The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dominican War of Independence#1844: First campaign. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Fuente del Rodeo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Potential WP:HOAX, otherwise fails WP:NOTABILITY. Could not find any concrete sources that this battle ever happened, and the sourcing in the article on both Spanish and English Wikipedia does not appear to directly refer to the battle. Furthermore, the only actions that seem to have occurred as part of the war between the 13th and 18th March 1844 was the battle/skirmish of 'Cabeza de Las Marías y Las Hicotecas', which was a Haitian victory. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 22:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 22:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Dominican Republic, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Does not appear to be a hoax, as it looks like there was some kind of skirmish on 13 March [1], though "Batalla [de] Fuente del Rodeo" appears a modern name given the lack of books with it [2] (sidenote: there are three other "Battles" listed at Dominican War of Independence#Battles and the associated navbox where casualties are nil to minimal). Am amenable to a redirect to Dominican War of Independence#1844: First campaign per NOPAGE as it doesn't look like there's much to be said about the incident (taking the es-wiki article into account) that can't be covered by tweaking the current text. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 02:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not found any WP:RS citing "Battle of Fuente del Rodeo" verbatim, nor any historians calling it by the name. As we are not inventing names for battles such as '"Battle of X", and the article fails WP:GNG.-- Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Withdraw‎. Notability established. (non-admin closure) λ Negative MP1 23:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Apple Jack (video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Falls just short of notability. It got a decent piece from Digital Spy, but Eurogamer is very brief and not substantial. There's seemingly a review from Edge magazine somewhere, but it's nowhere to be found. All other reviews provided in the article are unreliable per WP:VG/S. Nonetheless, with the little substance provided from Eurogamer and lack of coverage overall, I don't believe a substantial article can be made with the material available even if WP:THREE is technically met. λ Negative MP1 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ Negative MP1 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• [3] This should satisfy WP:THREE.- Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nom themselves said it would be notable if the Edge magazine review were tracked down and lo and behold, Cukie Gherkin tracked it down. Therefore it is clearly article-worthy. Potential length is not a criteria for deletion, as long as the key facts can be described, and they certainly can. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I never said anything about article length. Length ≠ article substance. My concerns on the coverage from Eurogamer being slim and on the fence of whether or not it passes WP:SIGCOV are also not yet answered. λ Negative MP1 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep There's some coverage by Retro Gamer: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Even though none of those aren't that substantial, and Eurogamer review is short, I think it's just enough to pass GNG. -- Mika1h ( talk) 10:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:GNG is met with Digital Spy, Edge, Eurogamer, and Retro Gamer sources (I consider the Eurogamer and Retro Gamer ones ( this one specifically for the latter) significant coverage). Skyshifter talk 02:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There is apparently a review from Official Xbox Magazine (UK) at issue 64, but I couldn't find the issue. On another (related) note, Apple Jack 2 might be notable with reviews from IGN, Eurogamer, and Edge. Skyshifter talk 03:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus to keep per GNG met with ANYBIO fulfilled. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Michael Xavier (  | talk | history | 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 reads like a résumé and has been principally edited by its subject. Has been a nominee for awards, but there is no real conveyance of notability beyond any other actor on Broadway. Fails WP:GNG. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} ( talk) ( contribs) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, Entertainment, and England. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} ( talk) ( contribs) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Entirely self-promotional, but that in itself isn't a reason to delete — what matters is independent coverage in reliable sources. I found an article from the Evening Standard, which is pretty good — direct coverage of Xavier for six paragraphs in an independent source. It's not enough to convince me right now, but if there's more out there along those lines, then Xavier could be a notable subject. Toughpigs ( talk) 23:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment Canadian actor with the same name [8], not the same person. I'll try to filter for a UK person. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete hits of notability, but this was the best I could find that wasn't simple PR [9]. I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1 having been nominated twice for the very significant Laurence Olivier Award. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Necrothesp makes a good point; the Olivier award is a major award. Add that to the coverage I mentioned above, and I think it demonstrates notability. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - as per @ Toughpigs Mr Vili talk 22:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: references ain't great but Laurence Olivier Award is good. She was ^{a fairy} 02:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  This might be a trifling detail, but he did not win the award--only nominated for it. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} ( talk) ( contribs) 03:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Anthony Stockwell. ✗ plicit 23:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The Making of Malaysia (  | talk | history | 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 academic book. No reviews found, and very minimal citations ( [10]).

When searching for sources, watch out for "Malaysia: The Making of a Nation", a completely different book, and "Malaysia", a 2004 book edited by Stockwell for the British Documents on the End of Empire Project, also a completely different book. asilvering ( talk) 22:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. asilvering ( talk) 22:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to author Anthony Stockwell. Redirects are cheap and this is a potential search term. (In general it's worth attempting to redirect an article when there is a dearth of sources before bringing it to AfD.) czar 17:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  That is indeed usually what I do, not sure why it slipped my mind this time. A redirect would work fine. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect as above. Found nothing in ProQuest either. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 17:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Presbyterian Church of India#Structure. ✗ plicit 23:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Zou Presbyterian Church Synod (  | talk | history | 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 evidence found of any notability from independent sources. Fram ( talk) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and Manipur. Fram ( talk) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete: I lean delete right now because all I can find on this denomination in independent sources are passing mentions about church buildings in articles about other things. There is an outside chance that more sourcing exists in an Indian language, but I wouldn't put money on it. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge: Per below arguments for AtD. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete per Pbritti. I found a passing mention of the synod on a Welsh Presbyterian website's history of the church in India, but that's not quite a secondary source, or WP:SIGCOV. Wikishovel ( talk) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect, after re-reading WP:ATD-M, User:Jahaza's argument makes sense. Wikishovel ( talk) 09:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect to Presbyterian Church of India. There's not enough here to warrant a separate article. The info about this synod can be included in the main article for now and broken off again if sufficient sources are found. Other synods of the PCI may have enough info for separate articles (e.g. those founded in the 19th century) Jahaza ( talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge: Partial merge performed at Presbyterian_Church_of_India#Structure - no objection to slight expansion of that capsule summary provided that it is properly referenced. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Presbyterian_Church_of_India#Structure: a few mentions online but in the context of the main church. Password ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗ plicit 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Imre Vankó (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GNG. The only example of significant coverage in an independent source is [11], and that doesn't go much beyond announcing Vanko's signing to a new team. I was unable to find additional coverage online, searching for combinations of the subject's first and last name, and together with the names of teams he has played for, bearing in mind Hungarian name order and declensions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Drafify - 160 appearances in the top flight of Hungarian football - logic says there is coverage, but I can't find any either. Giant Snowman 21:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Draftify Good call. This reminds me of a similar situation surrounding a Syrian player in the Dutch leagues from a few months ago. Anwegmann ( talk) 21:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Matej Senić (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to brief mentions in match writeups (e.g. [12]) or transfer reports (e.g. [13]). I was unable to find additional coverage searching for his name, combining it with teams that he's played on, or with words for newspaper, journalism, etc. in Serbo-Croatian. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Drafify - this guys's verifiable career suggests there should be coverage, but I cannot find any. Giant Snowman 21:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

• Delete - Can be recreated when sources are 'discovered'. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Didihat district (  | talk | history | 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 one of those articles about "proposed" districts that apparently never became a thing. Wikipedia is not a repository for non-notable "proposals." Aintabli ( talk) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Uttarakhand. Aintabli ( talk) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following articles, because they all pertain to the same problem:

Ranikhet district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kotdwar district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yamunotri district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Aintabli ( talk) 17:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Can we perhaps merge these into a List of proposed districts in India? BD2412 T 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

They are notable proposals. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete all nominated entries. Per WP:NGEO, Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. In this case, a mention in one article does not meet WP:GNG. Moreover, we should avoid creating permastubs which will never be improved because the district never actually existed. Broc ( talk) 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more support when closing a bundled nomination and there is a Merge suggestion though to a nonexistent article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Do not meet WP:GNG. Articles can be recreated if these districts are created someday. Arnav Bhate ( talk) 11:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗ plicit 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Appears to be a short-lived manufacturer with a few mentions in lists of manufacturers. I'm not seeing significant coverage per the GNG. JMWt ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Michigan. JMWt ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Keep - as per above and cool history page to have Mr Vili talk 22:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a tribute to the legacy, the page has existed from 2007 to the present. However, frankly speaking, it does not meet the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk) 08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - covered in at least two reliable sources (Kimes, Georgano), both independent of the subject. I see no justification for deleting this entry.  Mr.choppers |  ✎  15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Added two more sources, expanded a touch to include the revised, water-cooled Model F.  Mr.choppers |  ✎  19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - with multiple reliable independent sources, it passes GNG, and the article has enough content to explain the topic. -- Sable232 ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: sourcing in history looking good after additions. notability met. Password ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Highways in Croatia#State roads. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

D401 road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page seems to imply that all state roads in Croatia have inherent notability and offers little in terms of referencing other than government announcements. I do not speak Croatian but I don't see sources that would meet the GNG. JMWt ( talk) 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Croatia. JMWt ( talk) 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• This one is a very short, local one, and a Google search of Croatian sites mostly produces cursory references to it. This could stay as is if we declare it a gazetteer entry per WP:5P1. Even then, such a small entry without much WP:POTENTIAL could still be upmerged into a list, though. In that case it probably should still be redirected rather than deleted because this term is signposted and it's plausible as a search term for the average English reader who comes across it. -- Joy ( talk) 10:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Highways_in_Croatia#State roads. No info here that is not better presented in a list ForksForks ( talk) 18:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a map Mr Vili talk 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Highways in Croatia#State roads. There is likely to be significantly more (local) coverage of this road than might be expected of typical Croatian state roads given its function serving the airport. This should be a redirect with possibilities until such sources are presented to justify a standalone article. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 01:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Michael Shewmaker (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GNG, coverage is largely limited to database entries. Big Island Video News appears to have the only coverage that is independent and more than a brief mention, but even that article is rather fleeting in depth. Source #5's coverage would be excellent, except that it's not independent, as it primarily discusses works featured on the resort's own property. Searching online, there appears to be a potentially-notable poet by this name, but I'm not finding relevant search results about the sculptor who is the subject of this article._signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Hawaii. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Florida, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete This person does not meet notability for an artist. In addition, some statements in the article are not found in the sources (e.g. "Over time, the personal collection grew, and have more than 25 monumental sculptures made from various materials, including stainless steel, aluminium, bronze, and concrete" is not stated in the two sources - in fact, he is only name-checked in them). If the article were reduced to what is in the sources it would consist of only a few sentences. Lamona ( talk) 05:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Nassau County Sports Commission (  | talk | history | 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. There are no sources liked in this article. Google turns up nothing relavant. Google Books only turns up trivial mentions. Scholar only turns up more trivial mentions as well as brief or passing mentions [...] of non-notable awards. —Matrix(!) ( a good person!) _{Citation not needed at all; thank you very much} 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Sports. —Matrix(!) ( a good person!) _{Citation not needed at all; thank you very much} 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there's nothing in JSTOR. Newspapers.com has many hits, but I only found local stories with casual mentions of the topic, or quotes from the topic. Fails GNG as far as I can discern. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Delete. Seconded on all. ItsMoosher ( talk) 01:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, PROD"d twice so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect to Gary I. Wadler. -- Habst ( talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether this page should become a Redirect or be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Don't see a redirect that makes sense here either, the one proposed here seems to me like it would be a WP:SURPRISE. Let'srun ( talk) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Let'srun, thank you for your vote. Why would it be a surprise? The redirect target was the president of the organization. Of course, there is always a possible redirect to Nassau County, New York as well. -- Habst ( talk) 10:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

    That is what I was thinking, yes. Let'srun ( talk) 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

California Green Lodging Program (  | talk | history | 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 long marked for buzzwords and original research, that doesn't appear to have lasting influence: might be a good candidate for upmerging into the department that manages it -- but very little content worth recovering in that sense. Sadads ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and California. Shellwood ( talk) 00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

The result was Withdraw‎. A review from that somehow didn't come up in my searches was found. (non-admin closure) λ Negative MP1 07:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The Political Machine 2020 (  | talk | history | 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. WP:BEFORE turned up no critic reviews, Metacritic also shows nothing except one review from a non-reliable source (New Game Network). This game fails WP:GNG. λ Negative MP1 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ Negative MP1 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I was able to find a review from Common Sense Media - I think this combined with the PC Gamer and VentureBeat coverage meets WP:GNG. Waxworker ( talk) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per source found by Waxworker. It shows the article passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

No independent refs on the page. There seems to be a lot of quotes in various news outlets by the subject, but I'm not seeing much to offer towards his notability on en.wiki JMWt ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America. JMWt ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Islam, Canada, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails GNG Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 16:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/ _Rational 21:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Overtraining of AFL athletes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be someone's personal essay that is based entirely on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There are some sources that discuss the concept of overtraining in general, and some sources that discuss various aspects and issues of the AFL, but these are being combined to create a specific topic and arguments that are not described in any one source. For example, there are several sources that discuss mental health issues that some AFL players have suffered from, but none of those sources actually discuss this in relation to "overtraining" nor do they support the conclusions/assertations made in the "psychological symptoms" section, which appears to be entirely based on WP:OR. The same is pretty much the case for the whole article, making this a pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH at work. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Australia. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is an essay, not suited for the mainspace. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Draftify This was one of a handful of essays in this incongruent style which appeared around the same time on Australian Football League topics by various different editors with no other contribution history (compare ACL injuries in the Australian Football League and Mental health in the Australian Football League) – I always suspected they were the result of a school project. While agreeing with Oaktree and Rorshacma that the article in its current form is wholly unsuited for the mainspace, I'd draftify rather than delete because there's definitely enough out there on the topic to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Aspirex ( talk) 20:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify, my input is 'soft draftify'. I'd be equally happy with the delete outcome. Aspirex ( talk) 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Draftify – Per @ Aspirex. Needs improvements to be in the main space. Svartner ( talk) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I agree with the nomination that this a pile of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Given the article has been around since 2015 I don't think that Draftify it the correct option, if it was a relatively new article it may be but that isn't the case. This needs WP:TNT. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. WP is not a space for essays. LibStar ( talk) 02:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: essay with original research. Password ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Mirko Siakkou-Flodin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this sculptor per NARTIST, nor GNG. The article sources consist of an online CV, and a short blog article that does not mention him but does mention a different artist (Mo Flow-den), perhaps that is a pseudonym? An online BEFORE finds only user-submitted content or other blogs, but no substantial, independent in-depth coverage one would expect for a notable artist. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Germany, and Greece. Netherzone ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing in WP:LIBRARY. All web and news results are trying to sell me art or are social media/blogs. Jfire ( talk) 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of WP:Notability under SNG or GNG. Further than that, I could not find any evidence that it even exists. I'm no expert at searching in Somali but I could not find where it is even mentioned n any of the sources. The same for an internet search. There is a person by that name (which already has an article) and it appears that there is a location by that name. But no coverage about a Barsame clan. North8000 ( talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Seems to me to be fictional, a simple look through the sources in the article, (using cmd +F) found nothing. The article is also shorter than this sentence, so there is not really much there; no assertion of notability anyways. Geardona ( talk to me?) 18:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Ok, it seems to me if I look for "Barsane" or "Barame" something picks up, I need to look into this more. One of the google books links to Barsane Galigal (spelling I know). I am going to run it through google translate. Geardona ( talk to me?) 18:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ok, after some digging, it exists, and falls under NGEO now as a populated place, as it refers to the area as well. This is so complicated sorry for all of the strikethroughs. Geardona ( talk to me?) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

But right now it says that the article is about a CLAN. It sound like you are saying to convert it to a place/geo article. North8000 ( talk) 19:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The google translate from the italian is severely broken, so I only get some of it, but it seems to imply that they are one in the same. It would need to be converted to an article about the place to survive. Let me do yet more digging. Geardona ( talk to me?) 20:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Ok, it is not a place per say, but the source claims it is part of the Gogondovò (Darandolle) group, as a sub group, and thats it, the group refers to both the land and the people, and this sub-group refers to a subset of people. Since it is mentioned one time in the document, I support deletion (final vote sorry). Geardona ( talk to me?) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete So the entire article as it reads now: "Barsame is a Somali clan.". Barely even a DICDEF at this point. If you want an article about a geographical place fine. Five words does not make an article though. TNT this. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cinema of Bahrain. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Bahraini films of 2014 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

List of just two films, with no pressing need to exist. Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with individual by-year lists spun off only once the base list has become large enough to need that for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user went around indiscriminately creating "List of [Country] films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which isn't the established practice and has not been continued for any other year in the past decade.
Bahrain, however, doesn't even have its own standalone list at all yet, and instead List of Bahraini films just exists as a redirect to Bahrain's subsection in the continent-wide List of Asian films, where there are just eight films listed including both of these, and I had to add four of those eight to that list myself just now.
So no prejudice against the creation of one base list of Bahraini films if somebody wants to take on the job of looking for additional films that are still missing from that section, but there would need to be a hell of a lot more than just eight Bahraini films to list before spinning out separate by-year lists would be necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 17:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Bahrain. Bearcat ( talk) 17:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom (I suppose this is technically a merge but...) don't see any need for this list as of right now. Geardona ( talk to me?) 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge as suggested. A list of only 2 films, when we're now 10 years out, shows me there aren't likely going to be more added, so the list isn't needed. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge These two films should be listed at Cinema of Bahrain and List of Asian films. Dream Focus 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Computer#Digital computers. Closing as redirect. History is preserved under redirect for merge, if required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 03:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Digital electronic computer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely uncited for years, and mostly redundant to Computer, or any of the other articles it references to say "this is not one of those". PROD was declined. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shaws username .  talk . 17:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Computer. Unnecessary content fork. Jfire ( talk) 17:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge & Redirect to computer, might have some good information in its own section there. Geardona ( talk to me?) 18:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Computer: Redundant - just describes normal computers except for when it says (item) is not a digital electronic computer. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: A digital electronic computer is what people think of when you tell them the word "computer" in 2024. This appears to have started out as some fork that got abandoned. Would be better suited in a discussion about computer history, Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace and the like. This is basically Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Are there even non-digital electronics? A power source can only have ON and OFF, ones and zeros are that. This makes no sense. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Does too. Analogue electronics. Analog synthesizers. For instance. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 21:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Analog_computer#Electronic_analog_computers -- PaulT2022 ( talk) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Tagging @ Oaktree b so he can come see. Thanks @ PaulT2022. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 21:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

One more thing, don't confuse digital with discrete, see digital signal. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge or Redirect to Computer#Digital computers. (One would think that #Modern computers would be a more suitable target, but there's something odd with how the target article is structured, describing ENIAC and Colossus before #Modern computing and Turing machine.) PaulT2022 ( talk) 06:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Computer#Digital computers. The term electronic computer can encompass both purely electronic and electromechanic variants. After all, electromechanic computers which are used to describe explicitly Zuse's Z series work with electronic principles at core. VectorVoyager ( talk) 10:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - Virtually all this information exists in other articles on wikipedia Mr Vili talk 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Computer#Digital computers: not necessary, article's content is encapsulated in the computer article Password ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Tuhinaa Chandrasekhar (  | talk | history | 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 WP:NPOL. Macbeejack ☎ 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Macbeejack ☎ 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Macbeejack ☎ 15:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. There is no source about politician's background and early life and the single source under education segment, does not have any particulars about the politician either. There is no significant coverage on the political career either and again a single source under political career segment is about the politician spending days with friends. RangersRus ( talk) 14:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not seeing WP:NPOL as being met. Originally created with several junk sources and sources not referring to the same person, Ravensfire ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 22:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. 23.156.104.104 ( talk) 05:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. Mohammed07102007 ( talk) 13:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Vitaly Shevchenko (disambiguation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The page contains only a primary topic and one other entry. I can find no other entries to add. A hatnote is present on Vitaly Shevchenko. Leschnei ( talk) 14:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei ( talk) 14:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Zero purpose for a disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. TWOrantula^TM ( enter the web) 02:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Article suggested as a redirect target does not mention him. RL0919 ( talk) 14:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Josh Katz (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established with substantive sources, sources are his employer's bio page and his own works. Reywas92 ^Talk 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. Reywas92 ^Talk 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep This is an interesting, well-sourced article as far as I can see. If someone can improve it, great, but I see no reason for deletion-- Hazooyi ( talk) 08:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC). reply

The reason for deletion is that none of the sources are independent significant coverage... Cites 1 and 2 are just his own works, 3 is a short employee bio, 4 literally doesn't mention him, 5 is an interview about the piece (not biographical or independent), 6 is about the work, not him. I see you're new here so please review WP:GNG. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Source 4 is fine, 6 to a lesser extent. I was hoping to find book reviews about "Speaking American"; there's an earlier book with many reviews, none for this person's book. There's also a foodie/chef in the UK with the same name that pops up. I just don't think we have enough for BLP or AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) : Source 4 is a RS, but not about this person. Even less of a chance at notability now. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to The Upshot as an alternative to deletion per @ Oaktree b and nom's source analysis and my own search turning up no sources. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 23:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can find articles about his set of maps that went viral, but nothing about him in independent sources. Since he works for the NY Times, those sources, while they could provide some facts, don't count toward GNG. Lamona ( talk) 05:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Alex Andreas (Australian actor) (  | talk | history | 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, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are database records and BEFORE found promo, database records, nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  //  Timothy ::  talk  13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Shellwood ( talk) 15:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Significant roles in Short Cuts and The Tourist are good for NACTOR. I've provided a good article that provides some verification. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep he just scrapes through with a 2nd significant role in the Tourist. LibStar ( talk) 23:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Neha Singh Rathore (  | talk | history | 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 singer, no in-depth articles. There is nothing apart from 'FIR news' and 'UP Me Ka Ba?' Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 07:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 07:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bihar. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per WP:BASIC and sustained in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, that can be used to further develop the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Sources include e.g. reply

• ‘Democracy gives us the right to ask questions’: Neha Singh Rathore’s Bhojpuri tunes are going viral ( Scroll.in 16 Oct 2020)
• ‘What’s there in UP?’: Bhojpuri singer Neha Rathore gets into song war with BJP MP Ravi Kishan ( ThePrint 16 Jan 2022)
• UP Polls: The Song Battle Between YouTube Star Neha Rathore & BJP MP Ravi Kishan ( The Quint, 16 Jan 2022)
• ‘Not afraid of trolls, will continue to raise public issues via Bhojpuri songs’ ( Hindustan Times 20 Jan 2022)
• Neha Singh Rathore: How ‘not-so-confident’ poet began singing truth to power with Bhojpuri rap ( ThePrint, 2 Feb 2022)
• Is ladki mein ka ba: The million mutinies in Neha Singh Rathore’s songs ( The Indian Express 11 Feb 2022)
• Bhojpuri singer Neha Rathore marries Himanshu Singh in Lucknow. See first pics ( India Today 22 Jun 2022)
• Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore ties the knot with Himanshu Singh ( Asian News International 23 Jun 2022)
• Who is 'UP Mein Ka Ba' fame Neha Singh Rathore? ( Hindustan Times, 22 Feb 2023)
• UP Police notice to Neha Singh Rathore: Who is the Bhojpuri singer? ( The Indian Express 22 Feb 2023)
• Theatre association asks UP police to withdraw notice to singer Neha Singh Rathore ( IANS/ The News Minute 23 Feb 2023)
• Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore: ‘My mother says I will be put in a jail where rats will bite me. But I am not scared’ ( The Indian Express 24 Feb 2023)
• Folk singer Neha Singh Rathore takes potshots at Uttar Pradesh government ( The Hindu 24 Feb 2023)
• "Treated Like Criminal": Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore ( NDTV, 26 Mar 2023)
• Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore booked over post on MP urination incident, BJP worker is complainant ( The Indian Express, 7 Jul 2023)
• Bhojpuri Singer Neha Rathore Booked Over Social Media Post on MP Urination Incident ( The Wire 8 Jul 2023)
• Crooning for campaigns: Meet the female voices behind poll songs ( The New Indian Express 17 Jul 2023)
• Jingle warfare: Singers belt it out ahead of MP Assembly polls ( Indian Express 20 Jul 2023)
• How small-town comedians are taking the internet by storm ( Frontline 16 Nov 2023)

Beccaynr ( talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) sources added Beccaynr ( talk) 22:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC); sources added Beccaynr ( talk) 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC); two cite dates fixed, moved for list chronology Beccaynr ( talk) 03:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep in view of the many reliable sources identified in this discussion and added to the article that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Enough coverage, reliable sources. Sustained timeline. Obviously keep. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems to scrape thru WP:GNG. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Jan Contopidis (  | talk | history | 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 Lübecker Nachrichten source is the only one out there for this person which is usable for notability purposes. What little other coverage he has appears to mostly be in primary sources and/or reconstitued from press releases. Does not have a dewiki article. Mach61 ( talk) 14:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Mach61 ( talk) 14:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Nothing for sourcing other than the Lubecker article. The usual social media/streaming sites, that's about all. Does not meet notability requirements for musical artists. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: There's no article on this person on de.wiki and that's because one under the stage name "IFeature" wasn't promoted to mainspace after a dicussion in April 2022. See de:Benutzer_Diskussion:JanContopidis, De:Benutzer:JanContopidis/iFeature and this. The Lubecker article didn't suffice there either. Sweetly, the original German draft article talked about how Jan listened from a church entrance to a choir sing for two hours at age four, transfixed, and (translating) "from that moment on, his mother knew her son had an instinct for music." All the best to Jan's musical pursuits.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 20:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 ( talk) 14:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ (  | talk | history | 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 and largely irrelevant group which is unrecognised by any major Christiand denomination. Most of the sources are self-sources and those who are not don't justify an article on Wikipedia. I move for deletion Karma1998 ( talk) 13:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Shaws username .  talk . 14:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I motion to keep, because it is referenced in The Detroit News, the Archdiocese of Detroit, and Aleteia. These news articles provide the argument that this group is relevant, despite its size. At that rate, some U.S. settlement articles which have only less than 100 residents should be culled by that same measure; they won't, however, because despite their seeming irrelevance, they are properly sourced through the U.S. Census Bureau. Only 2 sources are self-sourced in this article. TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per significant coverage in the following sources:

• "Rebel priest strikes out on his own". The Modesto Bee. 2014-07-06. pp. G2. Retrieved 2024-02-22. (this was a syndicated article that appeared in many US papers)
• "Church merger brings leaders to city". Niagara Falls Review. 2007-10-27. p. 17. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
• Terek, Donna. "Unusual church in no-man's land welcomes everyone". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
• "I did not want to live a lie, says former Catholic priest who opted to marry". Nation. 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2024-02-22.

Jfire ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Some notability is implied by it being a historical landmark: "Cathedral of St. Anthony". Historic Detroit. Retrieved 2023-06-29.-- Panther999 ( talk) 18:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a historical landmark and the coverage detailed in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The building may well be notable, but that doesn't mean the organisation that occupies it is notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. But deletion can be undone if other sources are brought forward. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 21:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sisante Wind Farm (  | talk | history | 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 very short unsourced article with barely any information. This wind farm might exist, but i cannot to find any sources which would confirm that it actually does. Jexio ( talk) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jexio ( talk) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep It exists, but you have to search in Spanish. Here's some sources 1 2 3 4

• Comment: I've had a look at the sources you provided. Keeping in mind that the nominated article was written in 2007 and talks about a 196MW wind farm.

1. The article is from 2021 and talks about 3 installations near Sisante with a combined capacity of 148 megawatt. This is much lower than the claimed 196MW.
2. Is about a 49.5 MW wind farm in Sisante consisting of 33 wind turbines.
3. The article is from 2018 and talks about a future 300MW wind farm. The location as described in the source matches with this one on OpenStreetMap: [14], which according to there was commissioned in 2022 and is not actually located in Sisante.
4. This matches with a group of wind turbines here: [15] However, there is no mention of the installed capacity of the wind farm. Only that they use "a section of real wind farm located in Spain featuring 115 turbines." for their simulations.

None of the sources you gave seem to support the claim that there exists a 196MW wind farm located near Sisante. Only that there are various wind turbines and wind farms in that area of Spain. Together they might add up to 200MW, but none of the given sources actually confirm that. Jexio ( talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete/merge if there is suitable target Why didn't this get a prod first? I don't see one in it's history. I think it's moot to argue it's existence or nonexistence. This is about the article, and the state of this nominated article is not encyclopedic #Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Based on what I saw, this one subject will not make an acceptable article. What should have happened was that somebody should have written an encyclopedic article about wind power in Spain, they could then list various wind farms in that article. But we don't need one line articles about individual wind farms on Wikipedia. James.folsom ( talk) 00:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 ( talk) 14:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Work of dubious relevance by a minor author. The only reason the page was created was due to the recent death of the author and the political fuss connected to it (Lira died while he was detained by the Ukrainian authorities due to his pro-Russian activities) Karma1998 ( talk) 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep The book was good enough to get "a million dollar advance", and has gotten ample coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Getting an advance is fine, but doesn't get you a wikipedia article. The "ample coverage" used now in the article is rather thin to be honest. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

You are correct. Being the subject of two non-trivial published works is what gets a book its own article. Your opinion of the author or of Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews is irrelevant, and further beset by the multiple reviews already sourced in the article and alluded to below. Οἶδα ( talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The LA Times article is the best source, with only trivial coverage of the book. The usual Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews are fine, but every book out there has them, so I'd prefer more than these in order to keep this article. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK #1 with reviews in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Newsday, Orlando Sentinel, and San Francisco Examiner. The news of the million dollar advance was covered in the LA Times and also in Chilean press, with articles like "El escritor chileno del millón de dólares" and "El hombre del millón de dólares". The Spanish language translation of the book, Contrapartes, received reviews as well: [16], [17], [18]. Jfire ( talk) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep passes WP:NBOOK, plus above. Honestly I'm surprised the standards for book notability are as seemingly low as they are. Some are shorter "capsule" ones which don't really count but there seem to be several that are longer, decently in depth ones. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 17:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  The "low" standards are well established and the result of a multitude of discussion spanning well over a decade, and not the oversight you may perceive it to be. You are free to express your surprise at the relevant talk page, because it is frankly irrelevant to the discussion here. Οἶδα ( talk) 23:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough, but I'm not complaining about it. Just surprised. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sure thing. Apologies if my tone was at all uncharitable, I just wanted to hit on that point given the weak rationale belying this entire nomination and the already imposing distraction of the author on this article's merit and existence. I always appreciate to hear other perspectives! Οἶδα ( talk) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NBOOK, which depends on "two or more non-trivial published works" about the book, including reviews. The Orlando Sentinel review is 7 paragraphs long, the Newsday review is 4 paragraphs, and the San Francisco Examiner is 3 paragraphs, in addition to the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Above, Oaktree b says that "every book out there" has Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews — there are a lot of aspiring authors who wish that were true. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Jfire. The article not only passes WP:NBOOK but exceeds it, as Toughpigs outlined above. This nomination is patently in bad faith because the author was a controversial figure. I strongly suggest that users like Karma1998 and Oaktree b familiarise themselves with the clear and longstanding notability guidelines for books before making a nomination like this or rationalising it. I didn't know of this figure until recently but one quick glance at his wiki page and its extensive deletion nomination history can tell you why this sort of AfD was engendered. Please do not try to weasel out of basic guidelines because you have feelings about the author (aka not the subject of the article being nominated for deletion) or about why and when this article was created. Οἶδα ( talk) 23:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per reasons above, Lira's coverage in Chile because of the book was significant, he was referred to as "the highest paid Chilean writer in the world" (Que Pasa magazine) [19] and "the million dollar man" (El Mercurio, Chile's newspaper of record) [20] JSwift49 13:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. I can see this being merged to author Gonzalo Lira eventually. Newsday is a group review and there is a single paragraph on the book—it is a capsule review. The Orlando Sentinel has a brief review similar in length to The San Francisco Examiner. (Saying Orlando is "seven paragraphs" when the paragraphs are in column format, i.e., they're two- or three-sentence paragraphs.) Both cover only some basic detail and cannot be used as a basis for an article. I would be advocating for merger and summary style coverage if it weren't for the Spanish-language blurbs, which are also short. PW and Kirkus are librarian trade publications that review widely and inclusion there does not confer notability. Once all of this material is summarized, I would be surprised it amounts to more than two succinct paragraphs, which can be amply covered in the context of the author's biography. czar 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets the general requirements for notability on Wikipedia. (NB- I moved the page to Main when it was draftified some time ago). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The Channel Magazine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find any sources. (Note there is also a magazine called CRN (magazine) by The Channel Company. IgelRM ( talk) 13:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, and Pennsylvania. IgelRM ( talk) 13:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Promotional in addition to having zero independent references to support notability. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Panthers–Seahawks 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)

This article describes a non-existent rivalry between two teams who were simultaneously competitive briefly during the mid-2010s. Nothing has changed since this article was deleted in 2020 (though I do not think WP:G4 applies, this article was created by a different user who was not on Wikipedia in 2020). The references fail WP:GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry. All are WP:ROUTINE coverage except this Rolling Stone article which explains the teams "could become" a great rivalry (with no follow-up that such a rivalry was established). Frank Anchor 13:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, North Carolina, and Washington. Frank Anchor 13:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete not an actual rivalry. SportingFlyer T· C 13:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not an actual rivalry. The Rolling Stone article is from 2016, evidently nothing emerged. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The only sources are from 2016 and merely suggest that a rivalry could hypothetically develop, but there is no substantive evidence that it actually exists or ever existed. This agrees with the deleted 2020 version of the article: In 2016, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll claimed the Panthers were not a rival. USA Today claimed in 2019 that a rivalry no longer existed between the two teams and a Seahawks USA Today blog in 2019 gave the Panthers only an honourable mention for biggest rivals, saying "this isn't too much of a rivalry." Beyond that, this is nothing but a matchup log hardly worth its own article. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Did a quick search and found the Rollin Stones article, but we do not WP:CRYSTALBALL about rivalries. They either exist with WP:SIGCOV or they don't. Conyo14 ( talk) 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: As the nom mentioned, the sources are all routine coverage for the NFL. There's not enough here to show that there's actually a rivalry. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: none of the cited sources are centered on a "rivalry" between the teams. PK-WIKI ( talk) 01:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to To the Faithful Departed. ✗ plicit 14:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I Just Shot John Lennon (  | talk | history | 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:NSONG. There are no claims of notability, no charts, no awards, and no independent sources. Suggest redirecting to To the Faithful Departed. Courtesy ping to Woozybydefault and GB fan, who should stop reverting each other and make detailed statements on this AfD report. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to To the Faithful Departed: Only found brief mentions of the song in reviews of the album. Saw no signs of notability just as ResolutionsPerMinute said. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

And for what it's worth, Woozybydefault, while I agree with you that the subject is non-notable, that was an inappropriate usage of speedy deletion, and no reason needs to be explicitly stated for an editor's opposition to your deletion proposal to be valid. You should've started this AfD after the first reversion. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to To the Faithful Departed: As is standard. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Formula 4 champions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Do we need another list of champions when these lists about championships all have their own listing, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN, in fact fails all requirements. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 11:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 11:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete – As I said on the first nomination in this set of articles, this is a very straightforward delete. Procedure wise, this could definitely have been handled as a batch nomination as the reasoning is identical for all articles of this type. 5225_C ( talk •  contributions) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dhaka First Division Cricket League. Aside: There is no listing of these clubs on the target article. Could some interested editor make that happen? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Indira Road Krira Chakra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD removed without addressing issues. This club carries no major historical significance, as reflected by the sources, failing WP:GNG. From a status perspective, it has not played major matches ( List A matches) and so fails WP:NCRIC. AA ( talk) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same deletion rationale:

Kalindi Krira Chakra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lalmatia Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Udayachal Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kakrail Boys Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gulshan Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Azad Sporting Club cricket team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Orient Sporting Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dhaka Spartans Cricket Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dhaka Assets (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Surjo Torun Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports. Shaws username .  talk . 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. There is nothing to show that any of these clubs is anything more than a local cricket team, competing in the sub-List A Dhaka First Division Cricket League. Some of them may be promoted to the List A Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League in future, but until then there is nothing to indicate notability. I don't think merely competing in the Dhaka First Division Cricket League can confer notability on a team. Sammyrice ( talk) 22:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect all to Dhaka First Division Cricket League where the teams can be listed. Pichpich ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect all to Dhaka First Division Cricket League per Pichpich, there's nowhere near enough on the teams in the tournament for separate articles yet, however all can be listed in the parent article with any information listed there. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 11:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect all per Pichpich and Rugbyfan22. A much more constructive and useful solution. Sammyrice ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Once you discard the !votes not based on policy or guidelines, views seem evenly split between Keep and Delete. Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation, as we're dealing with a BLP that falls under the auspices of WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, as some here correctly noted. This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface. The deletion is without prejudice against turning the page into a redirect to Andrew Tate, the appropriateness of which can be reviewed at RfD if disputed. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Personally, I do not believe this article should be deleted, however I do believe it requires work. I have been a mostly uninvolved editor in the draft. There has been some disagreements on whether this page should exist, and I would like to have greater consensus from the community as a whole, rather than relying on opinions of singular editors Mr Vili talk 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Although I believe this article does need work and clean up, I believe Tristan Tate is a highly notable individual - it is true that he rose to fame along-side his brother, Andrew, however he also is a European kickboxing champion and has starred in a reality TV show. His criminal case is additionally extremely high profile. A simple search for "who is tristan tate" returns a number of high quality sources from places such as The Independent, Hindustan Times and others Mr Vili talk 09:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The article needs work as there are an unnecessary amount of unreliable sources, but he is clearly notable per WP:BASIC as I referenced in a previous discussion about this page, specifically multiple articles from RS with in-depth coverage of him, that are included in this article. Claims to the contrary sound unreasonable to me. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 10:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

On further inspection of this article, it is a complete train wreck, even with less unreliable sources and enough notability for the subject.

• For example, take a look at the WP:OPEN: "Tate, alongside his older brother Andrew, gained a notable internet following during 2022 by creating controversial content, promoting their online courses and appearing on podcasts. The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Sounds reasonable right? Until you check the sources. One of them is a random youtube video, GINX specifically states "Tristan Tate has largely supported his brother's takes, despite not being popularized for making similar claims himself." - which completely contradicts the claim in the lead.
• Next line there are three sources for: "The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Only one of them mentions Tristan, specifically that "Tate and his brother Tristan were “raking in millions from webcam sites where men hand over a fortune as they fall for models’ fake sob stories” – something they themselves described as a “total scam”." - which has nothing to do with the claim.
• Get to Online ventures; During the summer of 2022, Tate and his brother amassed a huge following on social media, both promoting an "ultra-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle". The Tate's content has been accused of being misogynistic by critics like Hope not Hate, an anti-extremism group, which has said that the Tates' social media presence may present a "dangerous slip road into the far-right" for their audience., then check the source... there is no mention of Tristan what so ever, Tristan's name has just been rammed into a description of Andrew.

In summary, from what I've seen (and given up trying to improve), it's full of WP:OR and the majority deserves to be deleted, as the sources do not back up the bold claims being made. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd be happy to add some additional RS I've found tomorrow, and ensure the various sections are validly sourced - I have not really edited the article before. Mr Vili talk 12:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sounds good. I'm not opposed to keep, but based on it's current state and what I've seen I can't support it for now, even if the article certainly deserves to exist based on notability. I imagine the criminal investigation section has similar issues to what I already came across, generally sources not supporting the claims. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 12:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I've added some additional sources and statements, particularly towards the lead section. Mr Vili talk 13:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ CommunityNotesContributor In terms of the sources where Tristan Tate is not explicitly mentioned, I still believe they are valid sources in the context of documenting the ongoing case, as it is inferred that Tristan Tate is involved in the same case as Andrew Tate - I don't see why every article must reference him directly, as long as there are other valid sources on his article that cover him in depth (which there are). Mr Vili talk 13:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Television, Crime, Boxing, Internet, Romania, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - clearly within WP:GNG. References looks ok. See no reason for deletion at this time. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  He is BLP1E, though. There's no need to have an article when the only thing he's notable for (getting arrested) is covered on other pages (his more notable brother's) PARAKANYAA ( talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Necrothesp: I'm not seeing how this is a "clearly meets" situation without further elaboration. Would you be willing to expand, addressing WP:BIO1E and the depth of coverage in the sources available? VQuakr ( talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This is beginning to feel like badgering. You've already made your opinion abundantly clear. The closer will sort out the proper weight to give !votes. Central and Adams ( talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I think the article is looking a bit better now. I've added some sources, the only section I have not looked deeply into yet is the criminal case section yet however so perhaps someone else could handle that as I'm off for the night. Mr Vili talk 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

*Keep: It sounds like this nomination is intended to attract help with editing an article, which isn't what the AfD process is for. Please check out WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ATA. The subject of the article is obviously notable, and meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage by reliable sources. Toughpigs ( talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Removing my vote, this whole discussion is a mess, and I don't want to be part of it. -- Toughpigs reply

• No, it's because the draft was moved to main space under the agreement that it would be immediately AfD'd. See this discussion and the one on the talk page PARAKANYAA ( talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, but I wouldn't be bothered if it was keep. Tate is only in the news for being arrested alongside his brother. Outside of that, none of the sources seem to show notability. Also I'm still irritated that you dragged me all the way to dispute resolution because I wouldn't accept your draft (when you could have simply asked someone else for a different opinion)

All the sources that address him are WP:BLP1E or unreliable. He got arrested with his more notable brother. Outside of that arrest for the one thing he did, there is no coverage, unlike with his brother PARAKANYAA ( talk) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sources:

1 - possibly unreliable fight stats? don't count for notability

2 - seo/spam/nonsense

3 - part of their notability for human trafficking, BLP1E already covered by Andrew's page

4 - seo/spam/nonsense

5 - unreliable

6 - unreliable

7 - about his brother

8 - seo/spam/nonsense

9 - seo/spam/nonsense

10 - seo/spam/nonsense

11 - unreliable

12 - unreliable

13 - about his brother, mentions him in passing

14 - about his father, mentions him in passing

15 - about his brother, mentions him in passing

16 - connected to Tate, doesn't count for notability

17 - seo/spam/nonsense

18 - seo/spam/nonsense

19 - seo/spam/nonsense

20 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

21 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

22 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

23 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

24 - about the human trafficking, BLP1E applies

25 - about his brother, mentions him in passing

26 - decent

27 - seo/spam/nonsense

He got accused of sex trafficking. That's the only reason he's ever made it into reliable sources. Not enough to warrant a page. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

While not a fan of this article in it's current state, it's simply not true that all the sources are one event. Significant coverage has also been a profile of him a month after his arrest [21] followed by being charged [22]. That's two events and a profile (multiple reliable sources), so by definition can't be "one event". I assume you're referring to the current investigation being one event; his arrest, detention and charges, but that would be WP:BLP3E which doesn't exist. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

It's still part of the overarching "event" (being accused of human trafficking). BLP1E doesn't have a time part on when the supposed "event" ends as far as I can tell. We don't have articles on every notorious murderer outside of their case, even if their trial extends the "event". If the person is notable for it, it's still BLP1E, from my understanding PARAKANYAA ( talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, my understanding of an "event" was probably misinformed them, given that Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event., so even a profile of him is within the event, as that was arguably the context. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

BLP1E is confusing and kind of vague on the circumstances in which it doesn't apply, so I can't blame you, but I think this is one case where it does. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 17:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect to Andrew Tate. This article is such a puffy mess that it would be better to delete it and start over, but I don't think the underlying subject is sufficiently notable regardless. There's a great deal of trivial coverage and lots of unreliable sourcing (including unreliable sourcing cited within this BLP!), but I'm not seeing SIGCOV beyond a bit of bio material connected to the arrest. VQuakr ( talk) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Dude there's literally sources talking about his hair transplant like he's a celebrity, how is that not GNG Mr Vili talk 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

If you really think "Hairpalace blog" is a reliable source than you have no business editing any article. It also isn't WP:SIGCOV. VQuakr ( talk) 21:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, a hair transplantation clinic in Hungary talking about him in their blog seems like a reliable source about him having a hair transplant - obviously that is not enough to be the basis of an article but it clearly seems like an "expert" reliable source in the context of his hair.

There is a number of sources specifically talking about his hair [23] [24] [25] Mr Vili talk 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Blogs are never reliable sources. They are WP:SELFPUB. Part of being a reliable source is having professional writers with professional editors who do checking of the content. This is what "published" refers to in WP:GNG. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- sources already in article are sufficient to meet GNG. It doesn't matter if sources cover him and his brother as long as they cover him, which they do. Anyway, some of them are specifically about him, e.g. [26]. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The Independent source linked does not contain significant depth of coverage as would be required to meet GNG. It also doesn't address 1E concerns given that it's about the subject's arrest. Can you clarify what sources in the article or elsewhere meet GNG? VQuakr ( talk) 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Of course the Independent source contributes to meeting the GNG. Can you clarify why in the world anyone could think otherwise? What fringe interpretation of the GNG yields the conclusion that an entire article in an RS explicitly dedicated to the subject isn't relevant to meeting the GNG? As far as me clarifying what sources, well, it's obvious enough that the Reuters and the UK do. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Do we have an article on every single high profile criminal when we have articles on their crimes instead? No, because they're only notable for the crimes. All of the reliable coverage is in relation to the crime. That is all he is notable for, there's no reason to have a separate article that duplicates it. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Ridiculous WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Obviously we take high profile criminals on a case by case basis, as we're doing now. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Fair enough on the case by case basis part, but there are no reliable sources that go in depth on him beyond an offhand mention that "he was in a reality tv show ten years ago and has a more famous brother". There's not enough discussion on him in reliable, independent sources.

The policy exists for a reason, and when there's nothing we can source to reliable independent sources on the guy besides "he is accused of a crime" and it's already duplicated in another article, why have an article for any reason besides the sake of having one? There's nothing gained. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Central and Adams: no, it is not so obvious to me that no further defense than "of course" is needed. The Independent source has markedly little to say about the subject. Specifically, it says: that he was arrested, is less famous than his brother. From there everything is just copypasta from his intagram and other PR sources that we see repeated over and over in the sources presented from the social media/PR echo chamber. There is zero depth here, and it's a great example of insignificant coverage. VQuakr ( talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So now you're arguing that it's not sufficient to have coverage in an RS but that the sources used by the RS also have to be RS? What's this based on? If an RS chooses to source info from Insta that's good enough for us. It's just that we don't source directly from Insta. It's a whole article on the guy in an RS. Of course it's significant. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Context matters. WP:RS notes, Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. If a source publishes a puff piece that copies other PR puff pieces in format and content, we can use our common sense to observe that it probably didn't go through a lot of deep fact checking. How about this: what are the three pieces of coverage, independent of the one event of the trafficking accusations, that convinced you that reliable sigcov exists? VQuakr ( talk) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Right. Editorial judgment is the result of discussions, which we're having now. We disagree but, as you admit, it's a matter of opinion rather than of direct application of policy. With regard to your question it's nonsense. Why should there be sources "independent of the one event"? You're either misreading the meaning of independent sources or else misapplying BLP1E. Why don't you explain why three such sources are necessary, in your opinion, to meet GNG? Also, why three? Two is standard for GNG. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Fine, name two. I see zero. Independent to resolve WP:BIO1E concerns (not "misapplying BLP1E"); if the subject's only coverage is related to arrest then it makes more sense to cover the arrest at Andrew Tate. VQuakr ( talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't see the word "independent" in BIO1E. It seems to me that you're reaching. What I see is that the existence of a separate article is a matter for editorial judgment, which is the result of discussion, which is what we're doing here. Central and Adams ( talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. I'm not reaching, I'm applying the guideline. Independent sourcing is necessary to determine if there is sufficient weight of coverage separate from the event. VQuakr ( talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

All of the sources are about him in relation to one event, which is already covered on Wikipedia. Textbook WP:BLP1E PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This is patently untrue. Some of the sources discuss his television career. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

In significant detail? No. The story is first about the crimes, and an offhand mention that he did something else a decade ago is not significant coverage of his non-crime activities. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The Hindustan Times has an article about how he's the Batman of our times that doesn't even mention his crimes. you're really reaching with the BLP1E claims. That applies to otherwise anonymous people who get caught up in some famous event. You might as well try to delete Mark David Chapman on BLP1E grounds. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Chapman and his motivations have been continually discussed in reliable sources and it's a reasonable split from the main page when the motivations are so personal and culturally discussed. This is a sex trafficking case. By a technical reading of BLP1E you probably *could* try to AfD that (because BLP1E as written is an extremely confusing policy but I digress).

That article is clearly promo, like a lot of Indian journalism they engage in paid reporting (which I think, given how it's written, might be what's going on here) which does not count for notability. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you can see that BLP1E would be misapplied in the case of Chapman. You're halfway there. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

It really wouldn't. People as is apply BLP1E completely arbitrarily. This is one of its better use cases, IMO. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Honestly, why bother to invoke a guideline at all if when challenged you say it's completely arbitrary but it's your opinion that it applies here? You're admitting that it's just your opinion. People have different opinions, which is why we discuss deletions. If you think BLP1E would suffice to delete Chapman, a completely indefensible position, the fact that you think it would suffice to delete ANY article carries zero weight. Central and Adams ( talk) 21:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

It still is a guideline, that people use constantly, so I do think it carries weight. A lot of policies aren't set in stone and need to be analyzed per case and situation.

And when there's nothing analyzing his background, no content on the crime specific to him and not his brother, this is a really bad case for ignoring the precedent. Also he isn't even convicted which is a whole other issue when that's the only thing he's known for, WP:BLPCRIME is a different policy

If there was substantial content relating to the scandal which referred to him and not his brother, maybe that would be a justification for a keep. If there was any significant and reliable coverage on his reality TV history or kickboxing, sure, but they're just footnotes. He's covered only for a crime which he hasn't even been convicted of yet. All in all BLP1E exists for a reason, and there's no other notability that justifies pushing it to the side. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

BLP1E does not even apply here because the following two points do not apply:

• 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual
• 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented

Neither of these are true. The event is substantial and documented across a variety of sources, many diving into him specifically. Tristan Tate is certainly not a low-profile individual and almost equally notable as his brother as they rose to fame together. It would be honestly difficult to find many young men who aren't aware of his existence, and sure that is anecdotal but many would agree. Mr Vili talk 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

All reliable coverage about Tate is in the context of a single thing he did (get accused, not even be convicted of, sex trafficking). We do not have an article on every person who has ever made the news for being accused of sex trafficking. If there was other analysis of him, perhaps that would not apply. There is no reason to have a duplicate page that says all of the same information vis a vis criminal convictions as the page on his far more notable brother. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- here's another source not presently used in the article: [27]. Central and Adams ( talk) 20:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  That was in the article and was removed for being nigh incomprehensible seo spam/unreliable. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  IMO I think this article is a case of WP:NEWSORGINDIA from the highly promotional language PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  That makes no sense, it seems like a reliable source where he's called a Batman or James Bond of our time. Mr Vili talk 21:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Read WP:NEWSORGINDIA. In numerous generally-reliable Indian publications, you can pay them a bunch of money and they'll run an article proclaiming how great and significant you are. This is, from the language, likely related to that. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Seems like an obvious puff piece. The tone is way too positive. Andrew is undoubtedly the Batman of the world we live in today. This source does not seem to pass the "independent" criteria of GNG. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment - It looks like there are some concerted efforts to remove what I would consider relevant and viable sources by the same people voting to Delete which I view counterproductive

Mr Vili talk 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a BLP, unreliable sources cannot stay in the article. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Please explain why the section about his children was removed - when Tristan Tate has stated that he has children, and that there were a number of sources claiming he had children Mr Vili talk 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, I haven't touched the article, but from checking the edit history it was removed as sourced to sportsbrief which is unreliable. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

There are numerous sources stating that he has two children - many talking about documents from his court case citing that he should be released as he had newborn children while in jail - seems reliable to me, and also reliable for the fact that Tristan has claimed so himself. Mr Vili talk 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Since it's a non controversial self description I think aboutself would be fine (better than a blatantly incorrect source anyway). If he said it on twitter or in an interview that he has two kids, that can be cited for the article - but that doesn't count for notability just page content. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, at this point I think GNG criteria is met, and it just seems like an effort to remove valid sources & statements - even if that specific one was unreliable there are a number of other ones that also state the same thing. Mr Vili talk 21:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No, it's just sportsbrief is unreliable and shouldn't be cited in a BLP. The sourcing standards are higher. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Why do you consider sportsbrief as unreliable? They seem to be a reliable source about sportspeople [28] Mr Vili talk 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sportsbrief is quite obviously not reliable. Tate is also not a reliable WP:ABOUTSELF source because there can be reasonable doubt about its authenticity. VQuakr ( talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I think that's for most things about himself but for something as basic as how many kids he has he would probably be fine, at least in my reading of the policy PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The sketchy phrasing and terrible source can be found where I removed them in this diff. Removal of that content seems like an obvious call, but feel free to follow up on the article talk page if you disagree. VQuakr ( talk) 21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Fair point, now that I'm looking at the specific case. "believed to have"... lol PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Regardless, removing the statement is not the right way to go about it, there are a number of other sources who also touch on his children but I didn't want to go WP:CITEOVERKILL Mr Vili talk 21:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

From what I can tell the source has never been discussed at the reliable source noticeboard, so I guess in theory the jury is still out, but as a rule of thumb on Wikipedia no article with the title "Tristan Tate's height, brother, daughter, net worth, Instagram, and career" is reliable, much less a source for notability. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

An article with such title makes sense, because its a sports source that covers information about sportspeople Mr Vili talk 21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No, because it's in every case some badly scraped SEO garbage hastily put together with little human oversight. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply