy ( talk) 00:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ HansClumsy: You could probably move for a WP:SNOWBALL to immediately close the discussion if you'd like to get rid of the tag. I'm not going to do it myself because I think going through the whole process and settling it definitively is important to protect the integrity of the process and prevent it from being abused in the long term, though. Intralexical ( talk) 00:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Highly relevant and important to an ongoing current event. -- Thoric ( talk) 00:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. WP:BIO1E, in relevant part, states that "[i]f the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Certainly the subject's role is central; thus the relative weight - the event's significance - is key in the conclusion to be drawn in applying WP:BIO1E. Rather than characterizing the subject event as "minor" or even moderately significant, several things go to its being "highly significant." Such weighing is a judgment, so basis in facts can be determinative. The following are salient facts: (a) by all accounts, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is of world-changing importance; (b) Russian support remains high due to the control over the news messaging in a manner that distorts the truth and is thus vulnerable to leaks; (c) this is the first, and so far only known penetration of the Russian media with counter-official messaging on the war; (d) accordingly, it is major news worldwide of a type that naturally leads people to Wikipedia for authoritative background (to be developed); (e) it is comparable to whistleblower leaks of covert intelligence refuting official narratives about any number of historic and/or ongoing events. David B. Graubert ( talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - Famous individuals are mentioning her name, and it made her notable. -- Cheol ( talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Neither is there any indication that this is _not_ a major event - whether or not it has lasting implications. At least this event is shared worldwide within 12 hours after its occurence. 2A02:A449:FB99:1:F476:EAC3:8A2:F3D7 ( talk) 08:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - this is not encyclopedic material per WP:NOTNEWS but perhaps keep it for now since a lot of people feel strongly about the incident. Delete later or better merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep for now without prejudice to a merge. This is a classic case of an article created too soon that was then nominated for deletion too soon. It's far too early to know what the long-term significance of this will be, but it's clear that in the context of Russian protests against the war it is significant so there is definitely no case for deletion. If there is long-term significance to this single event and/or other events she becomes involved in then it should be a standalone article, if there isn't it should be merged to a suitable article ( 2022 anti-war protests in Russia perhaps). It will take several days at absolute minimum and quite likely much longer than that before which it is can be known. The correct course of action in these situations is to leave the status quo as is until things become clearer, and as the status quo here is a separate article that means keeping a separate article. There is no deadline. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree with these two. It's also very odd to me that there are so many new IPs editing this page all of a sudden. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    We've put a big box with a link in bold leading here from the page that's the topic of the day, telling them that the article about the woman they think did the good deed of the day is up for deletion, which reads as "we think this isn't important" to new folks. Hardly surprising they're coming over to say their piece. Julle ( talk) 02:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Word about this discussion is making the rounds on Reddit as well, and judging by the comments in this thread and this thread, there's probably a few angry people coming here who haven't contributed before. CplKlinger ( talk) 07:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Significant (global) media coverage. -- Bjerrebæk ( talk) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • KeepPlenty of coverage. Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Marina Ovsyannikova has become notable with a single act, and her protest should also be included in Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is no pressing reason to delete this article at this time. Depending on her fate and what other protests might be inspired by her courage, we will have a better perspective on whether the article deserves to be a stand alone or merged into a more comprehensive article. Politicon535 ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. While she did recently gain attention for one event, she was likely notable before that event. There's not a lot of Russian speakers on Wikipedia, but abundance of links in her Russian page suggests that she would have satisfied notability if those pages were in an English language press. Also, there's bound to be more coverage of this beyond the one event including her arraignment and (likely) incarceration. Bangabandhu ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I disagree here, the Russian page was created on the 14th of March meaning that she hadn't warranted notability for any other reason besides, which fails WP:BIO1E. She's also a TV producer which is probably the reason for it, producers don't normally have wikipages. Perhaps this one will be an exception due to the strong pushback on pages such as this, but we'll see how it fares in a week or two. I think people will have moved on from this incident by then, most likely for worse reasons. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 04:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • (Selective) merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The textbook case of WP:BLP1E and even probably WP:TOOSOON (since it is extremely difficult to judge of the WP:LASTING notability of a subject in mere hours. A minimal merge (with only the most essential details, in true encyclopedic summary fashion) would be a valid option, as this definitively has enough coverage to justify some form of mention, but it is clearly not the kind of coverage to justify a stand-alone biography (due to NOTNEWS and BLP1E concerns, as stated above). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Strong keep. In particular, I strongly oppose to the narrow application of WP guidelines proposed here. These rules work fine most of the time, but not in all case and certainly not here. We're looking at history in the making, so the usual rules like TOOSOON, LASTING etc. simply fail. The rule of thumb should be "do people want to look something up"; as of this writing, the page has had 43k+ views within less than 24 hours. Merging into Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a valid option because the article is already long and can't possibly include the type of biographical information that people come to this article for.
    Another thing, and this is not a personal criticism of @RandomCanadian, but a general observation: We see users overtly or covertly sympathizing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine trying to have information about it removed, or at least made less easily available, by making formalistic arguments for a narrow interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines. E.g., clearly pro-Russian editors even managed to get Attack on Snake Island deleted on the German Wikipedia because it didn't meet the criteria for major military events. We shouldn't let Wikipedia be instrumentalized like that. As of this writing, it is still available in Russia (see Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_Russia), so with major social media having been blocked it remains one of the few sources of information on the war available to Russians. We be shouldn't be undermining this by deleting articles like this. -- Prügelprinz ( talk) 07:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please be very careful before labeling well-established editors as "pro-Russian". I believe in this case this is plainly wrong. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep (for now) We could go from 2 ways from this, keep the article and make a special group for state-sponsored journalists, news reporters, etc. -- whom have protested against the war through mediums provided by state-sponsored corporations (Like Channel One RU). Or make a separate article that could be titled something like "Russian state-sponsored workers who have protested against the 2022 Russo-Ukranian Invasion" and add Marina (and other periodists/journalists) in there. t. Kris Null (they/them) ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep She is really a political prisoner now and should be recognized as such. This not “one event”. What happens to her will cast a long historical shadow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerussell ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Keep please - don't enable dictators to close down heroic journalists like Marina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeScot14 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia will look really stupid if it deletes something like this. Arrecife ( talk) 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note whoever eventually closes this should take a hard look at WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ILIKEIT, just in case they forgot about it (as those two would be accurate descriptions of the vast majority of the above comments). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please keep - this is already a valuable part of history, and is widely covered by international media. Puefiko ( talk) 06:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Notable for her prepared, risky and rare act with impact. And this discussion about deletion is quite notable by itself! Havanafreestone ( talk) 06:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Widely notable, current, plenty of sources to back it up. The huge number of keep comments above also back this up. Wikipedia can be so petty at times trying to delete everything. XANIA - ЗAНИA Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 06:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable both as a television producer – see Geographical bias on Wikipedia (example of WP:BIAS), Category:Television producers by nationality – American television producers‎ (8 C, 1,809 P), British television producers‎ (6 C, 436 P), Russian television producers (nothing, i.e. 0 C, 0 P) – and for a highly notable event during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please remember that this is supposed to be an English-language encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about the English-speaking world. Are US/UK TV producers really 2245 or more times more notable in the world than Russian TV producers? The ratio in Category:Television personalities by nationality is bad too (American television personalities‎ (18 C, 746 P), British television personalities‎ (10 C, 89 P), Russian television personalities‎ (1 C, 55 P), when we take into account that the pages in the subcategories are not counted in these numbers; RU only has 1 category. Boud ( talk) 06:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep The event is absolutely notable (I myself got known about it from The Guardian), see no any reasons for deletion. (Unsigned comment left by User:Audriusa}
  • Keep for now, revisit later Potential WP:NOTNEWS but nobody knows how history will play out. Also, too many editors here are sharing their personal views (obviously all in #solidarity with the Ukraine); true Putin defenders are rare these days, but the #Ukraine sentiments are starting to sound like a cult. Go to Ukraine and pick up a rifle rather than corrupting Wikipedia discussions with shallow slacktivist platitudes. As strong as your sentiments may be for the cause, this is how the encyclopedia slides in quality. Please stay on topic and be objective. My opinion is that there is a use for this article in the short term, but I am unsure about its utility long-term. Perhaps revisit this deletion in 1-3 months. 2600:1012:B01C:839C:60BB:507A:2D52:FDC6 ( talk) 07:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Follow up comment, same IP: There is far more potential for harm with insufficient coverage of a topic than with over-coverage. Having a Wikipedia article is not like having a blue check on Twitter…there is no implicit political “endorsement” with having an article like there is with a Twitter blue check. It’s all about notability. Clearly at the moment it’s notable enough. Every article had to start somewhere. Sometimes articles become non-notable and are deleted; such is life. She may be the next “Tank Person”, or she could show up on TV next week, reformed a la Jack Ma, calling for Zelenskyy to kill himself. Too many people here playing WP:CRYSTAL ball. 2600:1012:B013:2723:E5B8:575:8EA4:669C ( talk) 08:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as for now, it's evident, that her person has a significant coverage, that is enough for a separate article-- Noel baran ( talk) 07:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep The act can't be erase to satisfy Putin's followers. That kind of act is confirmed, has a great symbolic value and is already historical. AB30200 ( talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She will be remembered for her action yesterday, whatever happens in future. Pam D 08:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak procedural keep (for now): Given that between people's strong views on the ongoing war, and adversarial comments aimed at participants in this discussion, there's basically no way we're going to get a sensible discussion of whether the subject of this article is notable. We should close the AfD as either keep or no consensus, wait about a month or two and then have a proper discussion with greater perspective and less fervent passion. WP:THEREISNORUSH—Wikipedia can and often should just go "okay, let's hold off for a bit and see what happens before we make these decisions". — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, her actions are being widely reported in both Russian and foreign press. If a page is made specifically for her action of holding up the sign (thus solving OP's complaint about WP:BIO1E), then I might support having her page redirect there instead. -- Aabicus ( talk) 08:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, highly likely to go down in history as a key moment of the anti-war movement in Russia. Christiaan ( talk) 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, high coverage in media. LaMèreVeille ( talk) 09:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: neither for or against for the time being. The way I see it, the article may be coloured by recentism. I would wait a few days until the media dust settles down on this thing before revisiting whether or not it should be deleted or at least relegated to a subsection in the wider 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. Yekshemesh ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Allegedly УК 207.3, till 15 years. So please wait few days before you cancel her. Xx236 ( talk) 09:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The subject may or may not have been notable when this article was started (that depends on whether any secondary sources were available as well as the many primary news reports) but I'm sure she will be notable by the time the seven-day discussion period is up. Of course people will be writing background secondary sources about her, and have probably already started. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She's only notable for one thing. The policy is to write about the event not the person. Dougal18 ( talk) 10:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at least for now: The event (protest on channel one russia) seems certainly notable (or will turn out to be in the coming days). There could be an argument whether we should have an article about the event than rather than about her, but imho that's ultimately just a policy technicality. Imho the event and she herself are likely to become an iconic symbol similar to the Tank Man. However the article should restrict itself to what is reported in reliable media (even if it is rather limited for now) and stay away from relying on social media for content and sources.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can not say with certainty what the lasting impact or media coverage will be. But a rush to delete simply because something happened recently is in itself engaging in crystal-balling. The global coverage of this significant instance of dissent in Russia points to a potentially larger impact. Ovsyannikova also appears to meet the basic requirements for notability per WP:GNG as having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder ( talk) 10:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Quite obviously! There are many important figures from both sides during this conflict. We should not allow Putin's trolls to erase them from history. Durindaljb ( talk) 11:04, 15 March 2022 (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)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Susanna Tamaro

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only two sources are cited, one of which is primary. A Google search turned up no usable secondary sources. JMB1980 ( talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Several Corriere interviews and one in the Independent found. Article would need a rewrite, but appears notable. I also find a peer-reviewed overview of her body of work (or one aspect of it) here [17] . Oaktree b ( talk) 20:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article seems to be translated from the Italian article which has very few references. This Gale author profile ("Susanna Tamaro." Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors, Gale, 2004. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/H1000129901/LitRC?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=52a812c4. Accessed 15 Mar. 2022.) fills in the biographical info and gives some useful links for reviews, etc. Her books have sold millions although she is not as well known in the English-speaking world as she is in others. I have found reviews in English and Spanish. I'll try to add some references. Lamona ( talk) 16:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I found references for almost all of the awards; I added many ISBNs for her books. There is still a fair amount of biographical data that isn't referenced, but I suspect those will require access to Italian sources (most of which seem to be behind paywalls). I was able to add a few refs in that area. And, BTW, a Google search does indeed turn up some usable sources, like book reviews. And Google Scholar has numerous academic analyses of her work, plus there are two books (undoubtedly boringly academic) written about her by academics. So perhaps more WP:BEFORE was needed, but I'm glad to have had the heads up that the article needs work. Lamona ( talk) 00:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The English article is a mess, but the sources on the Italian version pretty clearly show notability up to the requisite standard. Atchom ( talk) 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep My initial online search found book reviews from Kirkus Reviews (two), The Independent (two), Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor, and two capsule book reviews, as well as a review from Variety for the film based on her award-winning "Italian book most sold in the 20th century". The sources have been added to the article, and WP:AUTHOR notability is well-supported, i.e. #3 The person has created [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and #4 won significant critical attention due to the awards. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    As I begin to review sources on the Wikipedia Library and add them to the article, the volume of support for notability reminds me of another article about an author with Asperger's syndrome recently brought to AfD by this nominator. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, either a very lazy WP:BEFORE or more probably no WP:BEFORE at all. The Italian version of the page lists several dozen RSs. Among other things, she has an entry in Who's who in Contemporary Women's Writing ( Routledge). Cavarrone 15:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep per above and a note that this nominator has made several other AfD noms of similar dubious quality. Montanabw (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as per comments above, and to reiterate concern that the nominator is perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps in good faith, repeatedly nominating neurodiverse authors for deletion. Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:01, 18 March 2022 (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. A little bit per WP:SNOW, but mostly per WP:CSK no. 3 - "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."

In essence, the nomination claims that this rivalry "isn't a true rivalry" (seemingly because this match-up only happens rarely) and that this fails GNG.

A cursory glance shows that the second part is inaccurate, and consequently the first one is either similarly inaccurate or simply personal opinion (and personal opinion is not a deletion rationale). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Giants–Jets rivalry

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

The article is on a non-existent rivalry that has only comprised 14 total games, with only 2 games in the last 10 years. Teams are in opposite conferences, don't play each other regularly and have never met in the postseason. The only thing that connects them is that they play their home games in the same stadium and market.

The article is well written and sourced, but a close examination of the sourcing does not support the existence of a true rivalry, with many of the sources actually questioning whether a rivalry exists. Thus, this "rivalry" fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The teams don't play regularly due to NFL scheduling rules, where AFC and NFC teams only play each other once every 4 years. Similarly, the only opportunity for a playoff game is in the Super Bowl. The fact that these teams do not play regularly does not mean that a rivalry doesn't exist or didn't exist. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep They do play every year, in the preseason. [18] Of course this is a rivalry, plenty of sourcing to support it. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Toa Nidhiki05 and Muboshgu, both of your comments support the "shared history" of the two teams, both in stadiums and markets. But neither support the existence of an actual rivalry, where two teams play each other often, fans share hate of the other team, the teams have played important games against each other, etc. All this is, is two teams who play in the same stadium and market. Most of the really good sources actually question whether a rivalry really exists, with a number of articles highlighting the feelings of players and coaches that there is no real rivalry. Compare this to other well-known rivalries, like the Packers/Bears, and it becomes even more questionable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    fans share hate of the other team Have you talked to many Jets or Giants fans? That's where the rivalry lies, and that's backed up in RS. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • BeanieFan11, the first result on your search is titled Giants-Jets rivalry: a war or a bore from 1980. The article goes on to explain how the players don't view it as a rivalry. The next relevant result is titled For vets, it's an off-on rivalry with a byline of Waiting time cools Giant-Jet rivalry from 1984. Again, an article about how a rivalry doesn't exist. Respectfully, if you aren't going to post relevant clippings from he Newspapers.com search, it really isn't helpful to post a link to search results. It would be like posting a link to a Google search result with millions of hits, 99% aren't going to be relevant. Most of those thousands of results on Newspapers.com aren't about to this topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 12:39, March 14, 2022 (UTC)
I'll add this, this, and this, where it at least notes that the rivalry did once "mean something." Again, I'm keeping this as "weak keep" because I acknowledge you make valid points, but there are sources out there that discuss this as a legitimate rivalry. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)Coaches and players attempting to downplay the rivalry before their preseason game do not mean this is not a rivalry. On the contrary, all the attempts to downplay it suggest just how strong it is with the fans. [19] [20] [21] –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Brendan Fallis

Brendan Fallis (  | 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 “DJ” and entrepreneur who fails to satisfy WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO respectively. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:GNG is not met also. A before search shows hits predominantly in user generated sources which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:09, 14 March 2022 (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. Modussiccandi ( talk) 11:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of places of worship in North Paravur

List of places of worship in North Paravur (  | 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:NOTDIRECTORY. Unsourced yellow page. Such a list can be created for every town, as there are temples in every street. Venkat TL ( talk) 18:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Stock market education

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

Too complicated for PROD. This does not seem to be an encyclopedia article, so much as a how-to guide, and I cannot identify sourcing about stock market education that isn't about the exams since it's such a broad term. I don't think a redirect to the licensing exams makes sense for the reader since it's such a vague term and not particularly mentioned there (and there's nothing worth merging). Thoughts? Star Mississippi 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mount Hadley

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

There is no "Mount Hadley" in the Rockies, according to the USGS's Geographic Names Information System. There is a Hadley Point in Garfield County, Colorado, and it could be what the article creator was thinking of, but the rest is unverifiable. The article refs don't mention Hadley anything. PepperBeast (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I should add, though this one isn't as fun, this could be a case of someone creating a wikipedia article to win an argument, which certainly used to happen a lot more in our earlier years. A famous example is a whole bio we had on Loretta Scott Crew, a fictional inventor of Smores, which made its way into real books. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta Scott Crew (2013).-- Milowent • has spoken 20:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
"Mount Fenimore" only gets around 42 Google hits and there is no indication there is a place with that name however note that original content was for "Mount Fenimore" it was created at Mount hadley and moved to Mount Hadley 5 minutes later by another uses. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:15, 18 March 2022 (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. given the state of NSPORTS, mostly and the lack of clear consensus on what the overarching guideline is. It could have been called nom withdrawn, but valid non keep vote from BilledMammal. I don't forsee consensus emerging after zero input following a relist seven days ago. Star Mississippi 01:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Malika Auger-Aliassime

Malika Auger-Aliassime (  | 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 player no longer meets notability guidelines per WP:NTENNIS and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3. She has only participated in one WTA-level event and has not won any of the lower-level events. She is related to Félix Auger-Aliassime, who is a notable men's tennis player, but I'm not sure that makes her notable in isolation. Bonoahx ( talk) 14:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Fast Lane Ventures

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this company. Wikipedia should not used as an advertisement platform and homepage for businesses. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Denis O'Conor Don

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

I can't see anything here meeting WP:BIO. His descent from a High King doesn't get him there, per WP:BIORELATED, and I don't see that his involvement in the Council of Chieftains assists either. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Ireland, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He did get an obituary in The Irish Times. I’m not sure there’s enough here for him to satisfy notability though. – Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 14:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Obit not withstanding, which is more, at this level, about who you know than what you did, the alarm words are "seen by some" and "defunct title". This is no disrespect to the man, who died in July 2000 after an admirable life and achievements, RIP, but wiki might not be best place for commemoration. Ceoil ( talk) 23:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's probably true that obituaries depend to some degree on "who you know than what you did" but that in and of itself doesn't have a bearing on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. We have plenty of articles about people who did not do anything particular interesting except being very grand, but that doesn't disqualify them from inclusion if notability is established. Atchom ( talk) 18:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I almost voted deleted per nom, but after a search I came up with a very long (half-page, with two pictures) Daily Telegraph obituary (21 July 2000, p. 31) which goes into some detail about his life. Having two full-length obituaries in two major newspapers of two different countries clearly meets the notability criteria. The relevant criteria is whether he has received significant coverage from several secondary sources, not whether we think his life is interesting enough to be included. Atchom ( talk) 18:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nomination While the article is in need of revision, with two obituaries in different jurisdictions, he has reached notability. I had only found one myself, and would agree with Ceoil's assessment that in some cases, getting an obituary can depend on who you know, so that one obituary shouldn't in itself qualify. That said, the article remains in need of considerable revision, as Liz noted. - Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 20:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
[As noted by Ljleppan, I closed this nomination prematurely, not taking Ceoil's vote into account, so I'm reinstating it here. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 11:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I feel a bit iffy every time the WP:NBASIC requirement for "multiple" is reached with exactly two sources, especially given that they are both obituaries. "Weak", as it's a bit borderline in my view, but the length of the obits pushes it to the "keep" side for me. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing does not support an article Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Groww

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

Only funding and acquisition news. The whole content is a promo. Behind the moors ( talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Groww has significant coverage (beyond the funding news) across a wide range of sources. Below is the list that is relevant to this audience.
  • Delete Since the author himself has commented above with a list of sources, I assume those are the best possible ones. Forbes India article is long but since all its content is sourced to statements by involved people (founders, investors) with only one (highly flattering) quote from an analyst, it isn't independent. The rest are routine announcements, not much different from press releases. From a brief look at search hits, unable to find anything more than funding news, interviews or press releases. Hemantha ( talk) 05:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sources are not the best possible ones or the only ones. Let me add more for your reference. Ashok Bhat ( talk) 10:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Ashok2102 Please add links to them for easier access. P.S. Republic TV is a deprecated source and we will not consider it, see WP:REPUBLICTV — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 12:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also @ Ashok2102, please don't edit comments after multiple editors have replied. At the very least, you should add a note that you've edited your comment in such cases. In this specific case, you should have added a new comment. Read WP:TALK#REVISE for the specific guideline. Hemantha ( talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable sources and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, all are either regurgitated announcements and PR or rely entirely on interviews or other information provided by the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the detailed response. However, going by your logic, most the Indian financial wiki pages (and I am sure other company pages) will have to be deleted - Angel Broking, Axis Direct, Dhani, Edelweiss, Finvasia, FundsIndia, Geojit Financial, Groww, HDFC securities, ICICIdirect, India Infoline, Karvy Corporate, Kotak Securities, Kuvera.in, Motilal Oswal, Scripbox, Reliance Securities, Religare, Sharekhan, Zerodha. Most of these companies do not need Wiki page. But I naively assumed that Wikipedia would benefit from information on them (atleast 10 years ago when I started it did!). Things seems to have changed a lot in last 10 years (for worse in my opinion). Anyway, good luck with your delete spree. I am out! Ashok Bhat ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion - certainly no company should "need" a wiki page. I understand you're disappointed with my !vote based on our guidelines but I've tried to provide you with detailed reasoning also. If this company was notable then I'm sure references that meet our criteria would exist - try to find references where an unaffiliated third party has written an analysis/opinion about the company. If you believe that those other companies also fail our criteria for notability and have checked their references, feel free to nominate those that fail your checks for deletion. HighKing ++ 21:10, 21 March 2022 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 19:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Francis Onditi

Francis Onditi (  | 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)

An associate professor. His google scholar profile says he was cited in total 142 times in all his works. Does not have significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 14:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Flag of Mars

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

Similar to Flag of Earth, there is no "Flag of Mars". The proposals are not individually notable; they are sourced primarily to their own promoters. None of them are credible efforts towards being generally accepted. Olchug ( talk) 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- At least the red-blue-green vertical tricolor flag is somewhat notable (though obviously there is not and cannot be a legally "official" Mars flag at this point). I somehow missed the Flag of Earth Afd, but I would have argued that the Earth Day flag (i.e. "Blue marble" astronaut photo on a field of blue) was very highly notable. AnonMoos ( talk) 20:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
AnonMoos, interesting that the request Earth Day flag redirects to the Ecology Flag, and not the flag that you had in mind, i. e. "Blue marble". -- Olchug ( talk) 08:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per above. It may need a little cleanup (as many articles do), but the concept of a Martian flag is a notable one. ~ BappleBusiness [talk] 00:09, 20 March 2022 (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. While there are more "keep" !votes in number, only one gives a detailed reason for notability, and it has been refuted. Ultimately, the debate appears to have died owing to a lack of input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wiki Loves Folklore

Wiki Loves Folklore (  | 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 event, Fails notability. Juggyevil ( talk) 08:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/smagy7/wikipedia_2022_photography_competition_is_open/
  2. https://bhuntr.com/en/competitions/1gm2ueelheezqhprpk
  3. https://wikilovesfolklore.wikidonne.org/
  4. https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2022-02-04/local-news/VCA-launches-cultural-programme-for-first-half-of-2022-6736240373
  5. https://stayhappening.com/e/wiki-loves-folklore-E10IF034VMQ
  6. https://allevents.in/mobile/amp-event.php?event_id=80001324712146
  7. https://wikimedia.ie/programme/wiki-loves-folklore-2022/
  8. https://www.ilmattino.it/AMP/societa/al_via_wiki_loves_folklore_italy_progetto_di_wikidonne_fotografia_scrittura-6478246.html
  9. https://www.vca.gov.mt/en/events/wiki-loves-folklore
  10. https://bhuntr.com/en/competitions/jeaqx7z01687bliu13
  11. https://goallevents.com/e/uslw-feminism-and-folklore-workshop-E800022050607358
  12. https://timebusinessnews.com/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  13. https://americanfolkloresociety.org/call-for-submissions-wiki-loves-folklore-photo-contest/
  14. https://futmax.org/2022/02/13/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  15. https://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/un-nou-llibre-de-gegants-de-jan-grau-i-carles-freixes-al-fes-ta-festa/amp/
  16. https://americanfolkloresociety.org/cfp-wikipedia-writing-contest-on-feminism-and-folklore/
  17. https://festafesta.cat/
  18. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/02/03/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  19. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/02/15/take-a-step-forward-to-bridge-the-gender-gap-by-contributing-to-feminism-and-folklore-2022/
  20. https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/1489969580302872582?t=GnZ-D8amU6-TeBmx6eoTEw&s=19

-- ✝iѵɛɳ२२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 09:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist: more source analysis, in depth in nature, would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:39, 14 March 2022 (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. OSE/uses these sources digression aside, there is consensus tha the sourcing does not support notability for this particular boxer Star Mississippi 01:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Rolly Lambert Fogoum

Rolly Lambert Fogoum (  | 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:NBOX; WBO Africa is a minor regional title and the UBO is a lightly regarded organisation, neither are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment

Reference 1 is a stat site; reference 2 is an interview; reference 3 is a primary source from the WBO; reference 4 is probably the strongest source, but it's routine fight coverage; reference 5 is a passing mention; reference 6 is a primary source from the UBO; and reference 7 is a book listing.

My BEFORE search (in English and French, Worldwide and Cameroon) found these same references along with routine fight coverage and this, which is an interview on a blog so does absolutely nothing for notability. Fails WP:GNG. 2. O. Boxing 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Albert Vexler

Albert Vexler (  | 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:NPROF. Vanity page of a non-notable academic created and edited almost exclusively by WP:SPAs. It has been cleaned up a couple of years ago, but I think showing the previous state is relevant. Tercer ( talk) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As a statistician and biostatistician, I do not find the subject’s contribution to methodology notable. That’s of course my own opinion (based on Google searches, Google scholar etc). But if it were, someone would have created a page on the methodology itself. An article about a person who came up with some non-notable methodology seems to have no useful purpose at all. The main content are items from his academic CV such as which academic journals he is, or was, an associate editor of. Richard Gill ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article is based on a press release. Beyond that, being on an editorial board of a magazine is not a sign of notability, it is a sign that you are an academic in the post-1970 or so academic world pretty much. Editors-in-cief are notable, at least if the journal is seen as impactful, I am not exactly sure if we have a clear idea which journals do and do not qualify (sort of like how I do not think we quite have a handle of which academic instituions being academic head of makes one default notable) but since that was not his position, he clearly does not meet that inclusion guideline. I see no academic inclusion guideline that is met, and even if they were we would want sourcing beyond one press release. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Israel, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as copyvio; this may qualify for G12. Even if it doesn't, there's no academic notability case here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above, and the SPA account. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if the copyvio and promotional wording could be cleaned up, he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows only two publications with over 100 citations; one is a methodology paper, but his is a middle position among multiple authors, and the other (where he is also in a middle position among more authors) appears to be the kind of paper where he was brought in to check over the statistical analysis rather then to do the actual research. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Inspect61 ( talk) 03:48, 17 March 2022 (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 !!!. ✗ plicit 14:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Tyler Pope

Tyler Pope (  | 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)

Although he appears to have performed with numerous musical acts, he doesn't appear to be notable on his own. I wouldn't be against redirecting the article but I'm not sure where to redirect it to. It also doesn't help that the article looks like it was written in about five minutes; not to mention that there are two birth years listed for him. (I didn't notify the article creator because they haven't edited since 2013.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:37, 14 March 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jerusalem Institute of Justice

Jerusalem Institute of Justice (  | 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)

Mainly sourced to own website - doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG Unbh ( talk) 08:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

comment perhaps you could show some of these potential sources, since all I'm finding are passing mentions where the subject is not getting anything like WP:SIGCOV Unbh ( talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I did. gidonb ( talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
You added a single source which is not much more than a recycled press release with a vague reference to further"potential" sources. This is not enough. Unbh ( talk) 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I did not see a press release. Did you? gidonb ( talk) 13:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Genius Inter College, Bistupur

AfDs for this article:
Genius Inter College, Bistupur (  | 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)

According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES the notability guidelines for schools were made stricter in 2017, and this school doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 11:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Carl Erickson (screenwriter)

AfDs for this article:
Carl Erickson (screenwriter) (  | 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 lacks any reliable sources, and as far as I can tell has never had any. My search for information turned up no sources on this person. Wikipedia should not be built on sources like IMDb which we have ruled to be unreliable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

"My search for information turned up no sources on this person". Did you follow Wikipedia procedure and complete a BEFORE search? When I did simply by clicking the links, I found the sources I added to the article. I'm sure I'd get more if I added information like the names of his coworkers (Curtiz, Borzage), wife, employer to a search. So it looks like you didn't complete the BEFORE or you didn't look at the sources that came up--more than I added, but the way, as some were redundant. Either way, this is a dysfunctional approach to AfD. -- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 02:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the excellent expansion work by DiamondRemley39 and another case of Lambert not doing a WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact of the matter is that this article existed for over 10 years sourced to nothing except IMDb. I did a search for sources. The fact that I am being attacked for not finding any, when no other editor bothered to place any on the article for over 10 years seems to be putting the weight too much on people who try and do reasonable actions to improve articles on Wikipedia. We have held that IMDb is unreliable and cannot be used as a source. I did a reasonable search for information and came up with nothing that indicated there was some. The fact of the matter is that this article lacked any reliable source at all when I found it and had existed on Wikipedia for 10 years. That is far longer than we should tolerate articles lacking reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
John, your argument to delete is being countered and your statement you didn't find anything in a search when I found things just by clicking the "find sources" links are what we have addressed. No one has attacked you. In good faith I recommend you strike that particular word and consider replacing it with another in case someone (not me) makes a beef about it later. You started an AfD and you know how AfDs go. Your work will be critiqued. This is the way of things. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw people were able to find additional sources that now show notability. This was not easily evident when found and the article had existed for an excessive amount of time with no reliable sources at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

2016–17 División de Honor

2016–17 División de Honor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A season for a Regional Spanish League (Which does not have its own article! Info on it can be found at Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol in Andalusia#División de Honor) with no SIGCOV. ArsenalGhanaPartey ( talk) 12:50, 14 March 2022 (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. Views are split roughly between keeping outright or merging with divine providence. Since neither requires an administrator action, they can be done after this AfD closes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Will of God

Will of God (  | 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 began as a confused attempt at a disambiguation page, and has since morphed into... something else. Three of the cited sources are Christian self-help books; the only other source, quoted in the Deism section, is more or less irrelevant, except that it happens to use the phrase "will of God" in an unrelated context. I can't find any scholarly works on this general subject. There's much that can be said about more specific concepts like predestination, divine providence, argument from free will, etc, but "the will of God" can't really be discussed in general terms. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hyperbolick:, God's plan (small "p") already exists as a redirect to the article nominated here. I mentioned is not as an alternative title but to note that, if we do merge or redirect this article to Divine providence it will create a double redirect. There is also God's Plan (capital "P") that is a disambiguation page for a bunch of songs and some other theological concepts. That we have both is another argument for redirecting the small "p" article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
May have misread your point. Thought you intended to move this to that title. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was not properly transcluded to the new daily log at the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It is definitely a notable topic, but one with a lot of overlap with other pages. Plenty of work to do, and it may very well be merged elsewhere, but it could well remain as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. Ping User:BD2412 due to his post at Talk:Will_of_God, which people may well like to reply to there. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • That is a ten-year-old post, meaning that I have no recollection of having posted it. That said, I would generally agree that there should be an article at this title. I note that Thomas Aquinas has a chapter on the subject in his Summa Theologica, which is a point from which this can be expanded. I would not be quick to merge or redirect this, I think there is a question of "will" that is distinct from providence. BD2412 T 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      I find your logic is always excellent, and if it was a good idea for a CONCEPTDAB then, then it still is. It's king of an old topic. Ten years is not so long. There are no time limits here.
      I agree, this should not be quickly merged or redirect. At a minimum, it should be a lengthy level 2 section at the target, not just something that sounds similar. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:34, 15 March 2022 (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 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ivi Kreen

Ivi Kreen (  | 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)

probably fails WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:50, 14 March 2022 (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! 02:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of postal codes of Paraguay

List of postal codes of Paraguay (  | 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:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ( [23], [24]). asilvering ( talk) 06:31, 28 February 2022 (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, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. I thought it was already decided to delete this. Anyway, the reason given for deletion is valid. Athel cb ( talk) 13:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Athel cb This one had a declined PROD in 2011, so it had to go through AfD. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Elijah Long

Elijah Long (  | 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)

Like another AFD candidate, Jeff Gum (actor), Long was "Executive Producer" for both Rambo: Last Blood (24 Executive Producers) and Tesla (2020 film) (14 Executive Producers) and the page creator of this article (with 27 edits) has also voiced a Keep vote at the Jeff Gum AFD. I'm sensing both paid editing and some sockpuppetry but the bottom line is that I don't think Long meets WP:FILMMAKER or WP:AUTHOR. And I should probably file an SPI, too. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 14 March 2022 (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. Two relists brought zero input, and it does not appear further input is coming. Star Mississippi 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jenk Oz

Jenk Oz (  | 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:TOOSOON: there is countless refspam arguabley 2/28 refs meet GNG Yogiile ( talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I've turned the article into a short stub. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 14 March 2022 (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 International Velvet (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

International Velvet (song)

International Velvet (song) (  | 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)

Although the song has gained a cult following in Wales, there is not "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", as stated by WP:NSONGS. It has not charted, nor has it won any awards. All the information from the second paragraph can be easily worked into the article for the parent album, but the first paragraph is citing a user-generated lyrics site, so this information is not usable. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 11:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Uncle G: There's nothing wrong the redirect, and I'm supporting turning it back into a redirect. I brought it to AfD because there's some useful information in the article. Am I missing something? ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 12:42, 14 March 2022 (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 Battle of Westerplatte. ✗ plicit 11:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wilhelm Henningsen

Wilhelm Henningsen (  | 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 mentions of Wilhelm Henningsen in reliable sources are just passing references to his command of this company of naval marines in this brief battle. He is not independently notable of this one attack, in which he died. WP:BIO1E applies. The page should redirect to the Battle of Westerplatte article where his exploits are amply explained. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Peeter Laud

Peeter Laud (  | 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)

Probably fails WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 ( talk) 10:33, 14 March 2022 (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. North America 1000 10:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Eddie López (boxer)

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

Not notable boxer/actor. Fails WP:NBOX. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:29, 14 March 2022 (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 a merger target is created, happy to restore the history for merging. At the present time, there is none as an ATD Star Mississippi 01:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Yevhen Malyshev

Yevhen Malyshev (  | 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 soldier/athlete only notable for his death ( WP:BIO1E). Doesn't pass WP:NSPORT either. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:20, 14 March 2022 (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 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. consensus is this does not (yet) merit a standalone. Should that change once the war is not a current event, it can be spun back out. Star Mississippi 01:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Net voyne!

Net voyne! (  | 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 to the war” seems about as original as “ Fuck Joe Biden”. Not every wartime slogan automatically becomes the next “ we shall fight on the beaches” or “ day that will live in infamy”. Feels very much WP:TOOSOON, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS Dronebogus ( talk) 07:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:OR has nothing to do with notability of topics, if anything at all it has to do with noteworthyness of some article contents, which, however, is subject to our normal article improvement process on article talk pages, not the topic of article deletion discussions.
WP:NOTNEWS #1 (Primary sources), #3 (Who's who) and #4 (Celebrity gossip and diary) do not apply as well. Many secondary sources are available even on an international level.
The only item that could potentially apply is #2 (News reports) which is about the question of enduring notability. However, the topic is not about announcements or breaking news, so it is not among topics we rule out in general. Given that the main event (Russia's invasion of Ukraine) is of extraordinary importance globally and any emerging protests in Russia are in the interest and focus of an international audience, and it has already been picked up as a theme by authors and artists, I think that enduring notability is given. This is the type of themes historians will continue to discuss and analyze in publications for long. White Rose, Edelweiss Pirates or Leipzig Meuten come to my mind, movements which are still a subject of historical research about 8 decades later - I consider any protest movements in Russia to be of similar enduring notability.
WP:GOOGLE is only a how-to page, neither policy nor guideline. It discusses how to perform "google searches" and how to interpret the results. This works both ways, we can use it to find information and to get a rough idea of usage statistics of certain terms, but we should be careful not to over-interpret those numbers. This is what experienced WP editors do anyway, so it brings nothing to the table which would be relevant to this discussion.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think it was a particularly good idea to start a separate merge discussion in the middle of an AfD discussion.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the slogan has already "taken off" enough to be discussed as a semantically distinguishable subtopic - besides the primary sources we already have many secondary sources meeting WP:RS on international level indicating notability for a stand-alone article.
Also, we must consider that the size of the potential merge target article is already at 156 KB right now. At this size we usually start to think about splitting out identifiable sub-topics into separate articles rather than merging even more into them.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:54, 18 March 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of incinerators in the United Kingdom

List of incinerators in the United Kingdom (  | 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:NOTDIRECTORY of mostly non-notable facilities, no evidence of WP:LISTN, and only list of its kind. Navigation is already provided by Category:Incinerators and Category:Waste power stations in the United Kingdom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Future ship project 21

Future ship project 21 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced sub-draft quality stub, barely improved since 2012. Dronebogus ( talk) 05:16, 14 March 2022 (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. The "keep" opinions that consider that officers of a certain rank or position are automatically notable have no basis in policy and must be dismissed. But even without them there's rough consensus that a combination of high rank, the decorations to go with it, and coverage in the sources provided by Atchom among others are sufficient for notability in this case. Sandstein 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Cyril Samuel Townsend

Cyril Samuel Townsend (  | 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)

Naval officer, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Retired admirals are not inherently notable. Was a captain of the HMS Constance (1915) at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (he gets a passing mention in this book [27]). Highest rank while in service, according to the "Dreadnought project wiki" (which bases itself on a primary source), seems to have been rear-admiral. He was promoted vice-admiral the day before he was put on the Retired List in 1929, and promoted to admiral while on the Retired List in 1933. Who's Who was unanimously classified as a generally unreliable source in a 2022 RfC, and the Dreadnought Project is a user-generated source. The other sources are all primary and searches for Cyril Samuel Townsend do not return anything close to an independent, reliable, secondary source with significant coverage. Therefore, none of the sources can count towards passing WP:BASIC. Seems to have received an obituary in the Daily Telegraph (to which I don't have access), but so do most civil servants and military officers. Pilaz ( talk) 05:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I am the creator of the page and feel the need to give some background. I ran afoul of Pilaz during an AfD discussion and I guess this is his way of getting back at me, even though I specifically requested he abide by WP:CONRED which he hasn't. Be that as it may...
I think the article as it currently stands speaks for itself, but in case it doesn't, I submit this article clearly meets WP:BASIC (there are literally hundreds of articles about him in the standard newspaper databases, some of which is cited in the article. As a Companion of the Order of the Bath he also meets the additional criterion of WP:ANYBIO. He wasn't a run-of-the-mill officer: he was highly decorated for his part in two of the Royal Navy's most important engagements during WWI, and he was the head of a naval mission which was dismissed in highly publicized circumstances. In 1925, a national UK newspaper could write the following about him: "A well-known gunnery expert, he first came prominently before the public at the end of 1906..." (Daily News, 1 April 1925)
As a matter of fact, Pilaz admitted as much when he said "Seems to have received an obituary in the Daily Telegraph (to which I don't have access)" - anyone with an obituary in one of the UK's national newspapers can be presumed to be notable, absent compelling circumstances (although I appreciate his frankness in admitting he didn't actually read it). His claim that "most civil servants and military officers" get an obituary in a national newspaper of record is obviously wrong on even a second's reflection.
Two final points for the record: The Dreadnought Project is not an open-edit Wiki but is regularly used by reputable scholars in the secondary literature. There was a recent request for comment which ended somewhat inconclusively, but I am happy to revisit the issue in an appropriate forum. As to the UK version of Who's Who, on another AfD discussion several commentators expressed some incredulity that a badly advertised and very recent RfC, initiated by Pilaz himself, upturned years of consensus around that particular source, which is part of the Wikipedia Library. I fully intend to reopen the issue at some later time in a community discussion, but for out present purposes it suffices to say that this article stands even without either of those sources. Atchom ( talk) 06:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Several points and questions:
  1. You claim that I did not do WP:BEFORE, despite providing my personal evaluation of sources found in Google Books (since newspaper sources are lacking given that the subject died in 1949). On what grounds?
  2. You claim that this is for "getting back at you", but as it turns out, I found this article by using insource:ukwhoswho.com, as I am trying to implement the unanimous consensus found at RSN regarding Who's Who. Your claims that I am WP:HOUNDING you are not made in good faith, especially since you are probably aware that you've been creating permanent microstubs with two citations, one of which is always to Who's Who, for a very long time now. If you start a search using the search parameter above, and sort by creation date, 4 out of the last 20 pages created are yours: Laurence Eliot Power, Francis Murray Austin, Herbert Arthur Buchanan-Wollaston, and Marshal Llewelyn Clarke. Your Wikipedia stubs do not have immunity from community scrutiny.
  3. "Several commentators at another AfD expressed some incredulity" is just you and another editor, which you conveniently omit to mention ( link to the AfD in question, probably worth not omitting either).
  4. Content on Dreadnought Project is user-generated and is therefore not acceptable to demonstrate notability. It also doesn't link to secondary sources, but to primary sources.
  5. Do the articles you've linked to provide WP:SIGCOV? Since you seem to have access to them, could you copy the relevant passages to this discussion? Pilaz ( talk) 07:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Vice Admiral is the highest rank a Greek navy officer can normally achieve until the present day, unless becoming CHOD or being a royal prince, and was a very rare achievement in the past. Even the chiefs of the naval general staff during Townsend's tenure had lower ranks, being captains or rear admirals ( [28]). This was deliberate practice, so that the head of the naval mission be hierarchically superior to all Greek officers and face no obstacles on that account. So during his service in Greece, he was the hierarchically senior Greek navy officer, de facto equivalent to the chief of the service. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
He was not vice-admiral but rear-admiral while in Greece (1925-1926; he became vice-admiral in 1929). He was at any rate outranked by "admiral" (in reality vice-admiral) Miaoulis, who was also the Minister of Marine of Greece. The British mission was composed of only 7 officers, and Townsend never held a prominent role, since his assignment was to set up the Staff College of the Navy, which was shut down a year later. [29] At any rate, it doesn't matter because we don't have a subject-specific notability guideline for soldiers, but we do have the GNG. So let's try to focus on that instead. Pilaz ( talk) 10:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Sigh, yes, please lecture me on the history of my country... Miaoulis died in 1835 (!). The Minister of Naval Affairs under Pangalos was first Alexandros Hatzikyriakos, who was a retired rear admiral. His successor, Botasis, was mostly a diplomat, having served in embassies as naval attache. And the Ministry did not hold command over the fleet, it mostly handled personnel matters, funding, etc. And oh, look! The school Townsend helped establish still exists (under different name of course)! Which of course, as you say, is neither here nor there concerning notability, but just for the sake of setting the record straight... As for notability, if any national-level MP or ambassador is notable, then any head of a national navy or foreign person who has held equivalent position is also notable. He definitely appears to have been in the news enough... Constantine ✍ 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
My apologies, Cplakidas, I was careless and linked to the wrong Miaoulis: I meant to link to Athanasios N. Miaoulis, not Andreas Miaoulis. Athanasios Miaoulis is described as Admiral here, serving from November 1924 to June 1925 ( source). Regardless, it is incorrect to state that Townsend was the de facto co-head of the Greek Navy (no source makes this assertion). And do not worry, ambassadors aren't inherently notable, nor are any head of a national navy or foreign person who has held equivalent position. Members of national legislatures only benefit from WP:NPOL, since WP:SOLDIER and WP:DIPLOMAT have been removed. All must strive to meet the WP:GNG to be considered notable. Pilaz ( talk) 07:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Atchom: as you seem to be knowledgeable regarding the topic, could you give a brief description of the WP:SIGCOV status, perhaps along the lines of WP:THREE?- Ljleppan ( talk) 08:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi! Of course:
    1) Fotakis, Zisis (2010). "Greek Naval Policy and Strategy, 1923-1932". Has several pages' discussion about Townsend and his naval mission to Greece (normal run-of-the-mill military missions are not necessarily noteworthy, but there is a fair bit about this particular mission in contemporary sources; the dismissal of the mission was reported fully in several UK newspapers in some detail; the Times ran several full articles about it.)
    2) "Obituary". The Daily Telegraph. 5 April 1949. p. 3.. On the short side (paper being rationed in the UK the time) but the longest obituary the Telegraph printed that day. It also mentions two episodes - his reorganisation of the Plymouth barracks after a highly-publicized disciplinary incident and his chairmanship of a famous court-martial against Capt Dewar of the Royal Oak. I will incorporate those in the article when I get around it - both episodes received a lot of coverage at the time.
    3) "English Admiral for Greece". Daily News. 1 April 1925. p. 8. Not all admirals are notable, but this article shows he had an unusually high public profile for an officer of his rank: "A well-known gunnery expert, he first came prominently before the public at the end of 1906..." (the 1906 incident is the reorganisation of the Plymouth barracks, referred to above.) Even his departure from the barracks was thought to be important enough to merit an article in one of the national newspapers at the time, so not a routine appointment/change of guard news item. Atchom ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, I found a pdf of #1 and will check it out. Is there a place to read #2 and #3 online? - Ljleppan ( talk) 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    They are available on subscription databases (Gale for The Times and British Newspapers Online for the Daily News). Not sure how to share them given copyright concerns... But both give accounts of his career and focus on different aspects of it, which to me is a strong indicator of WP:SIGCOV. Atchom ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Atchom: You posted a few snippets below, thanks for that. I get the copyright concern, and won't push for a full copy, but could you give a brief description of how long those newspaper stories are (e.g. a word count) and how prevalent the subject is in them (e.g. "discusses him as part of a naval mission, with approx. 50% of the prose talking about the subject specifically")? I expect for the obituary the latter answer is naturally "it's all about the subject", but for the other story it's not completely obvious. The reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to figure out to what degree these sources are talking about the article subject as a person, and to what degree about the naval mission he lead. I appreciate that the distinction is somewhat nuanced, so thanks for bearing with me here :) - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Atchom, could you kindly share a complete quotation about Townsend as found in #2 and #3? You can add them as quotes to the article, if you prefer. Because I find #2 and #3 to be extremely lacking, and #1 barely says anything about Townsend. It talks more about the British naval mission to Greece, which it refers to as the "Townsend mission". Pilaz ( talk) 07:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    For #2. English Admiral for Greece" from Daily News (1 April 1925, p.8) reads: "It is expected that Rear-Admiral Cyril S. Townsend, who has been chosen as head of the British Naval Mission to Greece, will have the rank of Vice-Admiral in the Greek Navy. A well-known gunnery expert, he first came prominently before the public at the end of 1906, when he was appointed to the Royal Naval Barracks at Portsmouth as commander for special service, to reorganise the disciplinary system in the gunnery department. This was in consequence of the famous "on the knee" episode, which created a sensation at the time." Pilaz ( talk) 08:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Since you've gone ahead and copy pasted the whole text, this whole article is about Townsend. It talks about several aspects of his career, and describes some of his claims to public fame. How is this "extremely lacking"?
    As to your characterization of the other source, Townsend's activities are discussed in some details over two pages; "Townsend mission" appears only twice, the second time in a section discussing another naval mission. This is simply a dishonest characterization. Atchom ( talk) 15:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Some quotes:
    "the Greek Minister of Marine confided to Rear Admiral Townsend";
    "Anticipating further Greek naval tenders, Cheetham discussed with Townsend"
    "But before these were made Pagalos intimated to Townsend"
    "Townsend protested energetically against this and had interviews with the President of the Republic"
    "Coundouriotis appeared greatly upset and begged Townsend to remain on" Atchom ( talk) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. An unexceptional career, most of the sources are promotion and posting notices which don't count towards notability. His short stint as an advisor in Greece doesn't make him notable either. If he actually did anything noteworthy there'd be at least a few paragraphs in a few books, the fact that there aren't means he isn't notable. Just being an Admiral doesn't make someone notable. Mztourist ( talk) 08:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, a fairly high-level and interesting career. The who's-who stuff is a complete red herring. The major reason why who's-who has been declared unreliable is because in recent times it has been publishing autobiographical self-promotion. Townsend died in 1949; I think it unlikely that he's been adding autobiography to his who's-who article in recent years. Elemimele ( talk) 11:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Companion of the Order of the Bath, which has easily been held in the past to meet WP:ANYBIO #1 ( see here. And an obit in a major national newspaper has also always been held to make someone notable. Oh, and editors need to read the definition of " Generally unreliable sources". It does not mean they cannot be used: The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions... Too many suggestions recently that Who's Who should never be used. This is not the case and appears to be being used as a reason to delete articles for no good reason. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Being only the 4th-most senior order, and with over 2000 members, it's not quite obvious to me that this passes WP:ANYBIO#1. Do you have examples of AfDs/discussions where this was established as consensus? - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Absolutely. User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above. Almost complete consensus. And he had the CMG too, also considered to meet ANYBIO. The CBE and above always has. And I'm afraid an understanding of the British honours system is preferable: the fact it's the fourth most senior order is totally irrelevant. The higher orders are very rare indeed (it's the level of the award that's important in any case). And the Order of the Bath most certainly does not have over 2,000 members at the same time. Only a handful of people are appointed to it every year. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, this new reply function is a bit annoying since there's no warning that the message being responded to has changed during the drafting of the response. I see quite a few of those have resulted in a deletion, so this appears to not be quite a categorical. As was my assumption based on WP:ANYBIO anyway (...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included). So the imperative question seems to be whether this is a case of WP:BIOSPECIAL or not. I'll wait for a response to my query regarding WP:SIGCOV before !voting on that front. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    There have been several articles discussions that resulted in deletion or no consensus because editors believed that CB was not sufficient to demonstrate notability, especially given the fact that thousands were awarded to the members of the armed forces in the wake of WW1. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Dorling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Arbuthnot (cavalry officer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Thomas Arbuthnot (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Dorling. There is no Wikipedia-wide consensus on what constitutes a significant award under WP:ANYBIO #1, so relying on precedent isn't really ideal either. And according to your own list, it is incorrect to say that CMG "always has" guaranteed notability - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot (British army officer) was deleted despite the CMG. And if you look at the list of people who received the lowest rank of his order in June 1918, that is the CMG, you can tell he was still only captain and that 300 other people not necessarily notable people did receive the same award. I suspect that in 1918 alone, you around 1,000 people getting the award between the Birthday Honours and the 1918 New Year Honours (700+ CMGs in 1918). Pilaz ( talk) 07:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    This AfD is from 2007; things might have moved on since then? Atchom ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Only five people with CBEs or higher have ever been deleted at AfD. Three of them were 15 years ago, before much consensus was established on Wikipedia! Claiming there is no consensus or that "quite a few of those have resulted in a deletion" is frankly laughable. It's a perfect example of claiming something is true because you want it to be rather than because it is. Although I can never quite understand why any editor would want it to be true in the first place! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I also find it somewhat bizarre that anyone would believe that someone considered notable enough by the British government to receive such a high award should not be by default considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia that has articles on, for instance, many people "notable" just for posting puerile rubbish and uninformed opinions on social media. True notability is not determined by the size of your internet following, but by what you have contributed to society. In the real world, that is... -- Necrothesp ( talk) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Necrothesp: Calling my good-faith attempts engage in discussion "frankly laughable" is not conductive for discussion and is in fact quite hurtful, I ask you to consider striking such statements. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      No personal offence was intended, but it is quite clear that five, three of them years ago, does not in any way constitute "quite a few". Clear consensus is being derided all too often at AfD by editors who seem to want to delete as many articles as possible. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      Frankly, I'm still not seeing how there's a way to interpret what you said without it sounding like a rather un- WP:CIVIL personal attack. I'm repeating my request for you to strike that part. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      Maybe you'd like to strike your clearly inaccurate comment then? But in any case, it was hardly a personal attack. It was an expression of amazement that any editor could interpret a tiny handful as "quite a few". As I said, there have been too many examples recently of deletionist editors deliberately misrepresenting clear consensus to support their own agenda. I apologise if you are not one of them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      It seems that this conversation is not going to be conductive and so I'll just disengage on my part. - Ljleppan ( talk) 18:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to be plenty of coverage of him in the British Newspaper Archive. Also a few other things not mentioned above. He was involved in the rescue effort at the Messina Earthquake for which he was awarded the Insignia of Commander of the Order of the Crown of Italy by the King of Italy. Recommended for Commendation for service at the Battle of Jutland, Mentioned in Dispatches at Gallipoli, he also presided over the Court Martial hearing of Vice-Admiral Kenneth Dewar, for Dewar's involvement in the Royal Oak Mutiny which was widely reported around the world eg Royal Oak Enquiry Piecesofuk ( talk) 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I find this a rather frustrating case. There are several references that are unambiguously about the article subject as a person. However, those newspaper articles that I have access to (i.e. The Times pieces) are rather short and/or passing mentions, and users with access to the paywalled texts are not forthcoming with details about their depth. Furthermore, I find it difficult to separate the article subject from the naval mission they lead in evaluating to what degree the most important non-newspaper sources support notability. Simply put, based on the evidence available to me, I'm unable to make a well-reasoned determination regarding whether the significant coverage aspect of WP:NPEOPLE is fulfilled. Others put out an argument based on WP:ANYBIO#1, but I find this unconvincing. First, in relation to military awards and honors, there was not even community consensus for the now-deprecated WP:SOLDIER which took the stance that the highest national award would give a presumption of notability. Second, ANYBIO is an additional criteria, and "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". If Atchom (or anyone else with access to them) can describe the paywalled news articles (most notably the obituary and the Daily News piece) in a way that allows me to determine they fulfill the "significant coverage" requirement in relation to the article subject as a person I'll happily !vote for a keep. - Ljleppan ( talk) 18:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Senior naval figure with plenty of coverage in the newspaper archive. Dormskirk ( talk) 09:27, 21 March 2022 (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) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ducks on the Wall

Ducks on the Wall (  | 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 criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. - Liance talk/ contribs 02:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I found one more book now from before 1998 and added information from it, although I only have limited access to it. Rlendog ( talk) 13:09, 17 March 2022 (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 Soap Opera (album). Stifle ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Holiday Romance

Holiday Romance (  | 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 criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. - Liance talk/ contribs 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Soap Opera (album). Clearly fails WP:NSONG. While Rlendog has done an excellent job sourcing the article, the song still does not pass NSONG. First, the song does not meet any of the three specific criteria given at NSONG. It did not rank on any music charts, win any significant awards, and it has not been covered by multiple artists. Additionally, because the sources added by Rlendog are mainly about the broader album, Soap Opera, they can not be considered significant coverage of the song per this text as written in NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." As such, keep is not an option under policy and merge is the best solution. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per 4meter4; none of the three listed criteria at WP:NSONG are met, it's pretty clear on that. The sourcing is indeed excellent, but it can be excellent over on the Soap Opera page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddude14 ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Duncan Scott (field hockey)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage in reliable third-party sources to meet notability requirements. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Saudi Elderly Support Organization (WAQAR)

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The sources are self-source, Saudi government sources or to propaganda outlets for the Saudi regime (such as Arab News). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:17, 14 March 2022 (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. Despite the long discussion it seems that nobody is actively in favor of keeping this. Sandstein 14:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wild Cat Branch

Wild Cat Branch (  | 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)

Complete failure of WP:V. Not mentioned in the GNIS under any name. The archived source, [30], states that it bottoms out in "Judah Creek", which also doesn't exist on GNIS. Checking GNIS topo maps in the townships named in that source shows two streams with completely different names. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete search with my preferred search engine and Google Books turned up no RS results. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:GEOLAND without substantial RS coverage. Even WP:V is a stretch. The state historical society cites a master's thesis for where the stream is and how it got its name. I couldn't find anything else in independent searches. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Judah Creek you mean? ☺ Ramsay has that located in Saling Township in Audrain and Union Township in Monroe, based upon Leech 1933. Leech in turn sources Wild Cat Branch to William Vivion, deputy county recorder. It is definitely verifiable as a name. Per Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data/Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection#Problems the sourcing to the deputy county recorder's personal testimony indicates that it probably was named that, at least locally, even if the local name from a deputy county recorder in the 1930s cannot be found in a database transcribed (from federal maps) in the 1970s and 1980s. It's not uncommon for branches to have different names over time, or to have local names different from federal ones.

    The reason that you won't find it in the GNIS now, as opposed to even a few years ago, is that now the WWW site only uses the non-historic topical subset. Ramsay stuff went in in GNIS phase 2, and sometimes went in as "(historic)".

    Ramsay and the theses deal with toponymy. Whether the named something has substantial historical documentation is a rather different matter, and especially difficult to determine if the name is a "(historic)" one. Judah Creek is a branch of Allen Creek which is a branch of Elk Fork Salt River, the latter two of which are names that you will find on federal maps. Allen Creek is now known as either Reese Fork Allen Creek or plain Reese Fork. But which exact tributary is "Judah Creek", let alone which tributary of that is "Wild Cat Creek", is unclear, especially as my go-to source of information on "(historic)" records on the WWW has decided to let its SSL certificate expire two days ago.

    Uncle G ( talk) 04:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

    • I mean, you wikilink Judah Creek like that's definitive, but it's got the exact same sources as this article does, so it hardly proves anything except that we have two articles with the same issues. If we can't know from the sources "which exact tributary" the historical names Judah or Wild Cat refer to, isn't that a clear verifiability problem? And even if you accept that names are verifiable (I don't), they still fail WP:GEOLAND on account of lacking coverage. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Takaful Charity Foundation

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The only sources in the article is the organization itself and 'Arab News', which is a propaganda outlet for the Saudi government. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ronald Villalta

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 ( talk) 00:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_14&oldid=1078758042"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing isn't there to merit a standalone article. If someone wants to work on this in draft, happy to provide, but if it's going to molder we'll delete now vs. in six months. Star Mississippi 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Rodney Charman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Nothing in the article or elsewhere online can be found to contribute towards notability. Edwardx ( talk) 23:24, 14 March 2022 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jennifer B. Kahnweiler

Jennifer B. Kahnweiler (  | 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 seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Appears rather promotional. Edwardx ( talk) 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is relatively clear. Star Mississippi 01:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Athar Aamir Khan

AfDs for this article:
Athar Aamir Khan (  | 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)

Single event notability. No page for other peer-level District Magistrates, or 1st, or 2nd rankers. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi User4edits ( talk) 21:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this but this article was subject of a previous AFD just 6 months ago that involved a Deletion Review so more editor input is sought here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You don't have to vote once more; as nom, yours is already counted. Hemantha ( talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Rashid, Omar (11 May 2016). "Athar Khan of Kashmir secures second place". The Hindu.
  2. ^ Dhawan, Himanshi. "Athar Aamir Khan loses UPSC rank one to Tina Dabi, wins her heart". The Economic Times.
  3. ^ Jameel, Yusuf (10 April 2018). "IAS topper Tina Dabi and runner-up Athar Khan tie knot in Pahalgam". Deccan Chronicle.
  4. ^ "Tina Dabi And Athar Aamir Khan, IAS Topper Couple, Divorced". NDTV.com.
  5. ^ Mir, Ehasn (11 May 2016). "UPSC success story: From militancy-hit Valley, India gets an inspiration". The Indian Express.
Hemantha ( talk) 11:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is difficult. In theory, the sources are reliable, in depth and plenty of them written by staff writers. My worry is with the reasons of coverage. Every year, UPSC will have top 1,2 and 3. I think he has got more coverage because there is a Kashmir angle. Further to that, I feel, a lot of these are announcements of his appointments. I am finding it difficult to spot coverage that discusses his work in a way that it would distinguish him from his peer IAS officers. Divorce related news has no merit. I don't even know why they are following and talking about his divorce. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 15:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree:
    • For UPSC rank, his preceding ranker (AIR 1) in the same year (Ms. Tina Dabi's) article has been deleted, as here.
    • For marriage, his wife and better UPSC rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
    • For divorce, the other party to the divorce, also the party to the marraige, and better rank holder, Ms. Tina Dabi's article has been deleted, as here.
    As for references supplied, however reliable sources they might be, they appear each year in same volumes for each topper of almost all major national exams. Thanks, User4edits ( talk) 20:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sourcing here is impeccable and hasn't been questioned yet. Whatever the underlying reasons (a "marketing" angle isn't readily evident), the coverage is indeed significant enough. Tina Dabi's article was deleted in 2016/17 when a couple of these newer articles hadn't appeared. The articles that appear in same volumes in each year, are clearly about different persons with obviously different details - that's like arguing a film is reviewed in review section every day, so all of them should be ignored. Hemantha ( talk) 03:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We have to be very careful using media sources from India because the standards of journalist integrity are not the same as in the West. The sources provided above by Hemantha are unreliable as these publications often take money from the subjects themselves to induce them to write the articles. They therefore lack independence even though they have bylined authors. Further, even if this was not the case its clear that these sources have quality issues per WP:TABLOID. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you have anything more than your own claim that WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP take money from subjects, I invite you to add it to Paid_news_in_India and raise it in WP:RSN so that their green "generally reliable" entries in WP:RSP may be downgraded. Hemantha ( talk) 03:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I may do that. Even if they are independent though, the style of journalism is akin to tabloid style press in the United States which is not significant for establishing notability. We need better quality sources than these. WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
NOTNEWS focuses on events and about what kind of details are covered in an article. It has nothing to say about determining notability. In other words, it is a policy about what to include in an article once it is decided that an article should exist. The determination of whether an article should exist is being made here and for that WP:GNG (and other notability guidelines) apply.
My claim is not that the article should be written based only on the links above; my claim is that given the above references, the subject is notable per WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't in anyway refute that argument. The purpose of AfD is not to exhaustively list all possible references on which the article can be written; it's only to bring forth evidence of notability per GNG or other SNG. Hemantha ( talk) 10:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
You are missing my point. Tabloid press like this is trivial coverage (as confirmed by NOTNEWS); thereby failing the "significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed. WP:BLP1E is also an issue here. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Philip Powell (pastor)

Philip Powell (pastor) (  | 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:BIO. No significant coverage. also WP:NOTRESUME applies. Most of the sources (including the dead links) are primary. LibStar ( talk) 22:43, 14 March 2022 (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. A lot of the comments are brief, and while AfD is not a vote, the amount of detailed policy reasons to both keep and delete the article about cancel each other out. A discussion about renaming can occur outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (  | 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 appears to be an entirely non-notable meta article that could be easily incorporated into the article about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. So I propose merging the text into that article and deleting this one, unless general notability can be established. Grnrchst ( talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I cannot force you to be kind, but I will ask you to be fair: I did not advocate for what you say this leads to and I think you are at risk of escalating my point into a Straw man argument. I would say my point applies to the three articles that start "Wikipedia coverage of..." without expanding it to the extent you've suggested. I recognize I made a bold argument, I recognize my logic could be flawed, and if that is how you see it, I invite you to refute the key point of what I have made, instead of escalating it into a larger, different point and refuting that. CT55555 ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The word impossible is an absolute quantifier that, as stated, applies to all members of Category:Wikipedia. On the other hand nonsensical seems like a personal attack. We can disagree with arguments while respecting that they are stated in good faith. Now that we've had clarification: there is obviously a fundamentally difficult COI in having Wikipedians decide whether an article about Wikipedia is notable. A pattern on how to handle these cases may emerge from practice (such as this case), in which each case has different characteristics. An uninvolved ... Wikipedian will have to close this discussion sooner or later and help build up the pattern of which of these articles are acceptable and which aren't. Boud ( talk) 20:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there is simply not enough information available on the topic to make an article out of. The sources above all say nearly the same things, so this information is much better served in the articles on Wikipedia censorship, Wikipedia itself or something along these lines. Aza24 ( talk)
  • Keep While the article does not have much contents at present, the topic "as is" is notable and has the potential to be grown into a full-blown article eventually. I see various directions how it could be expanded including discussions of (third-party) analyses how the Wikipedia communities in the various language entities reacted to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a huge self-organizing structure, about attempts to undermine our neutral coverage through vandalism and how we deal with this, about censorship and blocking attempts in the Russian and Belarussian Wikipedias (and related threats in real life), and about how (Russian) users utilize Wikipedia to get a clearer picture.
Since Wikipedia is an important part of the net culture and society, not only our contents but also our behaviour as a community is under the scrutiny of the outside world. Therefore, reputable, independent, diverse and reliable sources discussing this meta topic are already available for most of the themes mentioned above (it might be a bit too early for deep scientific analyses). More will show up as events develop. Hence I see WP:GNG to be passed.
For now, I would keep the article title as it is, but depending on how the article would develop, it could be renamed to a (then) more suitable title at a later stage.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 23:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was keep. There is no reasonable prospect at this point that a consensus will develop to delete this article. BD2412 T 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Daddy, We Hardly Knew You

Daddy, We Hardly Knew You (  | 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 book's sources include two descriptions of the book that have no named author (because both were likely written by its publicist or some other non-independent person) and another to a primary source that mentions how the book was mentioned once in a Simpson's episode (there is no discussion of the book there at all). This article needs to show evidence of the book being the subject of discussion in multiple verifiable reliable and (most important) WP:INDEPENDENT sources that discuss the subject (the book) non-trivially (which I did not find). A loose necktie ( talk) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Question: do these reviews count as more than W:ROUTINE coverage of the subject? Or are they the kind of coverage that any book of this type is likely to receive? Are there any guidelines on this? A loose necktie ( talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure how WP:ROUTINE is applied to articles related to art--it's not similar to routine coverage about candidates for minor political offices. I suppose, in the book sense, that routine coverage would be "just" Kirkus or Publishers Weekly or Library Journal reviews... Caro7200 ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I would usually consider it “routine” for a book to be listed under “books received” at an academic journal or “books published” in a trade mag like PW, the kinds of things which basically just say “this exists”. You’d be surprised how often books don’t even get Kirkus and Booklist reviews. So I consider Kirkus, PW, and Booklist reviews non-routine/non-trivial, though they’re not always thrilling as evidence of notability, so I like to see all three and maybe a starred review at one of them to feel confident in a book’s notability. There is nothing remotely routine about getting reviewed in the New York Times. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

David Pearson (computer scientist)

David Pearson (computer scientist) (  | 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)

Seems to be a vanity article produced by the subject. The sources may not support the statements being made, or fail to report on the subject with more than a passing mention. An IP claiming to be the subject (24.207.103.36) has asked that it be deleted. signed, Willondon ( talk) 21:40, 14 March 2022 (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 Boomerang (TV network)#Spain. The history remains under the redirect. @ Samueldester1234: if you'd like it to work on in draft space before taking it through AfC, just met me know. Star Mississippi 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Boomerang (Spanish TV channel)

Boomerang (Spanish TV channel) (  | 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 doesn't appear to be independently notable of Boomerang (TV network). This article appears to be about a channel for Spain (see the only ref), rather than a more general Spanish-language channel. As such, I propose that this be redirected to Boomerang (TV network)#Spain, where the channel can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Is the discussion ended? Because if it is, I’m gonna remove the template from the wiki page. Samueldester1234 — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Generally, these things have to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor/admin. Posting a request at WP:RFCLOSE might be worthwhile if you feel that there is particular urgency for this discussion to be closed. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 01:41, 21 March 2022 (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) 14:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The Fashion Enthusiast

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

This is an unsourced article, the infobox website of which directs us to a tumblr-based fashion blog. A version of this page has previously been draftified, though the creator of this page simply decided to re-create the page in the mainspace instead of working on the draft. Part of me thinks that this is a hoax, since the linked tumblr blog has not posted since 2017 despite the photograph in the infobox (labeled as "own work" and uploaded by the article creator) being dated "March 24, 2022".(update: an IP changed the infobox URL and it appears to be pointing at the website depicted by the image) In any case, the website appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, so I propose that it be deleted. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)(updated: 13:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)) reply

Fair enough. Delete fails NWEB.- KH-1 ( talk) 00:10, 16 March 2022 (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. Proposed improvements can be made to the existing draft. I note that despite the assertion that the article is under construction, no additional improvements of substance have been made in the period of this deletion discussion. BD2412 T 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Summertime Saga

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

Fails WP:GNG; cannot find much of reliable sourcing to warrant an article. The corresponding draft at Draft:Summertime Saga has already been denied as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." –  Pbrks ( t •  c) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If it isn’t notable at this point it would make more sense to delete the article until there is enough coverage.-- 65.93.195.118 ( talk) 03:37, 22 March 2022 (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. Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 11:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Girish Panchwadkar

Girish Panchwadkar (  | 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 a notable singer. Fails WP:SINGER. No news coverage Cinzia007 ( talk) 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 ( talk) 11:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 2022 (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. Nobody is persuaded by the sources found by Cunard. Sandstein 09:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

James Kazama

James Kazama (  | 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 actor - no in-depth coverage to be found in reliable sources in English, Chinese, or Thai that I can see. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. In addition, article is unsourced, promotional and largely created by a series of WP:SPAs so WP:TNT applies. Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 溫菁莉 (2017-10-12). "【使徒行者2】Mr. White大有來頭　泰國銀行經理精通7國語言" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "It turns out that James Kazama, who played Mr. White, has a lot of backgrounds. He is an actor and a voice actor with multiple jobs. He also is an international model and singer! In addition, he needs to know and speak many languages, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German, so many talents! ... It turns out that James grew up in Hong Kong and Bangkok, so he even knows Thai! In 1997, James returned to Hong Kong to perform in theaters. At the same time, he also debuted as a voice actor, dubbing many famous films, series and cartoons in Asia."

    2. "《使徒行者2》Mr. White來頭唔嘢小　宣萱麥明詩唔同晒？". Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2020-08-20. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Qiu Zhanhui has a lot of background. He was born in Hong Kong and grew up in Thailand. He is proficient in 7 languages: Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish and German. He has worked with superstar Chow Yun-fat and Thai martial arts superstar Tony Jaa. In addition to being an actor, he is also a voice actor. He once dubbed the role of "Red Squid" in the cartoon "The Future" in Cantonese. In addition to his acting career, he is also very business-minded. He has opened restaurants in Hong Kong and Europe, and the high standard of food has won high praise from local diners."

    3. 黃梓恒 (2020-08-20). "【使徒行者2】Mr. White真人勁有型　丘占輝仲係飲食界猛人" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Unexpectedly, in addition to doing business and acting, he has also served as the "Digital Currency Issuance and Computing R&D Manager" of Thai banks and telecommunications companies, which is really versatile."

    4. Sherry (2017-10-12). "隱藏版極品天菜！使徒行者Mr.White真人超有才，識9種語言又有商業頭腦，上天也太不公平了～" (in Chinese). PressLogic. Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "He is fluent in Cantonese and even understands Thai. The most surprising thing is that he can speak Mandarin, French, Spanish, German, Japanese and Teochew in a total of 9 languages. ... He worked as an e-money issuance and computing R&D manager at the Siam Commercial Bank of Thailand, and is now the CEO of an e-money company."

    5. Cheung (2017-10-13). "【使徒行者2】精通7國語言　Mr. White真身唔止藝人咁簡單！". Modia (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-09.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "In addition, he flew to Brussels to settle for a period of time in 2004, and participated in the Fashion Show and performances in different dramas, integrating actors, voice actors, and models! However, his identity is not only an "artist", but also a businessman. He opened the famous "La Fu" restaurant in Hong Kong in 2002 and served as the head chef."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Kazama ( traditional Chinese: 丘占輝; simplified Chinese: 丘占辉 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 12:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I added these sources to the article. Cunard ( talk) 12:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for finding these sources. I'm unconvinced they show real notability. They are pure fluff coverage that may as well have been a press release from Kazama's agent. In fact, all the pieces are so similar that I strongly suspect they were all based on a press release from his agent. They all also seem to relate only to his appearance on 使徒行者2, a HK television show. Is there any reliable coverage for any other part of his career? Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The subject received significant biographical coverage in 2017 and 2020 in bylined sources for his role in zh:使徒行者2. That he received significant coverage three years apart is sustained coverage that is sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. I did not find significant coverage that did not relate to his role in zh:使徒行者2. The articles contain some similar information and some different information. Some of the sources say he speaks seven languages (Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German), while some include Chinese dialects and say he speaks nine languages (Cantonese, Mandarin, Teochew, English, French, Japanese, Thai, Spanish, and German). I searched for quotes from each article and could not find any evidence that the articles are based on press releases from his agent. Cunard ( talk) 07:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Each of these five articles has James Kazama as its subject. They discuss his biographical background in detail. I do not agree that there is "no in-depth coverage" about him. Regarding "Lots and lots of PR", I could find no evidence that these sources are based on PR. The sources were published in 2017 and 2020. It would be unlikely for a PR campaign about this to last three years. Cunard ( talk) 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Just fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. While Cunard has done an admiral job in locating sources, it's my opinion that the sources are not in-depth enough to meet the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. Further, it's not clear that as an actor has had enough significant roles to pass NACTOR. As such, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is approaching our notability criteria but has not yet met the threshold. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Conn Nugent

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

BLP with lots of references, but none of them seem to be about him. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify and redirect. I am AGFing the creator that he has a whole word document that includes sources that might get us over the notability barrier, although I share the consensus concerns that Rensselear mayor may never be notable. Dellis12144, how long an article has existed is not a barrier to deletion. Please go through AfC before reinstating this article. At the moment I am protecting the redirect to ensure no out of process creations occur. Star Mississippi 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Michael Stammel

Michael Stammel (  | 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)

Small town mayor, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Dellis12144, the creator of the page, is known for editing and creating articles related to Rensselaer, New York and Rensselaer County. Given that the IP is located in that specific area, it is safe to assume that the user is editing as an IP in an attempt to sway this discussion in some way. KidAd • SPEAK 22:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Why are you tagging me? I did post a comment: since the article is a contender for being improved, it should be moved to draft space. There are plenty of valid sources on the internet for information on Michael Stammel that may be used. There is no reason to delete an article that has many reference sources available even if the subject is a representative of a smaller size community. Dellis12144 ( talk) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Did you read my comment? I tagged you because I think you logged out of your account to comment in this AfD as an IP. Am I wrong? Is that IP not you pretending to be someone else? KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
KidAd my account stays logged in 24 hours a day. Not sure how I could comment as someone else and not know. Why are you so adamant about deleting the article when many updates have been made to it? I've added more information as well as many more sources for the information. You state that the subject is not notable. I do want to let you know that there are many other local level politicians listed on Wikipedia as well. With valid resources, there is no reason they shouldn't be. If you'd like, I can send you a word document with every single news story I can find on Mr. Stammel online to prove that he is indeed notable. Dellis12144 ( talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete nothing notable found in third party sources. If he was, I'd expect to find something in the New York Times, being a paper of record for the state; only one hit on a senator giving a tour of his district that just mentions the name. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you like, I could provide you with an entire word document of every article there is online about Michael Stammel. Just because he is not a state level politician doesn't mean he isn't notable. He is notable in the local community and the county of Rensselaer. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify I don't see any reason not to, if the article creator requests it. Mlb96 ( talk) 06:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank You. Spent a lot of time editing it and adding sources. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 13:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, don't draftify lack of notability cannot be fixed by editing, so why are we even talking about draftifying the article? Alternately, I also support redirect to List of mayors of Rensselaer, New York. ( t · c) buidhe 19:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The article creator has asserted that the individual is notable. Even if we cannot find anything to suggest that he is notable right now, there is no downside to giving the article creator a few more months to find coverage. If coverage does end up being found, then deleting the article entirely will just make more work for the article creator when they recreate it. And if coverage isn't found, then the article will languish in draft space until being auto-deleted. Draftifying seems like a win-win. Mlb96 ( talk) 19:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mayor of a place with under 10,000 people immediately adjacent to a much larger and more noticed city. This is not a position where the holder is even remotely likely to be notable. I have to admit I am unsure why we have a whole article on the position, instead of a more general article on the government of the city or good coverage of both in the article on the city. I have to say in general Wikipedia artilces on cities have sub-standard coverage of their government. Far too few do we even say if they have a council-manage, council-mayor, city commission or other type of government, and even less often do we discuss the change of such government over time. Flooding Wikipedia with articles on places that were actually just a well or a mine has left us with our articles on actual cities often being sub-standard. Then we turn around and flood it with bios on non-notable mayors, instead of creating useful text on thestructure of government. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Why does it hurt to have an article with valid resources published on Wikipedia? He may not be a state or federal level government official but he is indeed notable in the local community as well as the county. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    My concern is that this article has been on Wikipedia for over a year until someone decided to redirect it. A lot of updates have been made to the article. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • The sourcing is all hyper local. It is just not sustainable to have articles on every mayor of a place over 5,000 people, especially when it is a place that is very much in the shadow of much larger communities. Wikipedia has articles exist for over 15 years that people are just now getting around to reviewing. The fact that an article has "existed over a year" in Wikipedia terms means that it is very young. Due to the ease with which articles can be created on Wikipedia, the fact that an article exists is not at all a sign in any way shape mean or form that it ought to exist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      That really doesn't answer my concern. I feel that there is absolutely no regard from those who want the article deleted about the amount of time placed in to creating the article. It just discourages editors from wanting to participate further in helping to improve Wikipedia if they are only doing so to be told their content is not good enough. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 18:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Local politician, local coverage which is mostly routine coverage of city activities. @ Dellis12144: Two points: 1) If the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, then it does not matter how many hours went into creating it. I've seen articles deleted here for which the hours spent in their creation and maintenance were orders of magnitude greater than this one, and where the AfD discussion was considerably less one-sided. 2) It's not a good look and not helpful to your case to challenge every single comment which disagrees with yours. You've made your case--I advise not bludgeoning it further. -- Finngall talk 19:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    My issue is that nobody is considering the comments from those who say Draftify. The only argument from those who want it deleted is notoriety. Those wanted it deleted have no other argument. You can say some politician is notable and I may not have even heard of that person before so I do not consider them notable. I think that is the issue in this case that people are ignoring and I don't feel that it is a fair process. Dellis12144 ( talk) ( contribs) 19:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete,A small town mayor does not count as notable. Alex-h ( talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (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. If you believe a move to a different title is appropriate, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Russo-German war

Russo-German war (  | 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)

Neither entry is a war article, but rather about a front in a war, nor do people call either overall conflict the "Russo-German War". Also, descriptive terms do not make suitable dab pages. Eastern Front is where these entries belong (and are listed). Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Like the editor above, I simply don't see any reason to delete this. Is it causing problems with linking accurately to some other article? If not, what does it matter if we keep it? (I also feel the need to point out that calling these "a front, not a war" is reasonably accurate in English-language historiography, but that's not the case globally - see for example the German title of the Eastern Front of WWII article, de:Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg.) -- asilvering ( talk) 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. "Russo-German war" is a real term, found in the titles of books and articles, although overwhelmingly in reference to WWII. Srnec ( talk) 18:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Also I don't share Clarityfiend's view that Dab pages are not for descriptive terms, but for actual titles. As WP:D2D states Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. For instance, Joker, the example used by the guideline, links several works where one the character is called "Joker" even though it's not in the title. JBchrch talk 18:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ethelmary Oakland

Ethelmary Oakland (  | 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)

Oakland appeared in a few films when she was 7 and 8. I am less than convinced any of her roles were actually significant. One is listed second in the cast list, but only because it is the main role as a child. We have only IMDB as a source, which is not reliable. A search for sources produced nothign that was coverage passing GNG. Oakland lived over 80 years after she last appeared in a film and we seem to know absolutely nothing about that part of her life. She does not seem to in any way have been a public figure, and I see no benefit to having basically a short blurd grouping together her very few film roles. There are very rare people who did things at age 7 and 8 that make them notable, but Oakland does not seem to have been such a person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Don't make assumptions about why she's second listed in the cast. And playing the main character as a child is a fine reason to be second listed. What a bogus thing to mention in an AfD nomination. It's totally normal for a child actor to transition to anonymity and not get press after. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

keep per meeting GNG. Good HEY work. The nomination rationale is out of line and all of the above means that this should be a speedy keep and close, though I don't foresee that happening. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply

    • How can one possible speedy keep an article for which the discussion has already been extended beyond the normal time. The notion that we should not have articles sourced only to IMDb on children who never did anything as adults is not "out of line". It is a reasonable agument, and with the other sources found in the google search having been Wikipedia mirrors and a BFI listing that had her name and the name of one 1917 film and that was it, it was not an unresonable conclusion for the easily available sourcing. What is out of line is how many Wikipedia articles lack even one source that is reliable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Double standards are not reasonable and have no place in an AfD argument. We don't treat a child actor differently than an adult actor on this website. Her age has nothing to do with anything. Ageism has no place in Wikipedia and is inappropriate for AfD. It's an entirely different issue from sourcing. Weakens your argument to include it. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • This article has existed since 2006. I at least do not think Wikipedia should have articles exist for 16 years without any reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw people were able to find additional sources that now show notability. This was not easily evident when found and the article had existed for an excessive amount of time with no reliable sources at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it! DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Request made for someone authorized to close this "withdraw" request to delete this article. -- Ooligan ( talk) 00:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. and going to salt this edition for good measure Star Mississippi 01:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mikheil Lomtadze

Mikheil Lomtadze (  | 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. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non-references used. UPE. The references are very poor and what coverage is there is routine PR. scope_creep Talk 01:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Article satisfies WP:NBIO. Dear Administrators! I am the first author of the article about Mikheil Lomtadze, and after the first remark on the article I requested some time for its edition on my personal space, however other users of Wikipedia corrected and rewrote the article.

Today I’ve read all the corrections and modifications in the article ever made in the English Wikipedia and I would like to inform you on the following: Mikheil Lomtadze is a well-known figure in Kazakhstan and Georgia. As experts state, today his name is inextricably associated with Kaspi.kz. Thanks to the Strategy of Mikheil Lomtadze, the Kaspi.kz app has become a de facto payment system of Kazakhstan, and a share of non-cash payments is more than 50%, thus contributing to a decrease in the share of the shadow economy and giving an impetus to the economic growth and GDP growth, tax revenues and reducing corruption in Kazakhstan. Ruslan Yensebaev, the Vice-Minister of Finance said, that by 2021, his team together with Mikheil Lomtadze would work out a mechanism of fiscalisation of cash settlements in compliance with the requirements of the State Revenue Committee. Financiers emphasise that such digitalisation of the economy of Kazakhstan will definitely provide a significant boost to multiple structural reforms, including the pension one. In October 2019, Lomtadze planned to hold an IPO on the London Stock Exchange and introduce Kazakhstan at the innovative world map. Experts believe, this IPO will be the first international IPO outside the quasi-state sector for recent years, strengthening the capacity of Kazakhstan and attracting investors to the commercial sector in the country. Analysts predicted high demand for shares of the Kazakhstan company. Exactly a year later, in October 2020, Mikheil Lomtadze conducted a successful IPO of Kaspi.kz on the London Stock Exchange, and according to Refinitiv, it was the second largest public stock offering in the UK in 2020 and the fourth largest one in Europe. After his success at the LSE, Mikheil Lomtadze was recognised as one of the richest and most influential businessman in Kazakhstan. Mikheil is ranking 356th in the world Forbes rating and his wealth is estimated at more than $5 billion. In 2020-2021, the success of Mikheil Lomtadze at the London Stock Exchange attracted attention of President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Zhomart Tokayev who twice held meetings with Mikheil Lomtadze and discussed the digital services development strategy and the prospects for e-commerce growth in Kazakhstan. At meetings with foreign investors Tokayev talked about the success of a Kazakhstan fintech company Kaspi.kz. In 2021, the Cabinet of the United Kingdom paid attention to the activities of Lomtadze and Kaspi.kz. In August 2021, Mikheil Lomtadze became the richest and most influential person in Georgia.

In May 2019, Lomtadze became a member of the Harvard Business School Advisory Council. In September 2019, Mikheil Lomtadze reported on entering the market of Azerbaijan and announced the further development of business in Central Asia and in the Caucasus, and in 2021 he announced the business development for Ukraine aiming to promote a digital transformation of the entire region. Thus, I think it is inappropriate to delete the article about Mikheil Lomtadze as the encyclopedic importance of his personality is undeniable. It is necessary to note that my article about another businessman with an equivalent position was published on Wikipedia. Please do not delete the article. I am planning to finalize the material in the future according to all rules of Wikipedia. I’d appreciate all recommendations for improvement and mentoring.-- Deviloper ( talk) 14:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You basically just proved their point-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 07:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Good day! If you are talking about a ticket and that the article is PR in nature or paid up, then I beg to differ with the views you have. The increased interest in the personality of Mikheil Lomtadze is quite justified. He is building an entirely new technological Kazakhstan, and all over the world are oriented on his business model. Even the Minister of England said he was waiting for Kaspi in England. Entry to Ukraine was within the nearest plans, but as now appears it is indefinitely postponed.Besides, given the events that took place in Kazakhstan in January, the British Parliament called for a series of sanctions to be imposed on Kazakh businessmen. They are now in crosshairs and everybody are wondering who they are and how they came to success.-- Deviloper ( talk) 09:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The original title, Mikhail Lomtadze, is SALTed, so this article taken directly out of draftspace without being approved by WikiProject AfC reviewers, is a direct attempt to circumvent our controls by a likely paid editor. Are we going to respect our efforts to stop subjects rich enough to buy editing help or are we just going to look the other way when this sort of thing happens? I'm honestly asking as I can't figure out what this editing community is trying to accomplish. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chris troutman: I didn't see it. I'll check this in the future. Thanks for posting it. scope_creep Talk 12:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chris troutman: I've posted a message to user:MER-C who will take a look at it. scope_creep Talk 12:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • comment I republished it from Draft. Sorry if I violate the rule. As I just told at COI page, I found that guy and Narzullo Oblomurodov abandoned at Draft space and they looked for me pretty promising. That was my intentin to work on them and publish in mainspace. I still think both Mikheil easily passes WP:GNG. There are enough Russian, Kazakh and other sources with deep coverage of the subject. -- Bash7oven ( talk) 15:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Have you seen the fact this article has been deleted multiple times and salted because it. Make sure you check that the next time instead of wasting everybodies time. scope_creep Talk 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Being rich and oligarch doesn't define notability. Secondary sources do and they're are none. scope_creep Talk 20:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • comment Dear administrators and project participants! I have checked all the references specified in the original article of the year 2019, it contains independent sources and needs to be revised. In the discussion given above, I also introduced some references in the English language which are related to reliable sources in all respects. They may be added in order the article meets all the requirements of the free Wikipedia. In the view of the foregoing, I request you to restore the article for further revision by other Wikipedia participants. Deviloper ( talk) 03:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I did some searching on my own. I found items in Forbes and Bloomberg, which are generally WP:RS, but they were both directory-type listings ("The world's N richest people" kind of thing) with no WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2022 (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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. Although there are certainly very many "keep" opinions in the vein of WP:ITSIMPORTANT that are questionable in terms of Wikipedia inclusion rules, what this discussion makes clear is that (a) the arguments for deletion are not widely supported by experienced Wikipedians, and (b) a consensus to outright delete the article will not come about here, given that there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merging the content to a topically related article. I therefore suggest that such alternatives should be discussed on the article talk page before renominating the article for deletion. Sandstein 11:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Marina Ovsyannikova

Please note that this is a conversation about how well this topic fits Wikipedia's guidelines. It is not an assessment of the bravery or morality of the action.


Marina Ovsyannikova (  | 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:BIO1E at this point. I salute her, but there is no indication that this minor event will have lasting implications. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from the article creator. It is indeed difficult to see whether this is going to have lasting consequences, but I am sure today and tomorrow she will be on every single non-Russian media. Such things do not occur so often.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Given that we‘re dealing with real time events here and, in the event that this is confirmed to be true, exceptional bravery which will warrant a wikipedia entry, wouldn‘t it be worth to wait some time before deleting? 77.6.157.35 ( talk) 20:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Nothing will be deleted before a week has elapsed. Ymblanter ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I support that. Act like this make history. After some time has elapsed it might make sense to include this information into a bigger article on anti war protests in Russia. 51.154.165.136 ( talk) 20:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Putin wants to delete this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.175.223 ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is an act of heroism and is a significant step in the evolution of Putin's attack on Ukraine and the west. On a personal level she warrants a page dedicated to her and it should be retained as a repository of information concerning her fate. On a global level this page should be retained as not only recognition of heroes fighting disinformation but as evidence of trolling and further propaganda. One need look no farther than the replies to my comment to find evidence of this. 4piEpsilonNaught ( talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Fully agreed and people speaking out against war and for peace should never be censored! Why is this page even considered for deletion? While not every country sees free speech as a key value, and that should be respected, the internet is a place of free speech, in these times please keep this! She is a voice for peace! Jazzooka ( talk) 23:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Marina is worthy of notice because of her long-standing work in media. She is not 'notable for only one event'. The article contains links to other notable activities by her. It is irrelevant whether she is 'brave' or to what extent her opinion is provable fact or just her opinion. The article does not imply criticism or support of her or her actions, historic or recent. It is written factually and neutrally, merely informative, it tells me what she has done in media production both historically and recently. Her most recent actions may have been contrary to Russian law (not yet proven) but that is not among the criteria for page deletion. I have viewed the criteria for deletion. None of them apply so keep the page. Milo Lawrence ( talk) 10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep If the Marina Ovsyannikova page is deleted, then other pages, such as Yulia Galyamina page would also have to be deleted as well for the same reason. Galyamina's page is over two years old, and her page is well established and non-controversial. Despite Russian State censors, Ovsyannikova carried out an action seen by millions of people (TV and Video) and she faces some very serious prison time for her actions. It is true that we don't know if Ovsyannikova page will be notable next week, but her actions may have had a profound effect and possibly be a turning point in this war. For now, this page should be a 'Strong Keep'. Dinkytown talk 05:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'd disagree with the deletion of Galyamina for the reasoning that Galyamina was repeatedly jailed, where as far as we know, this is the first offense on Ovsyannikova's part. I think you are right that we should keep the page for now, but I still would like to see where we stand by next week. I would also think that the reason Galyamina's page is non-controversial is because the subject is less-well-known than others: for example, the page has been up for two years and still has not received a rating on WP Biography. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I highly doubt Ovsyannikova will be relevant to the English wikipedia in a week from now, although I applaud her efforts. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Putin troll. It is very relevant and will be, it is an act of courage. 86.127.145.123 ( talk) 20:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I find it very funny I was called a Putin troll. Be kind. Just because I support this article for deletion does not mean I support Russia. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    No personal attacks, especially nonsense like that. Base your comments on Wikipedia policy. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Strong keep. Obviously an immortal moment in the present Russia-Ukraine conflict. As for you Muboshgu, you're quite the smug and self-satisfied individual, aren't you. A little tempest in a teapot. Erable maple ( talk) 05:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Smart move to insult an administrator of the website. Also not the correct place to voice your opinion - you should do that below. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    What about /info/en/?search=George_Floyd
    He is not forgottn. Let this page live 142.114.175.179 ( talk) 04:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    How dare you even type, that this act will be irrelevant to the English wikipedie in a week from now. This is an oustanding act, that will be remembered. Nothing like this happened before. She will get minimum of 15 years of prison and torture for this just for you to call it irrelevant and get it deleted from the wikipedia site. 85.160.33.51 ( talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I still stand by what I said. I think this will be relevant towards other language Wikipedias, but not the English one. Also, you saying 'a minimum of 15 years' is untrue, as the maximum sentencing for a crime like this is 15 years. Not to mention WP:NPA. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
RT anchor resigned on air about 10 yrs ago, it's happened before. She barely has a mention. This is a small event. We need proof that she's eligible as a journalist or news reporter. Simply holding up a sign isn't enough for an article. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The aforementioned RT anchor has her own Wikipedia article, so this precedent actually supports keeping the article. /info/en/?search=Liz_Wahl#RT_America Ramendik ( talk) 02:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
This is not a small event, Why is there such a discussion here then? Jsvahn ( talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP - it is astonishing that this is even being considered for deletion. I can only imagine a pro russian propoganda activist wants to pretend this selfless act of bravery and courage didnt occur. Question - what would wikipedia's feelings be today if Rosa Parks was deleted from history? 2A02:C7F:342B:2C00:1CE2:77CE:936E:F9B8 ( talk) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    STRONG KEEP: The reference to Rosa Parks also immediately came to mind. Small actions can make a big difference. 77.9.8.62 ( talk) 07:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We could recreate the article with neutral, third-party sources, of which Parks has many. This individual has none. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Frankly, the discussion about deleting this article would be much more substantiated in 2-3 weeks, maybe more, who knows. Now it's discussion between "the event might turn out to be insubstantial" vs "she might be an instigator of something big" and none of the sides has any real arguments. So the real question, what's with the rush? Somebody is afraid of her name having a wiki entry? At the time, she's a most public antiwar protester. Nobody is denying that the strength of Russian civil resistance might be one of key factors in the outcome of this war.
    Maybe redirecting her name to bigger article on Russian protests will be the most prudent action in the future - but for now, the rush in the act is a political statement in and of itself. As such, it goes against objectivity. 89.75.169.132 ( talk) 23:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    At the time I am writing this, there are references to the Guardian and the Washington Post, among others, and a dozen of sources of similar quality reported the incident. I can not check the Washington Post as it is behind a paywall, but the Guardian has a dedicated story on the front page.I do not think the complaint she has not been covered has merit; I think we should evaluate whether BLP1E (as nominated) applies. Ymblanter ( talk) 06:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This should NOT be deleted. I do hope Wikipedia isn't listening to Putins censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:E7FF:1:9860:6F2B:144:5D5A
Not listening to censhorship when we talk about it here. More akin to pro-Ukraine propaganda, regardless, no trolling please. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Would be better-served as a subsection in Russian propaganda or an article about the war itself Oaktree b ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. She will either be the first step of a complete turnaround in the Russian press, or she will go to jail for a long time. Either outcome is important for the history books. Mlewan ( talk) 20:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I think we should wait until something happens on that front before making this point. Deleting an article doesn't necessarily mean it has to never be remade. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not sure I think we should delete this article, but it's hardly certain she'll be either of those things. Also, going to prison for a long time is true for a lot of people we don't write about. And unfortunately, true for a number of people in Russia who oppose the regime. Julle ( talk) 20:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If she has forfeited her life for doing this, then leave this as a eulogy to her very visible brave act? AnIguana ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • This isn't an obituary site. No, we can't allow that. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ AnIguana: So one of the things that will happen here is that a lot of people who see the note on the article page will come to the discussion to argue on moral grounds, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Muboshgu, whom I don't necessarily agree with, didn't start this discussion because they want to disparage the courage or sacrifice involved, but because of their interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is like all other publications – there's an idea of what content is to be included or not. It's entirely possible to consider it out of scope here, and yet respect the act itself. A Wikipedia article isn't a measure of a good act. Julle ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree. This event may have a lasting impact. Strong keep 74.101.99.54 ( talk) 08:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • revolutions often happen in TV, for instance in 1989 the fact that communist controlled state TV flipped and started broadcasting facts about police violence towards students was an important factor, please do not delete 89.176.206.34 ( talk) 20:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • This is a good point, however I would rather see this article as part of a bigger article on Russian revolts against this war, not necessarily keeping the article. I feel that having the article separate from others would not mean as much and is still a violation of WP:BIO1E - Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The ”event“, that WP:BIO1E refers to, in this case is not the big event of Russia's invasion of Ukraine 2022 (where this action may play a relatively small role, some might argue – though I'd disagree), but high profile public resistance in Russian media, which has not been a wide spread phenomenon yet at all: This lady thus plays a major role in some minor event. – Consequently, the lemma has to be kept until further developments. --  Xantares ⌘ 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I just came to wikipedia looking for info on this person. Anyway, she will likely go on trial, receive a brutal punishment and, much like PussyRiot, may well be a continuing cause celebre for her bravery. Not deleting seems prudent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.109.54 ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The event seems highly relevant in this context and is clearly the first of its kind on Russian state TV during the Ukrainian war. There already are some quite relevant sources like this one. I don't think WP:BIO1E applies here. -- Coco ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep People need to know that everyone in Russia does not support the Ukranine invasion. 96.35.8.95 ( talk) 20:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - very clearly both notable and set to remain so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete then Redirect I agree with nominator Muboshgu's rationale for deleting this article. But, WP:BIO1E states that creating a redirect is more appropriate for a person who plays a minor role in a major event. Since Ovsyannikova plays a small role in the Ukraine crisis, her article can be merged with an appropriate article and then deleted. Just because sources like The Guardian cover what she did doesn't mean that she deserves her own article, but rather, if other people become famous for anti-war sentiment towards Russia, the sources used to create the article can be used in the said hypothetical article. LPS and MLP Fan ( Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ovsyannikova may play a ”small role“ in the Ukraine crisis, but that is not the event you should apply the terms of WP:BIO1E against; she presumably plays a big role in the public display of opposition to the Russian invasion.   χenoΛntares ⌘ 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
WhiteCherepan, Matrek, Milowent, 90.201.109.54, others: I know that the situation with Ukraine and Russia is very significant and causing reason for concern about Ovsyannikova. But, we should not let these events influence what to keep and delete on Wikipedia. For instance, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I have been seeing some keep arguments suggesting that the person will become famous for her act. But, we must not forget to adhere to policies and guidelines. LPS and MLP Fan ( Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
LPS and MLP Fan, personally I'm less swayed by this particular event than my view that English Wikipedia does a better job of doing fair articles on the fly during these events than anything else on the internet. There's no question we will cover this event as well at 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. But right now the world is searching her name, so I think the article can be kept and reassessed in a week or few weeks when things calm down. We don't have a specific rule or policy, but I've seen this be a de facto outcome many times in the last 15 years.-- Milowent • has spoken 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Trougnouf, Vrrtigo, 51.154.1.122, 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:8023:A242:95FE:C539, others: As I stated before, we need to evaluate whether this person is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. Google searches, number of sources, and personal opinions about the person are invalid arguments to make for keeping her article. -- LPS and MLP Fan ( Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep -- Russia's highly-controlled media industry is a model for autocratic regimes everywhere. It not only finds top people, but rewards them well. All of this makes for high retention, or what they might call loyalty. For an insider to rise up like this is highly remarkable. It could one of the signposts to a collapse of the war effort, or even of Russia's current regime. At least it tells us that key insiders are turning against the institutions that advanced this war. Frazierdp ( talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Could merge somewhere. Surely enough actions within Russia against the war to have an article on that. Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    We have 2022 anti-war protests in Russia Ymblanter ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree that "Wikipedia is not news", but what we see is history in the making. Googling her name in Russian - Марина Овсянникова - gets lots of hits covering this incident, even the Russian state owned Tass has a short article [16]. Knižnik ( talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The Tass article makes no direct mention of events in Ukraine, which probably enhances the argument for keeping it in at least one Wikipedia. Here it is via Google Translate:
    MOSCOW, March 14. /TASS/. A woman who broke into the studio of the Vremya program on Channel One is facing an administrative case and has been detained. This was reported to TASS by a source in law enforcement agencies. "The girl can be held liable, including under Article 20.3.3. of the Code of Administrative Offenses ("Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintain international peace and security")", the source said. According to him, the woman is currently detained. The source clarified that Marina Ovsyannikova works as an editor on Channel One, she is in the police department at the OMVD in the Ostankino district. According to the source, Ovsyannikova is a native of Odessa, she was born there in 1978. Earlier it was reported that Channel One began an internal check in connection with an incident with an outsider in the frame during a live broadcast. Videodragons ( talk) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – seems significant to me. Superp ( talk) 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:WHYN, We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.. Also, there's an influx of WP:SLEEPER accounts and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. Most keep rationale is centered on specificities of Russian media, and not the subject herself—further articulating why this should be redirected or merged with another article. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 21:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah... really can't stress the influx of sleeper and single-purpose accounts enough. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
strong keep! i disagree. she set an example for millions to follow. her name should not be hidden as a footnote in an artikel about russian media. she stands out ! btw.: most delete rationale wants to merge (i.e.: hide) or brings up technicalities. that's how a lawyer would argue to prevent something. yeah...i really can't stress enough the influx of people who want to prevent the truth from beeing spread ! i wonder who they might be working for... 51.154.1.122 ( talk) 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ PerpetuityGrat: Please don't denigrate people who disagree with you by calling them "sleeper and single-purpose accounts". The topic under discussion here, or generally on Wikipedia, is not other wikipedians. Silver hr ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Silver hr: how am I denigrating others by calling a spade a spade? Literally half of the users on this talk page are brand new accounts, or spontaneously came back after taking a multi-month hiatus. Just calling it like it is, how does this denigrate users? -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ PerpetuityGrat: Your accusations imply that some people participating in this conversation aren't equal participants. Everyone is an equal participant until proven otherwise. If you have concerns about some accounts being sockpuppets, raise an issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If your concern is not with sockpuppetry, but other forms of systematic manipulation of Wikipedia, I suppose the appropriate venue would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Silver hr ( talk) 02:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I never said the users are socks... you shouldn't assume such, and obviously WP:SLEEPERS and one-purpose accounts are NOT the same as socks. Please do not conflate those things. One might get the impression you are trying to debase my input. You assumed I was denigrating users. You are wrong. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 02:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/14/ukraine-war-russian-anti-war-protester-interrupts-state-tv-news-broadcast Callmesolis ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
– I get 27000 hits when I search for her in Russian (with quotation marks, so only her). More references than many other journalists who are featured on Wikipedia. Also more than enough material for a whole article. MahaNakhon ( talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
386'000 hits in diff. languages, 22'24 GDP, 14.03.2022 51.154.1.122 ( talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Your own definition totally shoots down your suggestion to delete. We require "significant coverage"? She is being covered on every major news outlet I've seen today, from Washington Post to The Guardian to Sky News, down to every minor news outlet as well. Some of them are providing pages of background and commentary. Her actions are getting extremely significant coverage. 220.245.146.177 ( talk) 05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or give a chapter in a relevant article - it's very difficult to get the message across to Russians relying on their national TV only. They've been lied to for years and are predetermined to view current reality basically upside down. What this lady has done is nothing but heroism, and may well serve as a trigger in changing this current tragic status quo between Russian and Ukrainian societies. Peace everyone. 86.38.230.141 ( talk) 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    if adds any weight to the argument, I'm a former admin on a foreign wiki, but it's been a while so forgot login info. I've spent these several weeks trying to talk to Russians on social media, those who either don't know or deny Russia's invasion to Ukraine, I don't know how successfully since now they legally are prevented from voicing any opinion departing from Russian institutional stance. But generally it's like trying to talk with hundreds of hungry wolves. So in the context of this, it takes such a courage and will to do as this woman did, it's even difficult to find words to describe it. I believe her story will be significant. 86.38.230.141 ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now / Wait. Let this article and topic few days to solidify. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. Let's see where this is going. No opposition to community reassessment at a later date, once the dust has settled. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Why would we delete a part of history? -- Trougnouf ( talk) 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the moment, because we are not in the business of crystal-ball-gazing. I cannot recall an event like this ever happening before, so we are not in a position to predict whether her act will have lasting consequences that go down in history, or what her future will hold as a highly-visible opponent of war. If, in months or years to come, it becomes clear that she or her act are better recorded in another article, part of a bigger picture, we can do so. For the moment, it seems a pretty big act, a unique situation, likely to attract a lot of attention, so let's wait and see. Elemimele ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into the Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: while as of right now, I do not think that her article is relevant on its own, and it does violate WP:BIO1E, I do feel that her actions warrant at least a mention in the Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. If she did something else notable before or if she does something notable after this, then I would support creating an article just for her. 2604:3D09:E284:C800:3D7B:4698:306C:E94D ( talk) 22:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep her actions have already turned her into a well-known figure. The incident of her protest will be an important part of the history of the conflict. It already is! If the coming weeks do not bring any additional information, It would probably be best to merge it into a large article. Hawks ⁠ Talk/ Edits⁠ 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, this is a historic event. Digimag ( talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per others Ecpiandy ( talk) 22:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, She is already history and has been compared to Tank Man of '89 student protest in china by major news media. HansClumsy ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If it was not for those who heard it would Paul Revere be relevant? He was just a silversmith. This article should remain until the relevance has been judged by time. One year should pass before any talk of deletion should occur. Sparks appear insignificant unless the ignite something. Let’s wait and see. 2601:348:4100:2150:E98C:554F:B473:8EBC ( talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I would argue that there is a strong consensus already, and that the Articles for deletion tag is degrading ms Ovsyannikova just as a deletion-tag on the Tank Man would degrade him and his act and play into the hands of China fascist censorship. I suggest removing the tag immedeately. This does not mean that this discussion has to stop. Only the tag is Putin-friendly. HansClumsy ( talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP - it's sad that in such sources like wikipedia, the article would be considered for censorship by kremlin propaganda trolls. Admins, seriously? The war erupted and then the aggressor wants to delete evidence of that and you allow it? Wikipedia article is not a reward, it is information note. I think Marina is not somehow relevant for reader outside of context of this protest, so the article should be about protest, because it's simply not enough to write about Marina herself 95.24.224.82 ( talk) 23:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - the article is notable. 89.8.146.21 ( talk) 23:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep! She made a heroic gesture. Heroes are worth of being in encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9082:A701:7155:AF55:74D8:A361 ( talk) 23:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • PerpetuityGrat is right – note the suspiciously high amount of WP:SLEEPER accounts and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts commenting on article's deletion. This is likely to be coordinated, the question is why. MahaNakhon ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think this is exactly what's to be expected if we put a big box telling people that the thing they found so heroic and wanted to read more about is up for deletion, which reads as "we think this isn't important enough", with a link in bold to this discussion, telling them they can make their voice heard here. Julle ( talk) 02:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Obviously relevant, covered by media all over the world. TiagoLubiana ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rename article to something like «Anti-war protest on Russian government TV» and make it not about person, but about incident. 95.24.224.82 ( talk) 23:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think this is a decent solution, however I'd still argue for deletion, unless until/if more protests come out on television against the war, or something of the sort. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 05:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for now It's been what, four hours since this happened? That's not enough time to make a choice to delete on 1E. If it is eventually deleted, the content should be merged into one of the other articles on domestic Russian protests due to the significant media coverage. Intralexical ( talk) 23:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    RIGHT NOW everybody wants to know who she is, and Wiki is saying - with a red warning tag - yeah, well, she is up for debate. "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." The tag doesnt explain to the reader why article might be deleted. Is she not trustworthy? Did it really happen? The tag should be removed NOW. Wiki has a problem when a minority (4 out of 32) can cast doubt on a person with a tag like this obviously created for a diffent context but playing into the hands of a dictator. HansClumsy (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC) HansClumsy ( talk) 00:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ HansClumsy: You could probably move for a WP:SNOWBALL to immediately close the discussion if you'd like to get rid of the tag. I'm not going to do it myself because I think going through the whole process and settling it definitively is important to protect the integrity of the process and prevent it from being abused in the long term, though. Intralexical ( talk) 00:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Highly relevant and important to an ongoing current event. -- Thoric ( talk) 00:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. WP:BIO1E, in relevant part, states that "[i]f the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Certainly the subject's role is central; thus the relative weight - the event's significance - is key in the conclusion to be drawn in applying WP:BIO1E. Rather than characterizing the subject event as "minor" or even moderately significant, several things go to its being "highly significant." Such weighing is a judgment, so basis in facts can be determinative. The following are salient facts: (a) by all accounts, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is of world-changing importance; (b) Russian support remains high due to the control over the news messaging in a manner that distorts the truth and is thus vulnerable to leaks; (c) this is the first, and so far only known penetration of the Russian media with counter-official messaging on the war; (d) accordingly, it is major news worldwide of a type that naturally leads people to Wikipedia for authoritative background (to be developed); (e) it is comparable to whistleblower leaks of covert intelligence refuting official narratives about any number of historic and/or ongoing events. David B. Graubert ( talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - Famous individuals are mentioning her name, and it made her notable. -- Cheol ( talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Neither is there any indication that this is _not_ a major event - whether or not it has lasting implications. At least this event is shared worldwide within 12 hours after its occurence. 2A02:A449:FB99:1:F476:EAC3:8A2:F3D7 ( talk) 08:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - this is not encyclopedic material per WP:NOTNEWS but perhaps keep it for now since a lot of people feel strongly about the incident. Delete later or better merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep for now without prejudice to a merge. This is a classic case of an article created too soon that was then nominated for deletion too soon. It's far too early to know what the long-term significance of this will be, but it's clear that in the context of Russian protests against the war it is significant so there is definitely no case for deletion. If there is long-term significance to this single event and/or other events she becomes involved in then it should be a standalone article, if there isn't it should be merged to a suitable article ( 2022 anti-war protests in Russia perhaps). It will take several days at absolute minimum and quite likely much longer than that before which it is can be known. The correct course of action in these situations is to leave the status quo as is until things become clearer, and as the status quo here is a separate article that means keeping a separate article. There is no deadline. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree with these two. It's also very odd to me that there are so many new IPs editing this page all of a sudden. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    We've put a big box with a link in bold leading here from the page that's the topic of the day, telling them that the article about the woman they think did the good deed of the day is up for deletion, which reads as "we think this isn't important" to new folks. Hardly surprising they're coming over to say their piece. Julle ( talk) 02:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Word about this discussion is making the rounds on Reddit as well, and judging by the comments in this thread and this thread, there's probably a few angry people coming here who haven't contributed before. CplKlinger ( talk) 07:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Significant (global) media coverage. -- Bjerrebæk ( talk) 02:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • KeepPlenty of coverage. Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Marina Ovsyannikova has become notable with a single act, and her protest should also be included in Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is no pressing reason to delete this article at this time. Depending on her fate and what other protests might be inspired by her courage, we will have a better perspective on whether the article deserves to be a stand alone or merged into a more comprehensive article. Politicon535 ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. While she did recently gain attention for one event, she was likely notable before that event. There's not a lot of Russian speakers on Wikipedia, but abundance of links in her Russian page suggests that she would have satisfied notability if those pages were in an English language press. Also, there's bound to be more coverage of this beyond the one event including her arraignment and (likely) incarceration. Bangabandhu ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    I disagree here, the Russian page was created on the 14th of March meaning that she hadn't warranted notability for any other reason besides, which fails WP:BIO1E. She's also a TV producer which is probably the reason for it, producers don't normally have wikipages. Perhaps this one will be an exception due to the strong pushback on pages such as this, but we'll see how it fares in a week or two. I think people will have moved on from this incident by then, most likely for worse reasons. Réunion (stylised) - ( talk to me) 04:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • (Selective) merge to Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The textbook case of WP:BLP1E and even probably WP:TOOSOON (since it is extremely difficult to judge of the WP:LASTING notability of a subject in mere hours. A minimal merge (with only the most essential details, in true encyclopedic summary fashion) would be a valid option, as this definitively has enough coverage to justify some form of mention, but it is clearly not the kind of coverage to justify a stand-alone biography (due to NOTNEWS and BLP1E concerns, as stated above). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Strong keep. In particular, I strongly oppose to the narrow application of WP guidelines proposed here. These rules work fine most of the time, but not in all case and certainly not here. We're looking at history in the making, so the usual rules like TOOSOON, LASTING etc. simply fail. The rule of thumb should be "do people want to look something up"; as of this writing, the page has had 43k+ views within less than 24 hours. Merging into Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a valid option because the article is already long and can't possibly include the type of biographical information that people come to this article for.
    Another thing, and this is not a personal criticism of @RandomCanadian, but a general observation: We see users overtly or covertly sympathizing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine trying to have information about it removed, or at least made less easily available, by making formalistic arguments for a narrow interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines. E.g., clearly pro-Russian editors even managed to get Attack on Snake Island deleted on the German Wikipedia because it didn't meet the criteria for major military events. We shouldn't let Wikipedia be instrumentalized like that. As of this writing, it is still available in Russia (see Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_Russia), so with major social media having been blocked it remains one of the few sources of information on the war available to Russians. We be shouldn't be undermining this by deleting articles like this. -- Prügelprinz ( talk) 07:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please be very careful before labeling well-established editors as "pro-Russian". I believe in this case this is plainly wrong. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep (for now) We could go from 2 ways from this, keep the article and make a special group for state-sponsored journalists, news reporters, etc. -- whom have protested against the war through mediums provided by state-sponsored corporations (Like Channel One RU). Or make a separate article that could be titled something like "Russian state-sponsored workers who have protested against the 2022 Russo-Ukranian Invasion" and add Marina (and other periodists/journalists) in there. t. Kris Null (they/them) ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep She is really a political prisoner now and should be recognized as such. This not “one event”. What happens to her will cast a long historical shadow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerussell ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Keep please - don't enable dictators to close down heroic journalists like Marina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeScot14 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia will look really stupid if it deletes something like this. Arrecife ( talk) 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note whoever eventually closes this should take a hard look at WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ILIKEIT, just in case they forgot about it (as those two would be accurate descriptions of the vast majority of the above comments). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please keep - this is already a valuable part of history, and is widely covered by international media. Puefiko ( talk) 06:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Notable for her prepared, risky and rare act with impact. And this discussion about deletion is quite notable by itself! Havanafreestone ( talk) 06:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Widely notable, current, plenty of sources to back it up. The huge number of keep comments above also back this up. Wikipedia can be so petty at times trying to delete everything. XANIA - ЗAНИA Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 06:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable both as a television producer – see Geographical bias on Wikipedia (example of WP:BIAS), Category:Television producers by nationality – American television producers‎ (8 C, 1,809 P), British television producers‎ (6 C, 436 P), Russian television producers (nothing, i.e. 0 C, 0 P) – and for a highly notable event during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please remember that this is supposed to be an English-language encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about the English-speaking world. Are US/UK TV producers really 2245 or more times more notable in the world than Russian TV producers? The ratio in Category:Television personalities by nationality is bad too (American television personalities‎ (18 C, 746 P), British television personalities‎ (10 C, 89 P), Russian television personalities‎ (1 C, 55 P), when we take into account that the pages in the subcategories are not counted in these numbers; RU only has 1 category. Boud ( talk) 06:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep The event is absolutely notable (I myself got known about it from The Guardian), see no any reasons for deletion. (Unsigned comment left by User:Audriusa}
  • Keep for now, revisit later Potential WP:NOTNEWS but nobody knows how history will play out. Also, too many editors here are sharing their personal views (obviously all in #solidarity with the Ukraine); true Putin defenders are rare these days, but the #Ukraine sentiments are starting to sound like a cult. Go to Ukraine and pick up a rifle rather than corrupting Wikipedia discussions with shallow slacktivist platitudes. As strong as your sentiments may be for the cause, this is how the encyclopedia slides in quality. Please stay on topic and be objective. My opinion is that there is a use for this article in the short term, but I am unsure about its utility long-term. Perhaps revisit this deletion in 1-3 months. 2600:1012:B01C:839C:60BB:507A:2D52:FDC6 ( talk) 07:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Follow up comment, same IP: There is far more potential for harm with insufficient coverage of a topic than with over-coverage. Having a Wikipedia article is not like having a blue check on Twitter…there is no implicit political “endorsement” with having an article like there is with a Twitter blue check. It’s all about notability. Clearly at the moment it’s notable enough. Every article had to start somewhere. Sometimes articles become non-notable and are deleted; such is life. She may be the next “Tank Person”, or she could show up on TV next week, reformed a la Jack Ma, calling for Zelenskyy to kill himself. Too many people here playing WP:CRYSTAL ball. 2600:1012:B013:2723:E5B8:575:8EA4:669C ( talk) 08:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as for now, it's evident, that her person has a significant coverage, that is enough for a separate article-- Noel baran ( talk) 07:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep The act can't be erase to satisfy Putin's followers. That kind of act is confirmed, has a great symbolic value and is already historical. AB30200 ( talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She will be remembered for her action yesterday, whatever happens in future. Pam D 08:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak procedural keep (for now): Given that between people's strong views on the ongoing war, and adversarial comments aimed at participants in this discussion, there's basically no way we're going to get a sensible discussion of whether the subject of this article is notable. We should close the AfD as either keep or no consensus, wait about a month or two and then have a proper discussion with greater perspective and less fervent passion. WP:THEREISNORUSH—Wikipedia can and often should just go "okay, let's hold off for a bit and see what happens before we make these decisions". — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, her actions are being widely reported in both Russian and foreign press. If a page is made specifically for her action of holding up the sign (thus solving OP's complaint about WP:BIO1E), then I might support having her page redirect there instead. -- Aabicus ( talk) 08:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, highly likely to go down in history as a key moment of the anti-war movement in Russia. Christiaan ( talk) 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, high coverage in media. LaMèreVeille ( talk) 09:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: neither for or against for the time being. The way I see it, the article may be coloured by recentism. I would wait a few days until the media dust settles down on this thing before revisiting whether or not it should be deleted or at least relegated to a subsection in the wider 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. Yekshemesh ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Allegedly УК 207.3, till 15 years. So please wait few days before you cancel her. Xx236 ( talk) 09:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The subject may or may not have been notable when this article was started (that depends on whether any secondary sources were available as well as the many primary news reports) but I'm sure she will be notable by the time the seven-day discussion period is up. Of course people will be writing background secondary sources about her, and have probably already started. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She's only notable for one thing. The policy is to write about the event not the person. Dougal18 ( talk) 10:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at least for now: The event (protest on channel one russia) seems certainly notable (or will turn out to be in the coming days). There could be an argument whether we should have an article about the event than rather than about her, but imho that's ultimately just a policy technicality. Imho the event and she herself are likely to become an iconic symbol similar to the Tank Man. However the article should restrict itself to what is reported in reliable media (even if it is rather limited for now) and stay away from relying on social media for content and sources.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can not say with certainty what the lasting impact or media coverage will be. But a rush to delete simply because something happened recently is in itself engaging in crystal-balling. The global coverage of this significant instance of dissent in Russia points to a potentially larger impact. Ovsyannikova also appears to meet the basic requirements for notability per WP:GNG as having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder ( talk) 10:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Quite obviously! There are many important figures from both sides during this conflict. We should not allow Putin's trolls to erase them from history. Durindaljb ( talk) 11:04, 15 March 2022 (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)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Susanna Tamaro

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only two sources are cited, one of which is primary. A Google search turned up no usable secondary sources. JMB1980 ( talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Several Corriere interviews and one in the Independent found. Article would need a rewrite, but appears notable. I also find a peer-reviewed overview of her body of work (or one aspect of it) here [17] . Oaktree b ( talk) 20:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article seems to be translated from the Italian article which has very few references. This Gale author profile ("Susanna Tamaro." Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors, Gale, 2004. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/H1000129901/LitRC?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=52a812c4. Accessed 15 Mar. 2022.) fills in the biographical info and gives some useful links for reviews, etc. Her books have sold millions although she is not as well known in the English-speaking world as she is in others. I have found reviews in English and Spanish. I'll try to add some references. Lamona ( talk) 16:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I found references for almost all of the awards; I added many ISBNs for her books. There is still a fair amount of biographical data that isn't referenced, but I suspect those will require access to Italian sources (most of which seem to be behind paywalls). I was able to add a few refs in that area. And, BTW, a Google search does indeed turn up some usable sources, like book reviews. And Google Scholar has numerous academic analyses of her work, plus there are two books (undoubtedly boringly academic) written about her by academics. So perhaps more WP:BEFORE was needed, but I'm glad to have had the heads up that the article needs work. Lamona ( talk) 00:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The English article is a mess, but the sources on the Italian version pretty clearly show notability up to the requisite standard. Atchom ( talk) 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep My initial online search found book reviews from Kirkus Reviews (two), The Independent (two), Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor, and two capsule book reviews, as well as a review from Variety for the film based on her award-winning "Italian book most sold in the 20th century". The sources have been added to the article, and WP:AUTHOR notability is well-supported, i.e. #3 The person has created [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and #4 won significant critical attention due to the awards. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    As I begin to review sources on the Wikipedia Library and add them to the article, the volume of support for notability reminds me of another article about an author with Asperger's syndrome recently brought to AfD by this nominator. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, either a very lazy WP:BEFORE or more probably no WP:BEFORE at all. The Italian version of the page lists several dozen RSs. Among other things, she has an entry in Who's who in Contemporary Women's Writing ( Routledge). Cavarrone 15:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep per above and a note that this nominator has made several other AfD noms of similar dubious quality. Montanabw (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as per comments above, and to reiterate concern that the nominator is perhaps inadvertently, and perhaps in good faith, repeatedly nominating neurodiverse authors for deletion. Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:01, 18 March 2022 (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. A little bit per WP:SNOW, but mostly per WP:CSK no. 3 - "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."

In essence, the nomination claims that this rivalry "isn't a true rivalry" (seemingly because this match-up only happens rarely) and that this fails GNG.

A cursory glance shows that the second part is inaccurate, and consequently the first one is either similarly inaccurate or simply personal opinion (and personal opinion is not a deletion rationale). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Giants–Jets rivalry

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

The article is on a non-existent rivalry that has only comprised 14 total games, with only 2 games in the last 10 years. Teams are in opposite conferences, don't play each other regularly and have never met in the postseason. The only thing that connects them is that they play their home games in the same stadium and market.

The article is well written and sourced, but a close examination of the sourcing does not support the existence of a true rivalry, with many of the sources actually questioning whether a rivalry exists. Thus, this "rivalry" fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The teams don't play regularly due to NFL scheduling rules, where AFC and NFC teams only play each other once every 4 years. Similarly, the only opportunity for a playoff game is in the Super Bowl. The fact that these teams do not play regularly does not mean that a rivalry doesn't exist or didn't exist. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep They do play every year, in the preseason. [18] Of course this is a rivalry, plenty of sourcing to support it. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Toa Nidhiki05 and Muboshgu, both of your comments support the "shared history" of the two teams, both in stadiums and markets. But neither support the existence of an actual rivalry, where two teams play each other often, fans share hate of the other team, the teams have played important games against each other, etc. All this is, is two teams who play in the same stadium and market. Most of the really good sources actually question whether a rivalry really exists, with a number of articles highlighting the feelings of players and coaches that there is no real rivalry. Compare this to other well-known rivalries, like the Packers/Bears, and it becomes even more questionable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    fans share hate of the other team Have you talked to many Jets or Giants fans? That's where the rivalry lies, and that's backed up in RS. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • BeanieFan11, the first result on your search is titled Giants-Jets rivalry: a war or a bore from 1980. The article goes on to explain how the players don't view it as a rivalry. The next relevant result is titled For vets, it's an off-on rivalry with a byline of Waiting time cools Giant-Jet rivalry from 1984. Again, an article about how a rivalry doesn't exist. Respectfully, if you aren't going to post relevant clippings from he Newspapers.com search, it really isn't helpful to post a link to search results. It would be like posting a link to a Google search result with millions of hits, 99% aren't going to be relevant. Most of those thousands of results on Newspapers.com aren't about to this topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 12:39, March 14, 2022 (UTC)
I'll add this, this, and this, where it at least notes that the rivalry did once "mean something." Again, I'm keeping this as "weak keep" because I acknowledge you make valid points, but there are sources out there that discuss this as a legitimate rivalry. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)Coaches and players attempting to downplay the rivalry before their preseason game do not mean this is not a rivalry. On the contrary, all the attempts to downplay it suggest just how strong it is with the fans. [19] [20] [21] –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Brendan Fallis

Brendan Fallis (  | 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 “DJ” and entrepreneur who fails to satisfy WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO respectively. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:GNG is not met also. A before search shows hits predominantly in user generated sources which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:09, 14 March 2022 (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. Modussiccandi ( talk) 11:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of places of worship in North Paravur

List of places of worship in North Paravur (  | 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:NOTDIRECTORY. Unsourced yellow page. Such a list can be created for every town, as there are temples in every street. Venkat TL ( talk) 18:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Stock market education

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

Too complicated for PROD. This does not seem to be an encyclopedia article, so much as a how-to guide, and I cannot identify sourcing about stock market education that isn't about the exams since it's such a broad term. I don't think a redirect to the licensing exams makes sense for the reader since it's such a vague term and not particularly mentioned there (and there's nothing worth merging). Thoughts? Star Mississippi 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Mount Hadley

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

There is no "Mount Hadley" in the Rockies, according to the USGS's Geographic Names Information System. There is a Hadley Point in Garfield County, Colorado, and it could be what the article creator was thinking of, but the rest is unverifiable. The article refs don't mention Hadley anything. PepperBeast (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I should add, though this one isn't as fun, this could be a case of someone creating a wikipedia article to win an argument, which certainly used to happen a lot more in our earlier years. A famous example is a whole bio we had on Loretta Scott Crew, a fictional inventor of Smores, which made its way into real books. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta Scott Crew (2013).-- Milowent • has spoken 20:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
"Mount Fenimore" only gets around 42 Google hits and there is no indication there is a place with that name however note that original content was for "Mount Fenimore" it was created at Mount hadley and moved to Mount Hadley 5 minutes later by another uses. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:15, 18 March 2022 (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. given the state of NSPORTS, mostly and the lack of clear consensus on what the overarching guideline is. It could have been called nom withdrawn, but valid non keep vote from BilledMammal. I don't forsee consensus emerging after zero input following a relist seven days ago. Star Mississippi 01:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Malika Auger-Aliassime

Malika Auger-Aliassime (  | 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 player no longer meets notability guidelines per WP:NTENNIS and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3. She has only participated in one WTA-level event and has not won any of the lower-level events. She is related to Félix Auger-Aliassime, who is a notable men's tennis player, but I'm not sure that makes her notable in isolation. Bonoahx ( talk) 14:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Fast Lane Ventures

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this company. Wikipedia should not used as an advertisement platform and homepage for businesses. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Denis O'Conor Don

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

I can't see anything here meeting WP:BIO. His descent from a High King doesn't get him there, per WP:BIORELATED, and I don't see that his involvement in the Council of Chieftains assists either. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Ireland, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He did get an obituary in The Irish Times. I’m not sure there’s enough here for him to satisfy notability though. – Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 14:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Obit not withstanding, which is more, at this level, about who you know than what you did, the alarm words are "seen by some" and "defunct title". This is no disrespect to the man, who died in July 2000 after an admirable life and achievements, RIP, but wiki might not be best place for commemoration. Ceoil ( talk) 23:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's probably true that obituaries depend to some degree on "who you know than what you did" but that in and of itself doesn't have a bearing on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. We have plenty of articles about people who did not do anything particular interesting except being very grand, but that doesn't disqualify them from inclusion if notability is established. Atchom ( talk) 18:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I almost voted deleted per nom, but after a search I came up with a very long (half-page, with two pictures) Daily Telegraph obituary (21 July 2000, p. 31) which goes into some detail about his life. Having two full-length obituaries in two major newspapers of two different countries clearly meets the notability criteria. The relevant criteria is whether he has received significant coverage from several secondary sources, not whether we think his life is interesting enough to be included. Atchom ( talk) 18:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nomination While the article is in need of revision, with two obituaries in different jurisdictions, he has reached notability. I had only found one myself, and would agree with Ceoil's assessment that in some cases, getting an obituary can depend on who you know, so that one obituary shouldn't in itself qualify. That said, the article remains in need of considerable revision, as Liz noted. - Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 20:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
[As noted by Ljleppan, I closed this nomination prematurely, not taking Ceoil's vote into account, so I'm reinstating it here. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 11:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I feel a bit iffy every time the WP:NBASIC requirement for "multiple" is reached with exactly two sources, especially given that they are both obituaries. "Weak", as it's a bit borderline in my view, but the length of the obits pushes it to the "keep" side for me. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing does not support an article Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Groww

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

Only funding and acquisition news. The whole content is a promo. Behind the moors ( talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Groww has significant coverage (beyond the funding news) across a wide range of sources. Below is the list that is relevant to this audience.
  • Delete Since the author himself has commented above with a list of sources, I assume those are the best possible ones. Forbes India article is long but since all its content is sourced to statements by involved people (founders, investors) with only one (highly flattering) quote from an analyst, it isn't independent. The rest are routine announcements, not much different from press releases. From a brief look at search hits, unable to find anything more than funding news, interviews or press releases. Hemantha ( talk) 05:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sources are not the best possible ones or the only ones. Let me add more for your reference. Ashok Bhat ( talk) 10:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Ashok2102 Please add links to them for easier access. P.S. Republic TV is a deprecated source and we will not consider it, see WP:REPUBLICTV — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 12:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also @ Ashok2102, please don't edit comments after multiple editors have replied. At the very least, you should add a note that you've edited your comment in such cases. In this specific case, you should have added a new comment. Read WP:TALK#REVISE for the specific guideline. Hemantha ( talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable sources and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, all are either regurgitated announcements and PR or rely entirely on interviews or other information provided by the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 17:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the detailed response. However, going by your logic, most the Indian financial wiki pages (and I am sure other company pages) will have to be deleted - Angel Broking, Axis Direct, Dhani, Edelweiss, Finvasia, FundsIndia, Geojit Financial, Groww, HDFC securities, ICICIdirect, India Infoline, Karvy Corporate, Kotak Securities, Kuvera.in, Motilal Oswal, Scripbox, Reliance Securities, Religare, Sharekhan, Zerodha. Most of these companies do not need Wiki page. But I naively assumed that Wikipedia would benefit from information on them (atleast 10 years ago when I started it did!). Things seems to have changed a lot in last 10 years (for worse in my opinion). Anyway, good luck with your delete spree. I am out! Ashok Bhat ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion - certainly no company should "need" a wiki page. I understand you're disappointed with my !vote based on our guidelines but I've tried to provide you with detailed reasoning also. If this company was notable then I'm sure references that meet our criteria would exist - try to find references where an unaffiliated third party has written an analysis/opinion about the company. If you believe that those other companies also fail our criteria for notability and have checked their references, feel free to nominate those that fail your checks for deletion. HighKing ++ 21:10, 21 March 2022 (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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 19:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Francis Onditi

Francis Onditi (  | 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)

An associate professor. His google scholar profile says he was cited in total 142 times in all his works. Does not have significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 14:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Flag of Mars

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

Similar to Flag of Earth, there is no "Flag of Mars". The proposals are not individually notable; they are sourced primarily to their own promoters. None of them are credible efforts towards being generally accepted. Olchug ( talk) 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- At least the red-blue-green vertical tricolor flag is somewhat notable (though obviously there is not and cannot be a legally "official" Mars flag at this point). I somehow missed the Flag of Earth Afd, but I would have argued that the Earth Day flag (i.e. "Blue marble" astronaut photo on a field of blue) was very highly notable. AnonMoos ( talk) 20:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply
AnonMoos, interesting that the request Earth Day flag redirects to the Ecology Flag, and not the flag that you had in mind, i. e. "Blue marble". -- Olchug ( talk) 08:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per above. It may need a little cleanup (as many articles do), but the concept of a Martian flag is a notable one. ~ BappleBusiness [talk] 00:09, 20 March 2022 (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. While there are more "keep" !votes in number, only one gives a detailed reason for notability, and it has been refuted. Ultimately, the debate appears to have died owing to a lack of input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wiki Loves Folklore

Wiki Loves Folklore (  | 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 event, Fails notability. Juggyevil ( talk) 08:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/smagy7/wikipedia_2022_photography_competition_is_open/
  2. https://bhuntr.com/en/competitions/1gm2ueelheezqhprpk
  3. https://wikilovesfolklore.wikidonne.org/
  4. https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2022-02-04/local-news/VCA-launches-cultural-programme-for-first-half-of-2022-6736240373
  5. https://stayhappening.com/e/wiki-loves-folklore-E10IF034VMQ
  6. https://allevents.in/mobile/amp-event.php?event_id=80001324712146
  7. https://wikimedia.ie/programme/wiki-loves-folklore-2022/
  8. https://www.ilmattino.it/AMP/societa/al_via_wiki_loves_folklore_italy_progetto_di_wikidonne_fotografia_scrittura-6478246.html
  9. https://www.vca.gov.mt/en/events/wiki-loves-folklore
  10. https://bhuntr.com/en/competitions/jeaqx7z01687bliu13
  11. https://goallevents.com/e/uslw-feminism-and-folklore-workshop-E800022050607358
  12. https://timebusinessnews.com/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  13. https://americanfolkloresociety.org/call-for-submissions-wiki-loves-folklore-photo-contest/
  14. https://futmax.org/2022/02/13/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  15. https://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/un-nou-llibre-de-gegants-de-jan-grau-i-carles-freixes-al-fes-ta-festa/amp/
  16. https://americanfolkloresociety.org/cfp-wikipedia-writing-contest-on-feminism-and-folklore/
  17. https://festafesta.cat/
  18. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/02/03/join-us-to-for-the-4th-edition-of-wiki-loves-folklore-as-we-celebrate-our-folk-culture/
  19. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/02/15/take-a-step-forward-to-bridge-the-gender-gap-by-contributing-to-feminism-and-folklore-2022/
  20. https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/1489969580302872582?t=GnZ-D8amU6-TeBmx6eoTEw&s=19

-- ✝iѵɛɳ२२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 09:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist: more source analysis, in depth in nature, would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:39, 14 March 2022 (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. OSE/uses these sources digression aside, there is consensus tha the sourcing does not support notability for this particular boxer Star Mississippi 01:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Rolly Lambert Fogoum

Rolly Lambert Fogoum (  | 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:NBOX; WBO Africa is a minor regional title and the UBO is a lightly regarded organisation, neither are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment

Reference 1 is a stat site; reference 2 is an interview; reference 3 is a primary source from the WBO; reference 4 is probably the strongest source, but it's routine fight coverage; reference 5 is a passing mention; reference 6 is a primary source from the UBO; and reference 7 is a book listing.

My BEFORE search (in English and French, Worldwide and Cameroon) found these same references along with routine fight coverage and this, which is an interview on a blog so does absolutely nothing for notability. Fails WP:GNG. 2. O. Boxing 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Albert Vexler

Albert Vexler (  | 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:NPROF. Vanity page of a non-notable academic created and edited almost exclusively by WP:SPAs. It has been cleaned up a couple of years ago, but I think showing the previous state is relevant. Tercer ( talk) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As a statistician and biostatistician, I do not find the subject’s contribution to methodology notable. That’s of course my own opinion (based on Google searches, Google scholar etc). But if it were, someone would have created a page on the methodology itself. An article about a person who came up with some non-notable methodology seems to have no useful purpose at all. The main content are items from his academic CV such as which academic journals he is, or was, an associate editor of. Richard Gill ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article is based on a press release. Beyond that, being on an editorial board of a magazine is not a sign of notability, it is a sign that you are an academic in the post-1970 or so academic world pretty much. Editors-in-cief are notable, at least if the journal is seen as impactful, I am not exactly sure if we have a clear idea which journals do and do not qualify (sort of like how I do not think we quite have a handle of which academic instituions being academic head of makes one default notable) but since that was not his position, he clearly does not meet that inclusion guideline. I see no academic inclusion guideline that is met, and even if they were we would want sourcing beyond one press release. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Israel, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as copyvio; this may qualify for G12. Even if it doesn't, there's no academic notability case here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above, and the SPA account. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if the copyvio and promotional wording could be cleaned up, he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows only two publications with over 100 citations; one is a methodology paper, but his is a middle position among multiple authors, and the other (where he is also in a middle position among more authors) appears to be the kind of paper where he was brought in to check over the statistical analysis rather then to do the actual research. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Inspect61 ( talk) 03:48, 17 March 2022 (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 !!!. ✗ plicit 14:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Tyler Pope

Tyler Pope (  | 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)

Although he appears to have performed with numerous musical acts, he doesn't appear to be notable on his own. I wouldn't be against redirecting the article but I'm not sure where to redirect it to. It also doesn't help that the article looks like it was written in about five minutes; not to mention that there are two birth years listed for him. (I didn't notify the article creator because they haven't edited since 2013.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:37, 14 March 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jerusalem Institute of Justice

Jerusalem Institute of Justice (  | 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)

Mainly sourced to own website - doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG Unbh ( talk) 08:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

comment perhaps you could show some of these potential sources, since all I'm finding are passing mentions where the subject is not getting anything like WP:SIGCOV Unbh ( talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I did. gidonb ( talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
You added a single source which is not much more than a recycled press release with a vague reference to further"potential" sources. This is not enough. Unbh ( talk) 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I did not see a press release. Did you? gidonb ( talk) 13:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Genius Inter College, Bistupur

AfDs for this article:
Genius Inter College, Bistupur (  | 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)

According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES the notability guidelines for schools were made stricter in 2017, and this school doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 11:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Carl Erickson (screenwriter)

AfDs for this article:
Carl Erickson (screenwriter) (  | 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 lacks any reliable sources, and as far as I can tell has never had any. My search for information turned up no sources on this person. Wikipedia should not be built on sources like IMDb which we have ruled to be unreliable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

"My search for information turned up no sources on this person". Did you follow Wikipedia procedure and complete a BEFORE search? When I did simply by clicking the links, I found the sources I added to the article. I'm sure I'd get more if I added information like the names of his coworkers (Curtiz, Borzage), wife, employer to a search. So it looks like you didn't complete the BEFORE or you didn't look at the sources that came up--more than I added, but the way, as some were redundant. Either way, this is a dysfunctional approach to AfD. -- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 02:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the excellent expansion work by DiamondRemley39 and another case of Lambert not doing a WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact of the matter is that this article existed for over 10 years sourced to nothing except IMDb. I did a search for sources. The fact that I am being attacked for not finding any, when no other editor bothered to place any on the article for over 10 years seems to be putting the weight too much on people who try and do reasonable actions to improve articles on Wikipedia. We have held that IMDb is unreliable and cannot be used as a source. I did a reasonable search for information and came up with nothing that indicated there was some. The fact of the matter is that this article lacked any reliable source at all when I found it and had existed on Wikipedia for 10 years. That is far longer than we should tolerate articles lacking reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
John, your argument to delete is being countered and your statement you didn't find anything in a search when I found things just by clicking the "find sources" links are what we have addressed. No one has attacked you. In good faith I recommend you strike that particular word and consider replacing it with another in case someone (not me) makes a beef about it later. You started an AfD and you know how AfDs go. Your work will be critiqued. This is the way of things. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw people were able to find additional sources that now show notability. This was not easily evident when found and the article had existed for an excessive amount of time with no reliable sources at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

2016–17 División de Honor

2016–17 División de Honor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A season for a Regional Spanish League (Which does not have its own article! Info on it can be found at Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol in Andalusia#División de Honor) with no SIGCOV. ArsenalGhanaPartey ( talk) 12:50, 14 March 2022 (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. Views are split roughly between keeping outright or merging with divine providence. Since neither requires an administrator action, they can be done after this AfD closes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Will of God

Will of God (  | 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 began as a confused attempt at a disambiguation page, and has since morphed into... something else. Three of the cited sources are Christian self-help books; the only other source, quoted in the Deism section, is more or less irrelevant, except that it happens to use the phrase "will of God" in an unrelated context. I can't find any scholarly works on this general subject. There's much that can be said about more specific concepts like predestination, divine providence, argument from free will, etc, but "the will of God" can't really be discussed in general terms. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hyperbolick:, God's plan (small "p") already exists as a redirect to the article nominated here. I mentioned is not as an alternative title but to note that, if we do merge or redirect this article to Divine providence it will create a double redirect. There is also God's Plan (capital "P") that is a disambiguation page for a bunch of songs and some other theological concepts. That we have both is another argument for redirecting the small "p" article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
May have misread your point. Thought you intended to move this to that title. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was not properly transcluded to the new daily log at the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It is definitely a notable topic, but one with a lot of overlap with other pages. Plenty of work to do, and it may very well be merged elsewhere, but it could well remain as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. Ping User:BD2412 due to his post at Talk:Will_of_God, which people may well like to reply to there. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • That is a ten-year-old post, meaning that I have no recollection of having posted it. That said, I would generally agree that there should be an article at this title. I note that Thomas Aquinas has a chapter on the subject in his Summa Theologica, which is a point from which this can be expanded. I would not be quick to merge or redirect this, I think there is a question of "will" that is distinct from providence. BD2412 T 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      I find your logic is always excellent, and if it was a good idea for a CONCEPTDAB then, then it still is. It's king of an old topic. Ten years is not so long. There are no time limits here.
      I agree, this should not be quickly merged or redirect. At a minimum, it should be a lengthy level 2 section at the target, not just something that sounds similar. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:34, 15 March 2022 (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 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ivi Kreen

Ivi Kreen (  | 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)

probably fails WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:50, 14 March 2022 (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! 02:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of postal codes of Paraguay

List of postal codes of Paraguay (  | 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:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ( [23], [24]). asilvering ( talk) 06:31, 28 February 2022 (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, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. I thought it was already decided to delete this. Anyway, the reason given for deletion is valid. Athel cb ( talk) 13:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Athel cb This one had a declined PROD in 2011, so it had to go through AfD. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Elijah Long

Elijah Long (  | 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)

Like another AFD candidate, Jeff Gum (actor), Long was "Executive Producer" for both Rambo: Last Blood (24 Executive Producers) and Tesla (2020 film) (14 Executive Producers) and the page creator of this article (with 27 edits) has also voiced a Keep vote at the Jeff Gum AFD. I'm sensing both paid editing and some sockpuppetry but the bottom line is that I don't think Long meets WP:FILMMAKER or WP:AUTHOR. And I should probably file an SPI, too. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 14 March 2022 (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. Two relists brought zero input, and it does not appear further input is coming. Star Mississippi 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Jenk Oz

Jenk Oz (  | 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:TOOSOON: there is countless refspam arguabley 2/28 refs meet GNG Yogiile ( talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I've turned the article into a short stub. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 14 March 2022 (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 International Velvet (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

International Velvet (song)

International Velvet (song) (  | 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)

Although the song has gained a cult following in Wales, there is not "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", as stated by WP:NSONGS. It has not charted, nor has it won any awards. All the information from the second paragraph can be easily worked into the article for the parent album, but the first paragraph is citing a user-generated lyrics site, so this information is not usable. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 11:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Uncle G: There's nothing wrong the redirect, and I'm supporting turning it back into a redirect. I brought it to AfD because there's some useful information in the article. Am I missing something? ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 12:42, 14 March 2022 (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 Battle of Westerplatte. ✗ plicit 11:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wilhelm Henningsen

Wilhelm Henningsen (  | 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 mentions of Wilhelm Henningsen in reliable sources are just passing references to his command of this company of naval marines in this brief battle. He is not independently notable of this one attack, in which he died. WP:BIO1E applies. The page should redirect to the Battle of Westerplatte article where his exploits are amply explained. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 11:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Peeter Laud

Peeter Laud (  | 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)

Probably fails WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 ( talk) 10:33, 14 March 2022 (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. North America 1000 10:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Eddie López (boxer)

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

Not notable boxer/actor. Fails WP:NBOX. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:29, 14 March 2022 (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 a merger target is created, happy to restore the history for merging. At the present time, there is none as an ATD Star Mississippi 01:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Yevhen Malyshev

Yevhen Malyshev (  | 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 soldier/athlete only notable for his death ( WP:BIO1E). Doesn't pass WP:NSPORT either. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:20, 14 March 2022 (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 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. consensus is this does not (yet) merit a standalone. Should that change once the war is not a current event, it can be spun back out. Star Mississippi 01:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Net voyne!

Net voyne! (  | 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 to the war” seems about as original as “ Fuck Joe Biden”. Not every wartime slogan automatically becomes the next “ we shall fight on the beaches” or “ day that will live in infamy”. Feels very much WP:TOOSOON, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS Dronebogus ( talk) 07:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:OR has nothing to do with notability of topics, if anything at all it has to do with noteworthyness of some article contents, which, however, is subject to our normal article improvement process on article talk pages, not the topic of article deletion discussions.
WP:NOTNEWS #1 (Primary sources), #3 (Who's who) and #4 (Celebrity gossip and diary) do not apply as well. Many secondary sources are available even on an international level.
The only item that could potentially apply is #2 (News reports) which is about the question of enduring notability. However, the topic is not about announcements or breaking news, so it is not among topics we rule out in general. Given that the main event (Russia's invasion of Ukraine) is of extraordinary importance globally and any emerging protests in Russia are in the interest and focus of an international audience, and it has already been picked up as a theme by authors and artists, I think that enduring notability is given. This is the type of themes historians will continue to discuss and analyze in publications for long. White Rose, Edelweiss Pirates or Leipzig Meuten come to my mind, movements which are still a subject of historical research about 8 decades later - I consider any protest movements in Russia to be of similar enduring notability.
WP:GOOGLE is only a how-to page, neither policy nor guideline. It discusses how to perform "google searches" and how to interpret the results. This works both ways, we can use it to find information and to get a rough idea of usage statistics of certain terms, but we should be careful not to over-interpret those numbers. This is what experienced WP editors do anyway, so it brings nothing to the table which would be relevant to this discussion.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think it was a particularly good idea to start a separate merge discussion in the middle of an AfD discussion.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the slogan has already "taken off" enough to be discussed as a semantically distinguishable subtopic - besides the primary sources we already have many secondary sources meeting WP:RS on international level indicating notability for a stand-alone article.
Also, we must consider that the size of the potential merge target article is already at 156 KB right now. At this size we usually start to think about splitting out identifiable sub-topics into separate articles rather than merging even more into them.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 08:54, 18 March 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

List of incinerators in the United Kingdom

List of incinerators in the United Kingdom (  | 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:NOTDIRECTORY of mostly non-notable facilities, no evidence of WP:LISTN, and only list of its kind. Navigation is already provided by Category:Incinerators and Category:Waste power stations in the United Kingdom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Future ship project 21

Future ship project 21 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced sub-draft quality stub, barely improved since 2012. Dronebogus ( talk) 05:16, 14 March 2022 (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. The "keep" opinions that consider that officers of a certain rank or position are automatically notable have no basis in policy and must be dismissed. But even without them there's rough consensus that a combination of high rank, the decorations to go with it, and coverage in the sources provided by Atchom among others are sufficient for notability in this case. Sandstein 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Cyril Samuel Townsend

Cyril Samuel Townsend (  | 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)

Naval officer, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Retired admirals are not inherently notable. Was a captain of the HMS Constance (1915) at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (he gets a passing mention in this book [27]). Highest rank while in service, according to the "Dreadnought project wiki" (which bases itself on a primary source), seems to have been rear-admiral. He was promoted vice-admiral the day before he was put on the Retired List in 1929, and promoted to admiral while on the Retired List in 1933. Who's Who was unanimously classified as a generally unreliable source in a 2022 RfC, and the Dreadnought Project is a user-generated source. The other sources are all primary and searches for Cyril Samuel Townsend do not return anything close to an independent, reliable, secondary source with significant coverage. Therefore, none of the sources can count towards passing WP:BASIC. Seems to have received an obituary in the Daily Telegraph (to which I don't have access), but so do most civil servants and military officers. Pilaz ( talk) 05:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I am the creator of the page and feel the need to give some background. I ran afoul of Pilaz during an AfD discussion and I guess this is his way of getting back at me, even though I specifically requested he abide by WP:CONRED which he hasn't. Be that as it may...
I think the article as it currently stands speaks for itself, but in case it doesn't, I submit this article clearly meets WP:BASIC (there are literally hundreds of articles about him in the standard newspaper databases, some of which is cited in the article. As a Companion of the Order of the Bath he also meets the additional criterion of WP:ANYBIO. He wasn't a run-of-the-mill officer: he was highly decorated for his part in two of the Royal Navy's most important engagements during WWI, and he was the head of a naval mission which was dismissed in highly publicized circumstances. In 1925, a national UK newspaper could write the following about him: "A well-known gunnery expert, he first came prominently before the public at the end of 1906..." (Daily News, 1 April 1925)
As a matter of fact, Pilaz admitted as much when he said "Seems to have received an obituary in the Daily Telegraph (to which I don't have access)" - anyone with an obituary in one of the UK's national newspapers can be presumed to be notable, absent compelling circumstances (although I appreciate his frankness in admitting he didn't actually read it). His claim that "most civil servants and military officers" get an obituary in a national newspaper of record is obviously wrong on even a second's reflection.
Two final points for the record: The Dreadnought Project is not an open-edit Wiki but is regularly used by reputable scholars in the secondary literature. There was a recent request for comment which ended somewhat inconclusively, but I am happy to revisit the issue in an appropriate forum. As to the UK version of Who's Who, on another AfD discussion several commentators expressed some incredulity that a badly advertised and very recent RfC, initiated by Pilaz himself, upturned years of consensus around that particular source, which is part of the Wikipedia Library. I fully intend to reopen the issue at some later time in a community discussion, but for out present purposes it suffices to say that this article stands even without either of those sources. Atchom ( talk) 06:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Several points and questions:
  1. You claim that I did not do WP:BEFORE, despite providing my personal evaluation of sources found in Google Books (since newspaper sources are lacking given that the subject died in 1949). On what grounds?
  2. You claim that this is for "getting back at you", but as it turns out, I found this article by using insource:ukwhoswho.com, as I am trying to implement the unanimous consensus found at RSN regarding Who's Who. Your claims that I am WP:HOUNDING you are not made in good faith, especially since you are probably aware that you've been creating permanent microstubs with two citations, one of which is always to Who's Who, for a very long time now. If you start a search using the search parameter above, and sort by creation date, 4 out of the last 20 pages created are yours: Laurence Eliot Power, Francis Murray Austin, Herbert Arthur Buchanan-Wollaston, and Marshal Llewelyn Clarke. Your Wikipedia stubs do not have immunity from community scrutiny.
  3. "Several commentators at another AfD expressed some incredulity" is just you and another editor, which you conveniently omit to mention ( link to the AfD in question, probably worth not omitting either).
  4. Content on Dreadnought Project is user-generated and is therefore not acceptable to demonstrate notability. It also doesn't link to secondary sources, but to primary sources.
  5. Do the articles you've linked to provide WP:SIGCOV? Since you seem to have access to them, could you copy the relevant passages to this discussion? Pilaz ( talk) 07:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Vice Admiral is the highest rank a Greek navy officer can normally achieve until the present day, unless becoming CHOD or being a royal prince, and was a very rare achievement in the past. Even the chiefs of the naval general staff during Townsend's tenure had lower ranks, being captains or rear admirals ( [28]). This was deliberate practice, so that the head of the naval mission be hierarchically superior to all Greek officers and face no obstacles on that account. So during his service in Greece, he was the hierarchically senior Greek navy officer, de facto equivalent to the chief of the service. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
He was not vice-admiral but rear-admiral while in Greece (1925-1926; he became vice-admiral in 1929). He was at any rate outranked by "admiral" (in reality vice-admiral) Miaoulis, who was also the Minister of Marine of Greece. The British mission was composed of only 7 officers, and Townsend never held a prominent role, since his assignment was to set up the Staff College of the Navy, which was shut down a year later. [29] At any rate, it doesn't matter because we don't have a subject-specific notability guideline for soldiers, but we do have the GNG. So let's try to focus on that instead. Pilaz ( talk) 10:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Sigh, yes, please lecture me on the history of my country... Miaoulis died in 1835 (!). The Minister of Naval Affairs under Pangalos was first Alexandros Hatzikyriakos, who was a retired rear admiral. His successor, Botasis, was mostly a diplomat, having served in embassies as naval attache. And the Ministry did not hold command over the fleet, it mostly handled personnel matters, funding, etc. And oh, look! The school Townsend helped establish still exists (under different name of course)! Which of course, as you say, is neither here nor there concerning notability, but just for the sake of setting the record straight... As for notability, if any national-level MP or ambassador is notable, then any head of a national navy or foreign person who has held equivalent position is also notable. He definitely appears to have been in the news enough... Constantine ✍ 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
My apologies, Cplakidas, I was careless and linked to the wrong Miaoulis: I meant to link to Athanasios N. Miaoulis, not Andreas Miaoulis. Athanasios Miaoulis is described as Admiral here, serving from November 1924 to June 1925 ( source). Regardless, it is incorrect to state that Townsend was the de facto co-head of the Greek Navy (no source makes this assertion). And do not worry, ambassadors aren't inherently notable, nor are any head of a national navy or foreign person who has held equivalent position. Members of national legislatures only benefit from WP:NPOL, since WP:SOLDIER and WP:DIPLOMAT have been removed. All must strive to meet the WP:GNG to be considered notable. Pilaz ( talk) 07:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Atchom: as you seem to be knowledgeable regarding the topic, could you give a brief description of the WP:SIGCOV status, perhaps along the lines of WP:THREE?- Ljleppan ( talk) 08:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi! Of course:
    1) Fotakis, Zisis (2010). "Greek Naval Policy and Strategy, 1923-1932". Has several pages' discussion about Townsend and his naval mission to Greece (normal run-of-the-mill military missions are not necessarily noteworthy, but there is a fair bit about this particular mission in contemporary sources; the dismissal of the mission was reported fully in several UK newspapers in some detail; the Times ran several full articles about it.)
    2) "Obituary". The Daily Telegraph. 5 April 1949. p. 3.. On the short side (paper being rationed in the UK the time) but the longest obituary the Telegraph printed that day. It also mentions two episodes - his reorganisation of the Plymouth barracks after a highly-publicized disciplinary incident and his chairmanship of a famous court-martial against Capt Dewar of the Royal Oak. I will incorporate those in the article when I get around it - both episodes received a lot of coverage at the time.
    3) "English Admiral for Greece". Daily News. 1 April 1925. p. 8. Not all admirals are notable, but this article shows he had an unusually high public profile for an officer of his rank: "A well-known gunnery expert, he first came prominently before the public at the end of 1906..." (the 1906 incident is the reorganisation of the Plymouth barracks, referred to above.) Even his departure from the barracks was thought to be important enough to merit an article in one of the national newspapers at the time, so not a routine appointment/change of guard news item. Atchom ( talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, I found a pdf of #1 and will check it out. Is there a place to read #2 and #3 online? - Ljleppan ( talk) 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    They are available on subscription databases (Gale for The Times and British Newspapers Online for the Daily News). Not sure how to share them given copyright concerns... But both give accounts of his career and focus on different aspects of it, which to me is a strong indicator of WP:SIGCOV. Atchom ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Atchom: You posted a few snippets below, thanks for that. I get the copyright concern, and won't push for a full copy, but could you give a brief description of how long those newspaper stories are (e.g. a word count) and how prevalent the subject is in them (e.g. "discusses him as part of a naval mission, with approx. 50% of the prose talking about the subject specifically")? I expect for the obituary the latter answer is naturally "it's all about the subject", but for the other story it's not completely obvious. The reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to figure out to what degree these sources are talking about the article subject as a person, and to what degree about the naval mission he lead. I appreciate that the distinction is somewhat nuanced, so thanks for bearing with me here :) - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Atchom, could you kindly share a complete quotation about Townsend as found in #2 and #3? You can add them as quotes to the article, if you prefer. Because I find #2 and #3 to be extremely lacking, and #1 barely says anything about Townsend. It talks more about the British naval mission to Greece, which it refers to as the "Townsend mission". Pilaz ( talk) 07:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    For #2. English Admiral for Greece" from Daily News (1 April 1925, p.8) reads: "It is expected that Rear-Admiral Cyril S. Townsend, who has been chosen as head of the British Naval Mission to Greece, will have the rank of Vice-Admiral in the Greek Navy. A well-known gunnery expert, he first came prominently before the public at the end of 1906, when he was appointed to the Royal Naval Barracks at Portsmouth as commander for special service, to reorganise the disciplinary system in the gunnery department. This was in consequence of the famous "on the knee" episode, which created a sensation at the time." Pilaz ( talk) 08:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Since you've gone ahead and copy pasted the whole text, this whole article is about Townsend. It talks about several aspects of his career, and describes some of his claims to public fame. How is this "extremely lacking"?
    As to your characterization of the other source, Townsend's activities are discussed in some details over two pages; "Townsend mission" appears only twice, the second time in a section discussing another naval mission. This is simply a dishonest characterization. Atchom ( talk) 15:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Some quotes:
    "the Greek Minister of Marine confided to Rear Admiral Townsend";
    "Anticipating further Greek naval tenders, Cheetham discussed with Townsend"
    "But before these were made Pagalos intimated to Townsend"
    "Townsend protested energetically against this and had interviews with the President of the Republic"
    "Coundouriotis appeared greatly upset and begged Townsend to remain on" Atchom ( talk) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. An unexceptional career, most of the sources are promotion and posting notices which don't count towards notability. His short stint as an advisor in Greece doesn't make him notable either. If he actually did anything noteworthy there'd be at least a few paragraphs in a few books, the fact that there aren't means he isn't notable. Just being an Admiral doesn't make someone notable. Mztourist ( talk) 08:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, a fairly high-level and interesting career. The who's-who stuff is a complete red herring. The major reason why who's-who has been declared unreliable is because in recent times it has been publishing autobiographical self-promotion. Townsend died in 1949; I think it unlikely that he's been adding autobiography to his who's-who article in recent years. Elemimele ( talk) 11:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Companion of the Order of the Bath, which has easily been held in the past to meet WP:ANYBIO #1 ( see here. And an obit in a major national newspaper has also always been held to make someone notable. Oh, and editors need to read the definition of " Generally unreliable sources". It does not mean they cannot be used: The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions... Too many suggestions recently that Who's Who should never be used. This is not the case and appears to be being used as a reason to delete articles for no good reason. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Being only the 4th-most senior order, and with over 2000 members, it's not quite obvious to me that this passes WP:ANYBIO#1. Do you have examples of AfDs/discussions where this was established as consensus? - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Absolutely. User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above. Almost complete consensus. And he had the CMG too, also considered to meet ANYBIO. The CBE and above always has. And I'm afraid an understanding of the British honours system is preferable: the fact it's the fourth most senior order is totally irrelevant. The higher orders are very rare indeed (it's the level of the award that's important in any case). And the Order of the Bath most certainly does not have over 2,000 members at the same time. Only a handful of people are appointed to it every year. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, this new reply function is a bit annoying since there's no warning that the message being responded to has changed during the drafting of the response. I see quite a few of those have resulted in a deletion, so this appears to not be quite a categorical. As was my assumption based on WP:ANYBIO anyway (...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included). So the imperative question seems to be whether this is a case of WP:BIOSPECIAL or not. I'll wait for a response to my query regarding WP:SIGCOV before !voting on that front. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    There have been several articles discussions that resulted in deletion or no consensus because editors believed that CB was not sufficient to demonstrate notability, especially given the fact that thousands were awarded to the members of the armed forces in the wake of WW1. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Dorling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Arbuthnot (cavalry officer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Thomas Arbuthnot (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Dorling. There is no Wikipedia-wide consensus on what constitutes a significant award under WP:ANYBIO #1, so relying on precedent isn't really ideal either. And according to your own list, it is incorrect to say that CMG "always has" guaranteed notability - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot (British army officer) was deleted despite the CMG. And if you look at the list of people who received the lowest rank of his order in June 1918, that is the CMG, you can tell he was still only captain and that 300 other people not necessarily notable people did receive the same award. I suspect that in 1918 alone, you around 1,000 people getting the award between the Birthday Honours and the 1918 New Year Honours (700+ CMGs in 1918). Pilaz ( talk) 07:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    This AfD is from 2007; things might have moved on since then? Atchom ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Only five people with CBEs or higher have ever been deleted at AfD. Three of them were 15 years ago, before much consensus was established on Wikipedia! Claiming there is no consensus or that "quite a few of those have resulted in a deletion" is frankly laughable. It's a perfect example of claiming something is true because you want it to be rather than because it is. Although I can never quite understand why any editor would want it to be true in the first place! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I also find it somewhat bizarre that anyone would believe that someone considered notable enough by the British government to receive such a high award should not be by default considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia that has articles on, for instance, many people "notable" just for posting puerile rubbish and uninformed opinions on social media. True notability is not determined by the size of your internet following, but by what you have contributed to society. In the real world, that is... -- Necrothesp ( talk) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Necrothesp: Calling my good-faith attempts engage in discussion "frankly laughable" is not conductive for discussion and is in fact quite hurtful, I ask you to consider striking such statements. - Ljleppan ( talk) 07:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      No personal offence was intended, but it is quite clear that five, three of them years ago, does not in any way constitute "quite a few". Clear consensus is being derided all too often at AfD by editors who seem to want to delete as many articles as possible. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      Frankly, I'm still not seeing how there's a way to interpret what you said without it sounding like a rather un- WP:CIVIL personal attack. I'm repeating my request for you to strike that part. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      Maybe you'd like to strike your clearly inaccurate comment then? But in any case, it was hardly a personal attack. It was an expression of amazement that any editor could interpret a tiny handful as "quite a few". As I said, there have been too many examples recently of deletionist editors deliberately misrepresenting clear consensus to support their own agenda. I apologise if you are not one of them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      It seems that this conversation is not going to be conductive and so I'll just disengage on my part. - Ljleppan ( talk) 18:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to be plenty of coverage of him in the British Newspaper Archive. Also a few other things not mentioned above. He was involved in the rescue effort at the Messina Earthquake for which he was awarded the Insignia of Commander of the Order of the Crown of Italy by the King of Italy. Recommended for Commendation for service at the Battle of Jutland, Mentioned in Dispatches at Gallipoli, he also presided over the Court Martial hearing of Vice-Admiral Kenneth Dewar, for Dewar's involvement in the Royal Oak Mutiny which was widely reported around the world eg Royal Oak Enquiry Piecesofuk ( talk) 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I find this a rather frustrating case. There are several references that are unambiguously about the article subject as a person. However, those newspaper articles that I have access to (i.e. The Times pieces) are rather short and/or passing mentions, and users with access to the paywalled texts are not forthcoming with details about their depth. Furthermore, I find it difficult to separate the article subject from the naval mission they lead in evaluating to what degree the most important non-newspaper sources support notability. Simply put, based on the evidence available to me, I'm unable to make a well-reasoned determination regarding whether the significant coverage aspect of WP:NPEOPLE is fulfilled. Others put out an argument based on WP:ANYBIO#1, but I find this unconvincing. First, in relation to military awards and honors, there was not even community consensus for the now-deprecated WP:SOLDIER which took the stance that the highest national award would give a presumption of notability. Second, ANYBIO is an additional criteria, and "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". If Atchom (or anyone else with access to them) can describe the paywalled news articles (most notably the obituary and the Daily News piece) in a way that allows me to determine they fulfill the "significant coverage" requirement in relation to the article subject as a person I'll happily !vote for a keep. - Ljleppan ( talk) 18:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Senior naval figure with plenty of coverage in the newspaper archive. Dormskirk ( talk) 09:27, 21 March 2022 (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) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ducks on the Wall

Ducks on the Wall (  | 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 criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. - Liance talk/ contribs 02:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I found one more book now from before 1998 and added information from it, although I only have limited access to it. Rlendog ( talk) 13:09, 17 March 2022 (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 Soap Opera (album). Stifle ( talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Holiday Romance

Holiday Romance (  | 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 criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. - Liance talk/ contribs 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Soap Opera (album). Clearly fails WP:NSONG. While Rlendog has done an excellent job sourcing the article, the song still does not pass NSONG. First, the song does not meet any of the three specific criteria given at NSONG. It did not rank on any music charts, win any significant awards, and it has not been covered by multiple artists. Additionally, because the sources added by Rlendog are mainly about the broader album, Soap Opera, they can not be considered significant coverage of the song per this text as written in NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." As such, keep is not an option under policy and merge is the best solution. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per 4meter4; none of the three listed criteria at WP:NSONG are met, it's pretty clear on that. The sourcing is indeed excellent, but it can be excellent over on the Soap Opera page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddude14 ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Duncan Scott (field hockey)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage in reliable third-party sources to meet notability requirements. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Saudi Elderly Support Organization (WAQAR)

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The sources are self-source, Saudi government sources or to propaganda outlets for the Saudi regime (such as Arab News). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:17, 14 March 2022 (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. Despite the long discussion it seems that nobody is actively in favor of keeping this. Sandstein 14:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wild Cat Branch

Wild Cat Branch (  | 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)

Complete failure of WP:V. Not mentioned in the GNIS under any name. The archived source, [30], states that it bottoms out in "Judah Creek", which also doesn't exist on GNIS. Checking GNIS topo maps in the townships named in that source shows two streams with completely different names. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete search with my preferred search engine and Google Books turned up no RS results. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:GEOLAND without substantial RS coverage. Even WP:V is a stretch. The state historical society cites a master's thesis for where the stream is and how it got its name. I couldn't find anything else in independent searches. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Judah Creek you mean? ☺ Ramsay has that located in Saling Township in Audrain and Union Township in Monroe, based upon Leech 1933. Leech in turn sources Wild Cat Branch to William Vivion, deputy county recorder. It is definitely verifiable as a name. Per Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data/Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection#Problems the sourcing to the deputy county recorder's personal testimony indicates that it probably was named that, at least locally, even if the local name from a deputy county recorder in the 1930s cannot be found in a database transcribed (from federal maps) in the 1970s and 1980s. It's not uncommon for branches to have different names over time, or to have local names different from federal ones.

    The reason that you won't find it in the GNIS now, as opposed to even a few years ago, is that now the WWW site only uses the non-historic topical subset. Ramsay stuff went in in GNIS phase 2, and sometimes went in as "(historic)".

    Ramsay and the theses deal with toponymy. Whether the named something has substantial historical documentation is a rather different matter, and especially difficult to determine if the name is a "(historic)" one. Judah Creek is a branch of Allen Creek which is a branch of Elk Fork Salt River, the latter two of which are names that you will find on federal maps. Allen Creek is now known as either Reese Fork Allen Creek or plain Reese Fork. But which exact tributary is "Judah Creek", let alone which tributary of that is "Wild Cat Creek", is unclear, especially as my go-to source of information on "(historic)" records on the WWW has decided to let its SSL certificate expire two days ago.

    Uncle G ( talk) 04:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

    • I mean, you wikilink Judah Creek like that's definitive, but it's got the exact same sources as this article does, so it hardly proves anything except that we have two articles with the same issues. If we can't know from the sources "which exact tributary" the historical names Judah or Wild Cat refer to, isn't that a clear verifiability problem? And even if you accept that names are verifiable (I don't), they still fail WP:GEOLAND on account of lacking coverage. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Takaful Charity Foundation

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization. The only sources in the article is the organization itself and 'Arab News', which is a propaganda outlet for the Saudi government. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Ronald Villalta

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 ( talk) 00:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_14&oldid=1078758042"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE