Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 11 April 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tailgate Clothing Company

Tailgate Clothing Company (  | 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)

BEFORE does not show any significant coverage. Article contains WP:OR in associating images of celebrities wearing the product. This also seems to be an attempt at notability by association. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter ( talk) 19:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying to solicit more feedback on this AFD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per nom, there is no significant coverage of the brand, with most of the sources either mentioning it in passing or not at all. Also per WP:TNT, as the article is entirely promotional and lacks any encyclopaedic value. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the article (in its entirety) is written like an advertisement; this issue was raised in 2009 and has not been resolved. Not to mention that there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of the brand. XtraJovial ( talk) 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Alpha Wolf (film)

Alpha Wolf (film) (  | 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 film, lacking significant independent coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 22:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Steph Jones

Steph Jones (  | 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 found no significant coverage. Not notable for singing, songwriting, or modeling. SL93 ( talk) 21:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Kirill Sinitsyn

Kirill Sinitsyn (  | 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)

Highest ranking of 1385 in singles does not make him notable enough as a tennis player. The vast majority of matches he played as a pro were in qualifying for futures tournaments. Even within the limited category of 'tennis players who went to Durham University' he does not stand out in comparison to Filip Veger (junior grand slam finalist) and Julius Tverijonas (Lithuania Davis Cup team), plus other people who don't even have a wikipedia article but have still been ranked higher than him (Henry Patten, Gabriela Knutson etc). This article has been up since April last year and I'm amazed it has lasted this long Holyisland ( talk) 21:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Canada. Shellwood ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS, even the version before the current controversial changes. I'd have AFD'd this myself had I seen the PROD and de-PROD from last year. Iffy★ Chat -- 08:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Satisfies neither WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. Jevansen ( talk) 04:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a long way short of WP:NBASIC Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NTENNIS before and after the current mess that is WP:NSPORTS. The editor that de-PRODded the article last year mentions the subject's college tennis titles, I can't find any sources that have significant coverage beyond statistics websites which is also a requirement to pass WP:NCOLLATH. Bonoahx ( talk) 22:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NTENNIS as the player has a higher ranking and notability (several college championships) than a number of players with pages, for example, Eduardo Russi Assumpção. In my opinion stricter guidelines should be implemented for athletes, but this one is sufficiently notable. Sinitskilab ( talk) 12:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG as the player has won 8 national championships at 4 different levels of college athletics (identifiable in the sources provided, there might be other mentions of the record the player’s native language). This is an example why stricter guidelines are not necessarily needed. Such self-evident achievements as in the current case should constitute a relevant criterion for page selection. Annkate ( talk)) 15:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG Adamtt9 ( talk) 18:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep satisfies WP:NCOLLATH as a 4 time first-team All-American in terms of individual national award requirements. I agree Annkate that the record for national champinships is relevant, but then it should be added to the page. It’s a close call but imo would be a disservice to remove. 0racIeo1O ( talk) 09:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • The Keep votes above should be discounted entirely. One of them claims that GNG is met but doesn't present a single source that would meet GNG's requirements. Another claims NTENNIS is met because of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and also ignores recent changes to the NSPORTS world. Finally, the NCOLLATH argument is flawed too, as this player did not play in NCAA tennis tournaments, the only level relevant to NCOLLATH (and even if I am wrong and he did play NCAA tennis, he didn't achieve anything significant there). Iffy★ Chat -- 12:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • NCAA All-American results found with a quick search ITA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0racIeo1O ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment – The top of the page states that those are Division II results. I can't find any evidence of success at NCAA Division I tournaments or any coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE which is required to pass NCOLLATH - I am not particularly familiar with US college athletics so forgive me if "All-American" is something different. Another editor has given Eduardo Russi Assumpção as an example of a player who they believe to have lower notability due to their lower ranking, but don't take into account the fact that their ranking was higher in doubles (let alone the fact that rankings don't dictate notability) and they had been in the main draw of an ATP Tour event, which passes WP:NTENNIS#2. Bonoahx ( talk) 11:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd encourage the closer to view the edit histories of the three Keep voters before making a decision. Jevansen ( talk) 00:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Die fünfte Kolonne

Die fünfte Kolonne (  | 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)

Initially I was going to go to dewiki and translate/expand this article, but then I realized: the article on dewiki had no sources either. This does not appear to be receiving any significant coverage and the news section of Google shows news on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in German. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Lithuania at the 1928 Summer Olympics. ✗ plicit 23:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Haris Šveminas

Haris Šveminas (  | 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)

Sveminas was a competitior in the Olympics who did not medal. We lack any significant sources on him and my search for sources in multiple databases came up with nothing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Irish Unionist Party (2020)

Irish Unionist Party (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)

Per the discussion at Talk:Irish_Unionist_Party_(2020)#Delete, I propose that this article be deleted for falling short of the relevant notability criteria. In short, in terms of:

  • WP:NGO (which suggests that an "organization's longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered [in determining notability]") is not met. In short, this appears to be a very small org (somewhere between perhaps 1 and 20 people?), that has barely existed for a few months (Nov 2021?).
  • WP:SIGCOV (which expects significant coverage in reliable independent sources) is not met. In short, pretty much all of the coverage of this topic seems to derived from a single sensationalist piece in the Irish Sun. A source which itself is covered under WP:THESUN for exactly this type of sensationalist "journalism". And which seems to have begat all/most of the other coverage. (The Irish Central piece, for example, refers to and is effectively a reprint of the Irish Sun content. As are the other web-only reprints.)
  • WP:ORGDEPTH (which expects coverage that "extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the org") isn't met. In that we have two "bursts" of coverage. One in Nov 2021, reprints/replications of the Irish Sun's "org created" article. And another glut in Feb 2022, of the "some people still don't like my controversial views" variety. Neither of which is enough to expand beyond the very scant detail in the article. ("Teenager creates website and political group which is not registered to contest elections anywhere.")

While not wishing to seem disparaging, the subject here seems to be a very small group of people (perhaps just one person), created by a teenager, armed with a free Wix.com website and a sticker maker. That has been the subject of some "get a load of this guy" coverage in a small number of sources (the seed of which being a source which the community has agreed is to be avoided to support content or a notability claim). Guliolopez ( talk) 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - still here? delete per non notable org. Spleodrach ( talk) 22:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Manelly Zepeda

Manelly Zepeda (  | 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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Far too soon for this young actress. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

National Association of State Budget Officers

National Association of State Budget Officers (  | 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)

Insufficient coverage of this organization, doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Major contributors were affiliated with the organization, little improvement by anyone else. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

When searching for sources, I found stories using this organization as a source, but no coverage about the organization itself. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn as the article has seen significant improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 14:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Chrisler

Jennifer Chrisler (  | 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 about a former executive director of an organization, not making any strong or properly sourced claim to passing our inclusion criteria for leaders of organizations. As written, the article's notability claim boils down to "person who had a job", which isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a properly demonstrated WP:GNG pass on sourcing that analyzes the significance of her work in the job -- but the sole source being used to support the article is a deadlinked Q&A interview in an alternative weekly newspaper, which isn't enough coverage to get her over GNG all by itself.
I am willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but the page has been tagged for notability since 2010 without ever having any new content or sourcing added to bolster her basis for inclusion, so it's long past time to pull the "fix it or lose it" trigger. Bearcat ( talk) 17:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Allen Ari Dziwa

Allen Ari Dziwa (  | 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)

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a writer with no reliably sourced claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This may be an WP:AUTOBIO or some form of paid PR job, as it was created by a WP:SPA with no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic -- but either way, the referencing here is entirely to primary sources (his own self-published website, the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, etc.) that are not support for notability, with not even one WP:GNG-worthy piece of real reliable source coverage about him in real media shown at all.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn on which people are entitled to have articles just because they have jobs -- they have to be the subject of third party coverage and analysis, in sources independent of themselves, to externally validate the significance of their work, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from that.
(See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwinyai Dziwa, which appears to be an alternate name for the same person and was also first created by the same editor who created this.) Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Shaheen bhatt

Shaheen bhatt (  | 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)

It is not enough to be the daughter of a renown director or actress to establish notability. The topic does not passes WP:NACTOR, also fails WP:NAUTHOR. References do not show enough notability to justify WP:GNG. DMySon ( talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. https://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/ive-never-been-unhappier-alia-bhatts-sister-shaheen-bhatt-announces-paperback-of-her-book/
  2. https://vidhyathakkar.com/book-review-of-ive-never-been-unhappier-by-shaheen-bhatt/
Weak as one is by a blogger, but the blogger appears to be credible in her role as a book reviewer, but it's not exactly grade A for reliable sources. CT55555 ( talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • First source is not a review, just announcement. No indication that the second author is a subject-matter expert to consider it under WP:SPS -- Ab207 ( talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several references have been added since this deletion discussion was initiated. There's also the option to draftify instead of deleting. Where are we headed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I reviewed all the sources mentioned above or in the current version of the article, and it really comes across as trying to make a meal out of condiments. I would categorize the sources as follows:
Wading through all that, I see two pieces that are written with any amount of care: this Hindu article about the book release (though keep in mind that such coverage, at least partly, is a result of the subject's very famous sister and father being present), and this short interview/profile. However I don't think these are detailed or independent enough to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.
Given that Bhatt's book was published in 2019, which was the impetus for most of the above coverage, I don't think working on the article for a few more weeks will help us locate better sources or develop it further. So Draftification would not help at the moment. Lastly, I believe that the current attempt to blow up thin media coverage into an encyclopedic biographies has resulted in some misrepresentations and undue amplifications that raise BLP-concerns. Examples:
  • This short and trivial "news" item is now immortalized in an encyclpedic entry as "Her father Mahesh Bhatt caused commotion with his language and tone during the launch due to which her sister Alia had to pacify him."
  • Compare the wikipedia article text, "While her father wasnt around much, she did find him to be under the infuence of raging alcoholism." with what the source (ie, Shaheen Bhatt) says, ""My father stopped drinking just days after I was born."
The current article also contains a lot of redundant, repetitious, and undue content but all that is worth dealing with only if the article were to be retained. Abecedare ( talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Reverse sexism

AfDs for this article:
Reverse sexism (  | 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 term and therefore page doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as 'Reverse sexism'. It should be deleted or redirect to 'Sexism', or at the very least, be renamed to 'discrimination against men'.

In the first nomination of this page back in 2004, most people were in favour of redirecting to sexism or 'Reverse Discrimination', though the latter is in the exact same situation as 'Reverse sexism', there's no such thing, it's just 'discrimination'. Regardless, the page doesn't redirect anywhere despite the last nominations consensus. NotIranian ( talk) 14:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Whether individual editors believe the concept exists or not, the concept is covered extensively in academia and other media. Mary Briody Mahowald wrote an article for the The American Journal of Bioethics titled "Reverse Sexism? Not to Worry" in 2001 (source here); I S Gorfinkel wrote an article for the National Library of Medicine titled "Reverse Sexism" in 1994 (source here); Eidah Hilo wrote an article for Fem Magazine titled "Reverse Racism and Reverse Sexism Don’t Exist" in 2014 - which proves the concept is discussed (source here); Gary Furlong wrote an article for Stanford University titled "Combat reverse sexism" in response to a piece published in the Aurora women's magazine, date unknown (source here); The View had a discussion on if it is reverse sexism for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election (source here); Meghan Trombly wrote an article for Strong Women Strong Girls titled "In True Backlash Fashion: The "Reverse Sexism" of Title IX" in 2012 (source here); the (long) list of sources continues. Simply not agreeing with a concept does not exempt an AfD nominator from doing a BEFORE. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, (this was an edit-conflict with the above) nominator is missing the point. The term doesn't need to make sense or describe something that exists in order to deserve an article; we have articles on hoaxes and theories that have been disproven. If the phrase/concept is discussed in depth in a range of reliable sources, then an article can be written. Even the briefest of Google searches shows that it's been the subject of publication at a wide range of levels from academic to the popular press, by a wide range of authors. The following, for example, feature the term very strongly: [16] [17] [18]; the following uses the term in a way indicating that it expects readers to be familiar with the concept: [19]; I got bored at this stage, there's loads of stuff out there. Elemimele ( talk) 17:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sorry for the edit conflict! Those are the worst! -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kbabej and Elemimele. The coverage of the term/concept easily satisfies WP:GNG. As explained above, opinions about the legitimacy of the concept are irrelevant in regards to its notability. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It meets WP:GNG. Shashank5988 ( talk) 16:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Pasarturi HSR Station

Pasarturi HSR Station (  | 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:NGEO, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirebon HSR Station. RaFaDa20631 ( talk) 14:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. There is no reliable source specifically covering the plans for this station yet. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 15:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Cirebon HSR Station

Cirebon HSR Station (  | 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 nonexistent building in Indonesia, fails WP:NGEO. RaFaDa20631 ( talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete - there's not even a conducted discussion about the HSR station on Bandung - Surabaya segment. It's non-existent (yet) FarhanSyafiqF ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is no reliable source specifically covering the plans for this station yet. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 15:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Station did not exist yet. There is no news about its construction, no news about its planning either. WP:BEFORE search on the native name of the station turns up nothing. The station for high speed rail is different from the Cirebon railway station. SunDawn talk 07:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Girth Summit (blether) 14:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thomas John Shillea

Thomas John Shillea (  | 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)

Puffy biography of a photographer which has been entirely unsourced (asie from a Worldcat link to one of his books) since it was created in 2013, by an SPA whose username matches the name given as the wife of the subject. I considered stubifying it and adding some sources, but I'm only really seeing affiliated stuff and interviews in local press promoting exhibitions. Happy to withdraw if someone can dig up some decent sources. Girth Summit (blether) 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Strands Recommender

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

An article about an e-commerce tool, accepted from AfC in 2010. I am not seeing any substantial claim to notability in the article. The given references are largely primary, mainly from a bout of product publicity / interviews 10-12 years ago. The tool may also have featured in a 2015 Voltage New Media blog post, though not in the linked 2017 article. My searches are not finding the coverage for Strands Recommender / Strands Retail which is needed to demonstrate attained notability. An article on the parent company was recently deleted at AfD so there isn't an obvious WP:ATD. AllyD ( talk) 12:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete per A9. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Shades of Perth Volume 3

Shades of Perth Volume 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable release, only a review in a local magazine (x-press), and listing in databases. The whole Shades of Perth series lacks sourcing, and the third one seems to be even more obscure than the other two [26]. Fram ( talk) 12:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Realizar Worldwide Events

Realizar Worldwide Events (  | 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 organisation. Lacks significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Rockall (band)

Rockall (band) (  | 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 musical group. PepperBeast (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Romance Academy

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

Doesn't appear to have significant coverage. Non-notable organisation. PepperBeast (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Biskupské gymnázium Bohuslava Balbína

Biskupské gymnázium Bohuslava Balbína (  | 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 school does not meet the WP:NBUILDING criteria of notability. It is no different from similar high schools in the Czech Republic, and it does not even have a long history. FromCzech ( talk) 11:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. There appears to be consensus, with the additional sources located (both in obituaries and prior), that the notability test for county councillor has been met Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hazel Erby

Hazel Erby (  | 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)

Biography of a county councillor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county council is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie in Wikipedia -- the notability test for county councillors hinges not on verifying that they existed, but on showing substantial media coverage about their work to establish the significance of it: specific things they accomplished in the role, specific effects they had on the development of the county, specific impacts they had on wider political affairs beyond their county, or other stuff which establishes a reason to regard them as significantly more notable than most other county councillors.
But two of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (her "staff" bio on the council's own self-published website and her obituary on the website of the funeral home) -- the other two footnotes are from real media but both exist solely in the context of her death, and even one of those is just a "here are her funeral details, the end" blurb rather than substantive coverage of her work in politics. And while the longer piece about her death contains enough useful information to be a start toward an article that would pass WP:NPOL, it isn't enough coverage to be a finish all by itself if it's the only notability-assisting source in the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more substance and a lot more referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 13:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 19:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Redirect won't work because the St. Louis County Council does not mention her, so it probably reflects a later date. Also, that article itself is sourced only to primary sources: two pages of the council web site. Because multiple sources from the same publication count as one, the STL public radio sources are only one source. The StL Business Journal is another. The Funeral home notice is not an independent source (probably written by a relative), and the STL Today is a brief notice of the funeral. Lamona ( talk) 22:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She is described as one of the "Matriarchs Of Black Politics In St. Louis" in significant, in-depth coverage by St. Louis Public Radio in 2021, which is currently not clear in the article but could be expanded based on this source. A separate bylined obituary by St. Louis Public Radio, titled Hazel Erby, A Towering Figure In St. Louis County Politics, Dies At 75 is significant and in-depth coverage that could help expand the article (e.g. the article states, "Perhaps Erby’s defining moment as a public figure came in 2014, right after a Ferguson police officer shot and killed Michael Brown."). Another bylined obituary, titled Trailblazing St. Louis County Councilwoman Hazel Erby dies at 75 by a local FOX station notes "Erby was elected to represent the first district as the first African American woman on the council in 2004", which could also be added to the article. These are only the first few hits in my online search, but it appears that she has WP:GNG notability well-covered and additional research can reasonably be expected to find further support. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    There is also another bylined obit: Former Councilwoman Hazel Erby leaves behind powerhouse legacy (St. Louis American), describing her as "a champion for racial equity on the St. Louis County Council", a bylined obit for a local NBC station: 'A gentle front-line soldier' | Friends remember former St. Louis County Council member Hazel Erby that includes discussion of her "lawsuit against St. Louis County accusing County Executive Sam Page and others of racial discrimination", which was also covered by the Associated Press in 2020. Her work as the leader of the Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition also received national coverage from NBC in 2014. She also received coverage in the Guardian in 2014 as a "member of the St Louis county council whose ward includes Ferguson", and in the New York Review in 2015 as a county council member, mother, and "North County resident of middle-class University City for almost fifty years". Beccaynr ( talk) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    She also has a brief profile that generally references "numerous awards for her work in the community" in African American St. Louis (2016, p. 65), more than a passing mention in Public Disorder and Globalization (2016, p. 38), and several pages related to her and her work in context in Busted in New York and Other Essays (2019, beginning at p. 127). Beccaynr ( talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also, per WP:NRV, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition [...] Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. In addition, per WP:NEXIST, The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. (emphasis added due to the !votes and nomination that appear to only discuss sources in the article). Beccaynr ( talk) 20:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. She played a key role in city politics in St. Louis not to mention the length of her service and the fact that she is a Black woman. Patapsco913 ( talk) 02:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As a civil rights pioneer, she is included in several books, including Public Disorder and Globalization - Page 38, Civil Rights in St. Louis - Page 122, Busted in New York and Other Essays. She was the first Black woman to be elected to the county council in St Louis. Found a ridiculous number of significant stories on newspapers.com. She easily meets the general notability guideline Jacona ( talk) 11:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 13:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hugh Archer ("Sagette")

Advanced search for: 
"Hugh Archer Sagette"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library


Hugh Archer ("Sagette") (  | 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)

Lieutenant in navy, who also was a spy for a short period (1912-3) in peacetime, reporting on ship locations. Does not have significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Full obituary in The Times, cited in the article. We have always considered that an obit in a major national newspaper is sufficient for notability purposes. Also clearly a captain in the navy, not a lieutenant. But rename to Hugh Archer (Royal Navy officer). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Is there actually a full obituary? Or is a short very brief death listing? I've searched for sources for "Hugh Archer" ""H. E. M. Archer". All I found that was of any substance were some results in the "Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939" book. Pikavoom Talk 12:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I believe I just said it was a full obituary! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • You won't search the Times archive with Google. Uncle G ( talk) 14:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Precisely. You can't ignore sources just because you can't find them on the internet. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
          • This has been Wikipedia policy for as long as I can remember and it's unfortunate some are choosing to disregard it. Atchom ( talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • It is a full obituary. I just checked. Atchom ( talk) 20:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. If the only basis for retention is an argument that "an obit in a major national newspaper is sufficient for notability purposes" (not policy but a claimed consensus) then that obit should be accessible for review and assessment so that Users can see whether it was truly an obit written by a staff writer or a family provided death notice. Mztourist ( talk) 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    So you are saying you voted for deletion even though you made no effort to look at one of the key sources? Wikipedia policy is very very clear: sources don't have to be online, or even readily accessible, in order to be valid sources. Atchom ( talk) 20:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I can't access the Times obituary and my past experience at AFD where obituaries have been used as the sole basis for claiming notability is that you have to read what the obituary actually says. If he actually passed BASIC there should be more reliable sources than one paywalled obituary. Mztourist ( talk) 03:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Two editors have now said that it's a full obituary. Anyone would think that you don't believe anything unless you can see it yourself on the internet, which is contrary to WP:OFFLINE. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    As you well know, I don't trust your claimed consensuses and past AFDs has shown that your and my views on what amounts to a "full obituary" rather than a family contributed one do not align, so this still doesn't pass BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 06:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    WP:AGF. You're basically saying I'm lying. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I certainly don't AGF from you. Mztourist ( talk) 05:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    And what basis do you have for accusing a long-serving editor and admin of breaching good faith? Your conduct is coming very close to being unacceptable. I'm sure you do really know this. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I faced the similar situation, with Mztourist in the opposite side. @Necrothesp Why don't you take photoshoots of some pages in the book that support your information instead of keep it as a mystery your own and make doubt from others? AGF with visible proof is better than AGF with doubt. Leemyongpak ( talk) 13:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    For the record, the obituary is approximately 280 words long; neither massive nor a tiny stub. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Exactly. Certainly not just a death notice. If The Times, Britain's principal newspaper of record, thought him sufficiently notable to write an obituary about then who are we to reject him, with our numerous articles on minor vloggers, bloggers, warblers and reality nobodies? Wikipedia should not become a repository of pop cultural information, ignoring those who were notable before the advent of the internet and even television. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Necrothesp for better or worse, our notability guidelines are largely based on significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources and a single obituary would be rather unlikely to overcome the multiple aspect. For that reason, I'd greatly appreciate if you could answer my query regarding Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939 below. Ljleppan ( talk) 11:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, I haven't got access to the book. However, consensus is very much that an obit in a major national nespaper is sufficient for notability purposes for the reasons I have outlined above. As we all (should) know, nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone, especially if consensus says something else. That's why the policies WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR exist, to point out exactly this to those who are uncomfortable with our lack of actual rules. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your reply regarding the book. I'll wait a day or two to see if Atchom or someone else can provide a description of the coverage in it beyond what's visible to me in Google Book before !voting. Ljleppan ( talk) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:BASIC, including the obituary in the UK's newspaper of record and everything else. Previous voter himself admits he hasn't made any effort to look at the source, which is unfortunate. Atchom ( talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Necrothesp and Atchom: do you have access to Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939 so that you could describe how in-depth the coverage of the subject is in that book? - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • To clarify, I'm asking because a Google Books search shows very few results in the book for sagette or archer. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I don't see much aside from the Sage and Sagette thing taken together, either, although there are two other books that cover that same ground. However, a search of one on-line newspaper archive indicates that the one major source plus several minor sources principle might apply, the obituary being the major source.

        The minor sources would be the aforementioned book, a marriage to Millicent Mary Pearson, in the Northampton Mercury and Bedfordshire Mercury dateline 1905-11-17, a mention in admiralty honours list in the Liverpool Journal of Commerce and Liverpool Daily Post dateline 1916-07-15, an estate of £3,476 (equivalent to £251,267 in 2021) in the Hampshire Telegraph dateline 1931-05-01, and a 1931-01-09 obituary in the Dover Express.

        All these by looking for the full name Hugh Edward Murray Archer. I don't have access to the full text, which is likewise subscription only. This does (further) indicate that Google is the wrong tool to address this with.

        Uncle G ( talk) 09:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete The relevant guideline appears to be WP:BASIC. While the The Times obituary is significant coverage at approx. 280 words, it alone is not sufficient to establish notability. The other potentially interesting sources it the Six book. That, however, does not appear to contain anything beyond passing mentions based on a Google Books search as described above. Similarly, the sourced identified by Uncle G are, according to his description, minor and would not count for significant coverage. In totality, we have one good source and a small smattering of passing mentions and run-of-the-mill news coverage. While WP:BASIC does allow for an exception where if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, in my view, this has not been reached in this case. My overall assessment is that the subject does not pass WP:BASIC based on the identified sourcing. It's always possible that other good sources exist, but would need to be identified for them to count. My !vote is weak as I do not have perfect visibility to all the references. - Ljleppan ( talk) 21:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I typed out the full text of the obit:

    Captain Hugh Edward zMurray Archer, D.S.O., R.N., of Hill House, Eastry, Kent, died suddenly on December 30 at Collinghamgardens, S.W. He was the eldest son of the late Mr. Walter E. Archer, C.B., and entered the Navy in 1894. Promoted to lieutenant in 1902, he served in the battleship Empress of India when flagship of Rear-Admiral E. S. Poe in the Home Fleet, and also in the battleship Majestic. He specialized in navigation, and was navigating officer of the cruiser Iphigenia when in 1906 she was selected as one of the first ships to be adapted for minelaying. From June, 1908, he was first and navigating lieutenant of the cruiser Perseus in the East Indies. He retired in 1910, but rejoined the active list on the outbreak of War in 1914, and was appointed for minesweeping duties at Sheerness. Later he was appointed to the Attentive, parent ship at Dover, for similar duties, and he was one of four minesweeping officers under the orders of Sir Reginald Bacon who were commended in the Admiral's book on the Dover Patrol; they "were excellent in training sweepers and in gallantly leading their ships under heavy gunfire, when ordered to sweep up dangerous minefields, both 'enemy' and our own." Captain Archer was promoted to acting commander and received the D.S.O. in July, 1916, in recognition of his services with ships of the Auxiliary Patrol. After the Armistice he was appointed to the Minesweeping Division at the Admiralty. He was confirmed in the rank of commander with effect from November 11, 1918, and in August, 1924, was promoted to captain on the retired list.

While this seems substantial, we still require multiple such sources to demonstrate notability, and these have not been provided. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There is another obituary in the Dover Express, 9 January 1931, p 8. Plus all the book mentions. Atchom ( talk) 01:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This may be useful for discussion, although still a work in progress. User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with an obituary in a major newspaper. It already shows a pretty good consensus, I think. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    A list of deletion discussions mentioning an obituary is not evidence that there is larger consensus that a single obituary alone is sufficient to establish notability. If there is an actual consensus for a single obituary to be sufficient for notability, I suggest you start up an RFC to modify WP:NBASIC accordingly as that would be quite a drastic deviation from how it is currently phrased. Ljleppan ( talk) 15:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    You will see, if you look at them, that many of those discussions do indeed come to that conclusion. But I do appreciate from prior painful experience that those opposed to such a consensus will refuse to see it no matter how much evidence is presented to them (and will probably disdainfully dismiss such evidence as fabrication and lies, since WP:AGF is alien to some if their own views are challenged). Nevertheless, I will point out that WP:CONSENSUS quite clearly states that decisions on Wikipedia are reached by consensus arrived at through both editing and discussion (which includes at AfD), and nowhere does it say that WP:NBASIC, a guideline, trumps a policy. Too many editors take it as gospel, but it is not and was never intended to be. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In addition to the Times obituary, at least two historians have written about his exploits in at least three books. pburka ( talk) 21:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Pburka: based on Google Books search results the book(s) appear to mention the subject only in passing. If you have access to the full text, and can verify that the coverage is in-depth, please give a brief description of what is said and in how much detail. Simply asserting that sources exist is not very helpful. Ljleppan ( talk) 21:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • From WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." A "passing mention" would be something like "Archer also attended the event." Each of the books devotes several paragraphs or pages to Archer and his father, addressing their espionage activities directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. For example, we learn from Boyd that the pair knew Denmark and Norway intimately, they traveled to those countries on a yacht subsidized by SSB, they exceeded the £1200 budget (leading to arguments with their handler), they were successful, and their mission was used as a model for similar coast-watching networks during both world wars. Smith goes into more detail about the funding problems: apparently the Archers refused to reveal the names of their recruits until they received an extra $10,000. (The sources I refer to are linked in the article and can be verified by anyone.) pburka ( talk) 22:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      Thanks for your reply. I can see the British Naval Intelligence through the Twentieth Century page via google books. As indicated by e.g. footnote seven in WP:BASIC, depth of coverage is a spectrum, and in my view a few sentences discussing both him and his father jointly are not very persuasive of the subject being sufficiently notable for inclusion. If we had even one extensive ref together with the obituary, I'd find it much easier to !vote keep. How long is the relevant section in The Anatomy of a Spy? Ljleppan ( talk) 22:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      All the book coverage is on the pair, "Sage" and "Sagette", and cover this one brief episode as spies in peacetime. This is not coverage of these two as individuals, but of an intelligence operation. Pikavoom Talk 05:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      Once we have an article about the operation we can consider redirecting this biography to it. pburka ( talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as well as the obituary there is significant coverage in this book here, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 14:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Norman Ernest Archer

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

He was a lieutenant commander, a Private secretary to Eden when Eden was Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and some UK government Ireland related posts. None of these are particularly significant.

He is not covered significantly in reliable sources. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Recipient of the CMG. We have always considered the CBE and above to be sufficient for notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. See here for clear confirmation of this consensus. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Which he received since he was the private secretary of someone important (Eden). What is lacking is actual coverage of Archer. Pikavoom Talk 12:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't see why it's relevant that he received it as "private secretary of someone important". Consensus is perfectly clear that recipients of the CBE and above are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There appears to be a misunderstanding about WP:ANYBIO above. It states very clearly that "meeting one or more (Of the ANYBIO criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not override WP:BASIC - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." What's interesting about this article is how little we have to say about this individual - an indication of his lack of notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Given the article is far more than a stub (and stubs are perfectly valid in any case), that is blatantly not true. In addition, Wikipedia is a work in progress, so it is even more blatantly not true. There appears to be plenty to say about him. And I think you'll find I have been here long enough not to misunderstand anything about Wikipedia. Maybe you should read WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy. It is very clear what the consensus is here. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of text but what does it say? He worked for a notable person (He cannot inherit notability from them) He worked in the Dominions Office. He worked as a secretary to a diplomat. Nothing really screaming out notability here. With regards to consensus I think one of the most fundamental elements of community consensus is the requirements at WP:BASIC. Has Archer been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Not that I can tell. One thing I do know is your views on the notability of certain British upper-class individuals such as hereditary peers does not have community consensus, as shown in recent AfDs. This is similar - you are insisting anyone awarded certain honours gets a free pass on source notability. WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria. It does not, as explicitly stated, exclude or override the requirement to meet BASIC. Yet you continue to quote ANYBIO out of context in AfD discussions and ignoring the non-negotiable source coverage requirements. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
So, if he was so non-notable, why did the British government consider him to be worthy of a fairly high award? There's no WP:INHERIT here. What, precisely, are my "views on the notability of certain British upper-class individuals such as hereditary peers"? Please point out where they do not have consensus. All peers until very recently were clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN and as far as I recall no peer who sat in the House of Lords has ever been deleted. What I cite,and you ignore, is WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia has no set-in-stone rules; everything we do is determined by consensus, and consensus on the issue of which British honours are considered to meet notability standards is extremely clear. To quote WP:ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". By consensus, he does. Your argument is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You cite a guideline which does not actually support your argument and ignore a policy which does support mine. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Regarding hereditary peers, your userpage states you regard them as inherently notable irrespective of whether they sat in the Lords, which is directly contrary to AfD consensus. I'm purely bringing this up to point to the WP:ILIKEIT rationale you regularly deploy at AfDs on certain topics such as military history and royalty and nobility. This was rejected by a highly-respected admin in a deletion rationale in March. You used a similar, groundless rationale recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Irina of Romania in which another editor called this out. I see you have taken WP:ANYBIO out of context again, ignoring the part that says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" AusLondonder ( talk) 11:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
However, I have not argued that at AfD for a long time as I appreciate it goes against consensus and I respect consensus. And as I said, consensus is clear on the subject at hand. You cannot possibly argue otherwise and expect to be taken seriously, as I have provided clear evidence. Also note that I am allowed to express an opinion at AfD, which is what I have done in the AfDs you cite (note, incidentally, that I too am an admin, so your "highly-respected admin" comment is neither here nor there). If consensus goes against me then fine, but it is very obviously not against me here. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 03:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Passes BASIC? BASIC says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources here? Pikavoom Talk 05:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Mentioned in at least 3 books, that meets the criteria for significant coverage. Mztourist ( talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Most of his book appearances are mere mentions or being on a list like the navy list. Pikavoom Talk 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:BASIC is clearly met here, the sources provide detailed coverage, and he additionally meets the WP:ANYBIO and the well-established consensus re honours. I had a quick look through the Times/Telegraph archives and there is a lot more coverage that can be added in. Atchom ( talk) 20:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I just looked at Canadian newspaper sources, and lo and behold he scored several hits there as well, included a CP wire story in national newspapers. Atchom ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As per the OBE, while it is an honor, it's hardly a rarity. "There are no limits applied to the total number of members of the fourth and fifth classes, but no more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members may be appointed per year." OBE Assuming that is correct, there are undoubtedly many thousands of folks in the world today who are so designated. (Note that there is even a site called "How to get an OBE" with nomination tips, etc.) If a person is notable by other criteria, the OBE doesn't hurt, but I can't see how it alone can confer notability. Of the sources listed here, #1 is a kind of directory entry and seems to be self-published (ISSUU is essentially a printer of PDFs) #3 is crowd-sourced, #4 is a single mention in one sentence of a book, #5 is a mere list, #6 fails validation (it links to the home page of a professor but nothing about this subject), #7 actually has a few paragraphs about him and could be considered a reliable and substantial source, #8 I can't view, #9 doesn't mention him and is therefore irrelevant to his notability. I also wonder about the photographs. The main editor on this article is User:Sagette who also appears to have uploaded the photographs all listed as "own work" - including photographs that I'm going to guess pre-date that editor's birth. (I also note that the article states that "undercover" Archer's name was "Sage".) This all saddens me because the article is nicely done, but I do think we need at least one other reliable source, and someone with photo copyright chops should take a look at the photos. Lamona ( talk) 04:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Endorse this. It looks like a quality article but the sources just aren't there. AusLondonder ( talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Nobody did say the OBE conferred notability. We said the CBE and above confers notability. That's the level above OBE. And the CMG is the equal level to the CBE but in a more senior order. OBEs and MBEs are far more commonly awarded than CBEs and above (fewer than 100 of the latter every year in peacetime, although more in wartime for obvious reasons). In a country of 60 odd million, that's not exactly very many! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks, and sorry if I misinterpreted the discussion above. I looked at CMG and note that he is not listed there as having received one. Do you have a source that confirms this and gives a date? Because the statement that he is CMG/OBE is un-referenced and I don't see how we can use those to confer notability without reliable sources. He is listed such in the ISSUU (ref #1) but from what I can tell that was the work of an individual and self-published. He claims he took the information from government documents, but it would be much better to have actual government documents that we could rely on. Lamona ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
p.s. I just searched the London Gazette and found it! here. So I will add this reference to the article. Lamona ( talk) 16:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
This edit generated a reference error, so I have used the {{ London Gazette}} template instead. It also had me wondering about when he got his OBE, so I added the Gazette link to it too. [30] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Nick Gonzalez

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject, only database sites. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 08:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Amir Atif

Amir Atif (  | 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)

Disputed move to Draft space. Moved by a different editor to mainspace with no improvement shortly after being draftified by Robertsky. The issues remain. Normally I would draftify this, but doing so now would be move warring without full community consensus. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, Is currently WP:ADMASQ, likely to be a translation of an article that I cannot find from an Arabic language Wikipedia, and not attributed as a translation currently. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Akela the Alone

Akela the Alone (  | 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 film which does not meet WP:NFILM requirements. No citations apart from an IMDb link. Could not find any reliable sources of this topic in WP:BEFORE search. -- Ab207 ( talk) 07:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify to Draft:Huntingtower School.. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Huntingtower School

Huntingtower School (  | 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 school lacks enough independent sources with significant coverage for it to be its own article. The only article I found was https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/results-reflect-huntingtower-of-class-strength-20111220-1p401.html, but I believe just one is not enough. 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would Draftify be a possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify per The Banner and Liz. Once the sources are improved to meet GNG it can be moved back to mainspace. I see that Archivingperson has incentive for improving this article. 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 06:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I've tried to just update some links and add citations without changing the meaning or content. There are still areas that don't have citations and I don't know if those could just be left there with a flag (for more citation research) or should they be removed? There's also that one incident that could be possibly removed for trivial coverage? Are there any other basic things that need to be done for this page? Thanks Archivingperson ( talk) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Archivingperson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment. The sources you have added do not contribute to notability per WP:ORGIND. Although they can still be used for citations, the article does not become notable for having them. 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 04:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Yasser Abdel Rahman

AfDs for this article:
Yasser Abdel Rahman (  | 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 that has been on the cat:nn list for 10 years. Never been referenced or updated during that period. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No effective coverage. scope_creep Talk 06:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Rlink2 ( talk) 16:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete per nom. Substantial coverage seems unavailable, though there are sources on the Arabic WP article—his awards also don't seem particularly notable, but I could be convinced otherwise. Aza24 ( talk) 07:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Sykai

Sykai (  | 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 geostub does not meet WP:NGEO or the WP:GNG. It has two sources, total, and Although the place probably did exist, no longer exists, and should be considered part of Galata. Since it's basically a duplicate article, a delete is in order, as Galata already includes everything on this article. While it should not influence the voting on this AfD, for context the creator was previously warned at ANI [31] against mass-creating non-notable geostubs with minimal unverifiable sourcing, and subsequently retired. Toadspike ( talk) 23:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly contain only minimal sourcing from atlases:
Camisene (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tendeba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tynada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Etsyena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Appolena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lalandos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toadspike ( talk) 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I am giving up soon because of the sheer number of these articles. If someone else would like to comb through [32] to find articles that use <= 2 sources, that would be much appreciated. I do not mean to suggest that all of the user's page creations should be deleted; the fact that many are indeed valid makes this harder.
On a similar note, many of the redirects created by this user have seen no use and should probably also be deleted. Toadspike ( talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at least for now. There are multiple concerns given here: 1. notability under the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for geographic features; 2. whether the nominated places are merely alternative names for other places, for which they should be redirects; and 3. whether all of the geographic stubs created by a particular user should be deleted because he was warned about creating them, and then chose to retire. Let's consider each of these in turn.
1. With respect to notability, the geographic notability guideline says, at the very outset, "[p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." That alone seems all but dispositive as to notability. Cities and towns from classical antiquity are presumptively notable, if their existence is attested in reputable sources, such as the Barrington Atlas, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, or any of various other good sources. The fact that the name of one of these places is known from epigraphy rather than ancient writers doesn't make it non-notable. If a place meets the notability criteria for geographic features, then the general notability guideline is also presumptively satisfied.
2. The first-nominated article says that the place was located near Galata, and the fact that Waterfronts Revisited briefly says that Galata was "originally called Sykai" and then dismisses it doesn't really address that discrepancy. If a former town or settlement was later subsumed into Galata, that's not the same thing as saying that it had no independent existence, history, or significance of its own. Generally, if there is more reliable, verifiable, and useful information about a subject than can be conveniently merged into a related topic, or the subject has obvious potential for expansion beyond the prudent limits of such a merger, then the article should continue to exist, even as a stub. What is presently said under "Sykai" can probably be adequately covered under "Galata", although the fact that it was inhabited as part of Thrace rather than merely being incorporated into Constantinople by the early fifth century is not mentioned there, and unless shown to be unreliable or unverifiable that would need to be added under "Galata". Slight variations in orthography probably aren't vital to include, i.e. Justinianopolis/Ioustinianoupolis/Iustinianopolis/Youstinianoupoulous, as long as the most familiar/likely forms to be encountered are found, and others redirect to the proper section of the right article.
Nonetheless, there is potential for expansion under Sykai (or perhaps Sycae, as most historical sources consulted by English-language speakers would be expected to search under the Latin form of the name). Whether it's significant would have to be based on what various sources have to say about the place—has anybody checked to see whether the article contains everything that likely sources have to say about the place besides what's found under "Galata", as WP:BEFORE urges? The nomination doesn't say, and if all that we know is that the existing stub doesn't provide more information, then I don't think that the nomination meets the criteria for deletion. Stubs should be redirected or deleted because they don't have significant potential for improvement or expansion, not because they're currently stubs that haven't been improved or expanded.
3. As noted by the nominator, the outcome of this discussion probably shouldn't hinge on the fact that the creator was warned about creating geographic stubs in general. In fact, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with creating geographic stubs, as long as they are verifiable and meet the guidelines for notability with regard to geographic features. As I mentioned above, cities and towns from classical antiquity are presumptively notable; the notability guideline pretty clearly says so. If a particular editor exceeded the acceptable limits of this guideline in other cases, that shouldn't determine the outcome of the present nomination; each of the above-nominated articles and any related articles should only be redirected or deleted if they individually fail to meet the notability guidelines, or can be thoroughly covered in other appropriate articles. Just a quick perusal suggests that all of them are notable.
Being located near or even within a modern settlement is not the same thing as being identical with that place; we have lots of articles about Greek and Roman towns that have since become incorporated into modern places, but about which there is more history or archaeology to discuss than can be conveniently and thoroughly included in the articles about the modern sites. Sykai may indeed be fully mergeable with Galata—but it hasn't been yet, because the article contains important facts that aren't in "Galata"—and the nomination doesn't say whether anyone checked to see what additional information about the place might be readily obtainable, but perhaps too much to include under "Galata".
There is no indication whatever that this has been done with any of the other places nominated, or that any of them are identical with and can be conveniently merged into the places that they are nearest to today. Until that has been done, the only grounds for redirecting or deleting any of them are: 1) that they're stubs about formerly-populated places, which is clearly not a reason for either redirection or deletion; and 2) that they were created by a user who was allegedly overzealous in creating geographic stubs. It's neither necessary nor desirable to re-argue that case here; only to note that unless they're patent hoaxes that simply fail verifiability—which doesn't appear to be the case—they should be judged on an individual basis, not en masse; judged solely on their current content, they all have the appearance of valid geographic stubs. P Aculeius ( talk) 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- These are articles about former populated places, which have as much right to exist (if there is something known about them) as a current place. If the place has been replaced by another - a direct successor with a different name - it would be appropriate to merge the articles, leaving a redirect, but plain deletion should be out of the question. W. Smith, Classical dictionary and his various other works on classical antiquity are reliable sources, though now rather old ones. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ P Aculeius and Peterkingiron: Apoligies for the mess, I seem not have explained my thoughts well at all. A batch deletion may not have been the best solution for this. I will try to go through each of the articles and explain my thoughts here.
Sykai: This location may be notable, but the article includes no information beyond what is mentioned in Galata, and as such should be redirected.
Camisene: This article cites only one source, and a primary source at that ( Geographica), which would make it non-notable or violate WP:RS. It does, however, "incorporate text" from the "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography", but that isn't very clear. Because the sourcing is unclear and far from adequate, this should be merged with Pontus or deleted.
Tendeba, Tynada, Etsyena, Appolena, and Lalandos are suitable for a batch deletion, as they all follow the pattern of containing almost no information beyond a name, time period, and possible modern locations, and cite only atlases. These should probably best be merged into their regional articles. In order, this means that Tendeba should be merged into Caria (and it is already mentioned there); Tynada should be merged into Pisidia; and Etsyena, Appolena, and Lalandos should be merged into Phrygia.
Finally, WP:NGEO. Maps are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability at NGEO. As such, the last five articles, which only cite atlases and primary sources, should probably be deleted. I have checked the Barrington Atlas cited on these pages; the only mention of the towns in question is an entry in a table consisting, in its entirety, of a map grid, time period, name, presumed modern location, and source of information. This is nothing close to the coverage required for notability; it doesn't even say whether these places are actually towns, or some other named location (potentially unpopulated?), listing them simply as "places". The Lund University digital atlas deadlinks, and I cannot find an actual map of that project on their website, so the information is essentially unverifiable. Further, I am not sure if "legal recognition" of any of these towns has been established. This bolsters the case for merging or even outright deleting the last five articles I mentioned, and I urge all past and future voters to consider the limited extent of sourcing for these articles before saying that simply because they may have existed they deserve an article. Toadspike ( talk) 02:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply
It may well be that there's not currently enough information available about some or all of these places to require stand-alone articles, but merely because there's only enough information for a stub doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist. If with due diligence no information can be found indicating that they were populated places or otherwise notable, then merger or deletion may be appropriate; but the burden is on the person seeking to delete an article to make reasonable attempts to locate more information before the articles can be deleted; checking one or two specific sources—one of which could not be located on-line, although it does or did at one time exist—does not seem like enough.
But I need to address some of the other arguments made here: Sycae was clearly a populated place and notable; not all of the relevant facts had been incorporated into "Galata" when I wrote my previous reply, and unless that is addressed then the articles have yet to be adequately merged. It also isn't clear that a passing mention in Waterfronts Revisited is authoritative as to the identity of Sycae with Galata. Since the other sources imply that it was only later subsumed into Galata, and previously had an independent existence, there is a discrepancy that must be addressed before merger is appropriate.
The caution against relying on "primary sources" in Wikipedia articles has nothing to do with historical or geographical writing from classical antiquity; it is about things such as self-description in biographical articles, or eyewitness accounts of events—and even these can be properly incorporated if identified as such and appropriately placed in context. The fact that a place is described by Strabo neither makes it non-notable or violate WP:RS. And even these would not be concerns if, as you say, the articles are based in part on other reliable sources such as the DGRG or Barrington Atlas. If the source of the text isn't readily apparent, that's a reason to reword it to avoid unattributed quotes, and to cite the sources better; it's not a valid reason to delete the articles.
Your argument, "[m]aps are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability at NGEO. As such, the last five articles, which only cite atlases and primary sources, should probably be deleted" is a complete non-sequitur. The appearance of a location on a map does not establish notability, but this is because maps don't always provide adequate details. Maps that do include such information—for instance by indicating whether a place is populated, or what that population is—may go toward establishing notability. And while an atlas may contain maps, that doesn't mean that it can't establish notability; atlases frequently contain substantial information about places beyond merely indicating their locations. And it's already been established that "primary sources"—such as Strabo—are not excluded in any way, shape, or form.
"Legal recognition" as described in WP:NGEO has nothing to do with ancient cities or archaeological sites, and has no place in this discussion. The fact that "legal recognition" of ancient cities or towns has not been established bolsters nothing.
But to return to an earlier point: inadequate sourcing in an article of any length is a valid reason to improve the sourcing of the article in question. It is not a valid reason for deleting it or merging it with another article. WP:BEFORE makes clear that the onus is on the editor urging deletion to make reasonable attempts to find reliable sources; it is not enough merely to assert that the sources that are currently cited are inadequate. Checking the sources that are already cited is good, but not enough to satisfy this requirement. I further note that sources do not have to be available on-line in order to be considered verifiable; the Lund atlas may be offline at the moment, but if it still exists and can be searched somewhere, then it cannot be excluded as evidence of verifiability merely because it is difficult or inconvenient for editors to access it.
None of which establishes that none of the nominated articles can be merged or deleted; merely that a number of the reasons given for doing so are invalid, and that as yet there is no indication that reasonable attempts have been made to establish whether any of them could be improved, which is a necessary step prior to deletion or merger. P Aculeius ( talk) 05:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Recognised settlements so meet WP:GEOLAND. The fact they no longer exist is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All of these are some of the notorious geostubs created by Carlossuarez, and there are so many that his contribution statistics list doesn't load. Most are and will probably always be just literal dots on a map, which makes them non-notable according to WP:GEOLAND. Solving this through AfD is impossible, however, because there are always going to people who think low-effort database entries are valid encyclopedic articles, and who also will incomprehensibly devote multiple walls of text in defense of them. I think there was talk of mass deleting all such geostubs via administrator action in the creator's ANI thread, but the matter died there it seems. Avilich ( talk) 15:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
In the meantime I support soft-deleting all nominated articles per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NGEO. Avilich ( talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Avilich, I just wanted to let you know that hundreds of these geo-stubs were deleted in 2021 via PROD. I'm sure there are still a lot of stub articles left but many have already been cleared out with no objections or de-PRODding. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Inclined to keep, and give editors a chance to add to the article. I'm not convinced merging into the article for Galata is the answer, and simply because an editor has created a large amount of stub articles some of which may not be notable, it doesn't mean that some of them aren't. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The fact that the city no longer exists is not relevant for WP:GEOLAND. I added a source. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. pburka ( talk) 16:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a historical article meeting WP:GEOLAND. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support Its really short. - CafeGurrier66 ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Colleen Wasinger

Colleen Wasinger (  | 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)

Biography of a county councillor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county council is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie in Wikipedia -- the notability test for county councillors hinges not on verifying that they existed, but on showing substantial media coverage about their work to establish the significance of it: specific things they accomplished in the role, specific effects they had on the development of the county, specific impacts they had on wider political affairs beyond their county, or other stuff which establishes a reason to regard them as significantly more notable than most other county councillors.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the county council's own website and her campaign website), with not even one reliable or notability-supporting piece of media coverage shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Article should be improved rather than deleted. Possibly moved to draft. NiklausGerard ( talk) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG either as all the coverage is specifically local. Local politicians are far from guaranteed a Wikipedia page. SportingFlyer T· C 13:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Being a council member does not qualify as being notable, and not other grounds for notability are obvious. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Indian Idol. Black Kite (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Pawandeep Rajan

AfDs for this article:
Pawandeep Rajan (  | 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 subject doesn't meet GNG. Most of the coverage is in unreliable sources and subjective guideline WP:NSINGER isn't met likewise. Though, per WP:REALITYBIO, redirecting this to the article on series is permitted but I'd feel deletion as the better option provided the promotional tone of this article. It had already been redirected (per AfD) in September. The AfD action was undone by Inkbotttt and the work was later on taken care of by Matu11. I smell of UPE and COI around this page. Comments please! ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per norm. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources already cited in the article are sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 12:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Jayron32, How do the sources satisfy GNG? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • There are multiple sources, they are reliable, and they discuss the subject in sufficient detail. -- Jayron 32 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
        There are five sources. Source 1 is from News18 and discusses the subject in some detail but lacks the name of the author, and I won't regard this as a reliable piece. There's nothing significant in Source 2 which routinely says that he has been awarded with some non-notable award. The third source is a significant promo-piece. This one mentions the subject in passing and the last source gives him a passing mention as well. That's to say we have just two sources that discuss him in "some detail" but "their reliability" is ambiguous and these sources do not pass WP:RS and WP:IS in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : although news coverage is weak he has won The voice (Indian Version -2015) and Indian Idol (2021) so he meets the WP:MUSICBIO requirements. #9 states "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Zeddedm ( talk) 02:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Zeddedm, "what-competition"? real or reality show? The Voice isn't anything significant and I don't feel these things bestow any sort of notability to their subjects. We don't have any policy that says "the winners of the 'reality TV shows' such as the Indian Idol are notable by default". I disagree. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • How could you not consider that 2 of the biggest Song contest shows in India not to be major awards? and we also do not have policy that says that these shows are not notable. Please note that both have Wiki pages, so it would show some significance. If they had no Wiki pages, you could make the argument that they are unknown awards. I Will stick to my KEEP vote. Let the admins decide based on both sides of the argument. Zeddedm ( talk) 21:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • In Addition we could also make the argument that they meet Criteria #12 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." as part of those 2 shows. Zeddedm ( talk) 21:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Indian Idol: Several sources are just click-bait articles or interviews, which isn't helpful for notability. The COI / UPE concerns around the article creator are definitely affecting my view, but with most of the sources being tied to India Idol 12, so redirect to the India Idol article. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ashif Shaikh

Ashif Shaikh (  | 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)

References are too weak and the article is too big without proper citations. @@@ XyX talk 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD discussion as a Soft Delete but later noticed the very low edit count of the two participants. So, I restored the article and am relisting this AFD, in the hope of getting editors with more experience reviewing articles to participate in this discussion and evaluation of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Note that quite a bit of text is uncited. LibStar ( talk) 01:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth references. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - plenty of references in news and books; some just passing, others more in depth. Springnuts ( talk) 22:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hello User:Springnuts, I am the nominator of this AFD can you provided the reference of the article you said has in depth coverage or you can update the article so that we can see @@@ XyX talk 22:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a third relist, just relisting for Bijoy2020 as their recent relist didn't take effect except for leaving the note above. Consider this the second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Here’s one from news: [ [33]

But the nomination is odd: no valid reason for deletion is given - though problems with the article are alleged. Did you try to improve/clean up the article? Springnuts ( talk) 23:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Springnuts: Per The Logical Indian source you provided I personally think Mr. Ashif Shaikh in that article is completely different one. Correct me if I'm wrong? On Googling I found an Indian actor Aasif Sheikh I personally can't find any proper sources about this person, but you are very old and experienced editor finding to vote this article as Strong Keep I would love to takedown this nomination if you improve this article, I hope it won't take much time as you already have some good indepth references as you said earlier. @@@ XyX talk 23:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Bijoy2020:It appears you are wrong. Did you read the reference? Line 3: "Mr Ashif Shaikh, founder of the Jan Sahas Organisation". The article, line 1: "founder-director of the community and survivor focused non-profit organisation Jan Sahas". Friendly regards, Springnuts ( talk) 12:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Well with respect it’s for you to consider alternatives to deletion (such as cleanup or tagging etc) WP:BEFORE nominating. Springnuts ( talk) 04:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Springnuts: Not found any valid reason for tagging any tag like cleanup or something; I found less(no) WP:RS or any borderline to consider it for any other tags, I was thinking to tag WP:PROD but later considered to start an AFD. @@@ XyX talk 05:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I have added the "Autobiography cleanup" tag - that's a start. I can't give any more time to this, but the closing editor will need to decide whether WP:TNT is justified. In my opinion it is not, but there we go. That's why we have these discussions and seek consensus. All good wishes, Springnuts ( talk) 12:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. 183.82.108.172 ( talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Sources found include: [1]; [2], .. and plenty more; Google "ashif shaikh" "jan sahas" (ie both the terms at the same time) and you get plenty of good results. Springnuts ( talk) 06:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.trustconference.com/profile/index2.html?id=644b4b99-babc-42b2-8af0-26d6e83ef684
  2. ^ https://indianexpress.com/profile/columnist/ashif-shaikh/
  • Keep For notability, consider these two [1] [2] which discuss him significantly and not just his NGO. An op-ed in Hindu - [3] - also discusses his activities at some length, as does a World Economic Forum post [4]. News search shows that a number of publications like Guardian, Reuters, France 24 and SCMP (apart from Indian papers like IE, Hindu etc) have carried his quotes; thus further supporting the notability argument. Hemantha ( talk) 12:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Mehra, Preeti (22 June 2015). "Fighting for Dignity". Hindu BusinessLine.
  2. ^ Sharma, Unnati (23 September 2020). "Indian NGO founder who helped migrants in lockdown on Schwab list of social innovators". The Print.
  3. ^ "The rise of collaboratives for social impact". The Hindu.
  4. ^ "How to build long-term resilience in vulnerable communities". World Economic Forum.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis required for late added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Sources indicated by Hemantha are enough to demonstrate GNG being met. The article however needs extensive cleanup and should be tagged as such. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It looks like an advertisement. Lack of indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This has been up for a month and it's not going to benefit from another relist. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle ( talk) 14:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hoze Houndz

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

Tagged for additional citations needed since 2014 with no improvement. Sources are a production company's website, IMDB, and a WP:USERGENERATED site. WP:BEFORE discloses no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No evidence this passes GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz ( talk) 03:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Having seen the articles referred to by Nfitz from National Post and Montreal Gazette, my assessment has not changed. Both articles are about Don Cherry and Ron MacLean, not about this program. They do not contribute to significant coverage about the show. Attempting to impute notability from these articles to this program is a class case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The essay WP:INHERITED does say "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group" - but I'm not clear what the class (or group) is in this case. Nfitz ( talk) 03:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Nfitz: that essay provides a definition: Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. The articles you link are neither about Hoze Hounds but rather about the animated appearance of two legendary Canadian media personalities on the show. Using those articles as evidence of significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources is not actually useful. It is significant coverage of Cherry and MacLean, not the show. The show is "...associated with some other, legitimately notable..." persons by these articles, but not legitimately notable itself. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
They're about Ron MacLean and Don Cherry working on this show, so they most certainly do count as coverage of this show. Coverage of Ron and Don in a Hockey Night in Canada context obviously wouldn't help to establish the notability of Hoze Houndz, but coverage of Ron and Don in a Hoze Houndz context most certainly does. Whether they count for enough on their own may be debatable, but they certainly don't count for nothing. Bearcat ( talk) 13:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If I implied they counted for nothing, I apologize. I certainly did not intent to. These articles are, however, the only coverage beyond the database/UGC type stuff I mentioned earlier. I do not feel they are significant enough evidence that this show had an impact. No RS covered the start of the show, its end, any other events during its broadcast history, what happened after cancellation, reviewed it, or provided any other coverage about the show. If they did, they have been lost. That is why I said these two articles about Cherry and MacLean are not by themselves evidence that the show is itself notable. I hope that explains my position in further depth. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I didn't list any other articles, as I thought the Montreal Gazette/National Post feature was more than adequate. There's certainly more out there - see comment below. Nfitz ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete On evaluation of the sources, I agree with Eggishorn above. The references aren't really about the show but the people involved, and it's not enough to meet GNG by my eyes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've added 3 more references to the article, and improved the first 3 that were added by Bearcat since the AFD started - the basis for nomination no longer exists. Nfitz ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Late addition of additional sources requires further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I still don't see much for coverage, could be a brief subsection in the Alliance Atlantis article perhaps. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Alliance Atlantis is a distributor - and not even globally I think. The production company Amberwood Entertainment would work better - but that article doesn't exist. Another alternative would be Sheldon Wiseman - the producer. I've no doubt something in between those 2 articles and this one is notable - but this is all that exists currently. Nfitz ( talk) 02:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Family dictatorship

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

A clear POV cruft which is full of WP:OR.

The basic themes of this article are:

  • 1) a family member of president/PM has political power,
  • 2) a defacto head of state was alleged of providing powers to family members.

It is largely depending on the examples like "succeeded by his" and "succeeded by his".

There is no evidence that most of the listed names were actually dictators. For example, no WP:RS would consider Heydar Aliyev, Hassan Al Bakr, etc. as dictators.

Dhawangupta ( talk) 05:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Strong Oppose Heydar Aliyev's own wikipedia page said He was also said to have run a heavy-handed police state where elections were rigged and dissent was repressed and Hassan Al Bakr was a one party state by what measure is this a serious proposal to deny that any of those were dictators is laughable Friendlyhistorian ( talk) 20:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:RS, not your personal opinion, is important in this discourse. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article tagged over the said issues for more than 12 years. Fine to delete now. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Nothing salvageable here. desmay ( talk) 13:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOR. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • TNT Clearly this is a notable topic that is discussed in scholarly literature, but the current article bears no resemblance to the way that is discussed. Delete without prejudice against recreation in a better form. ―  Tartan357  Talk 04:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • TNT This topic is something commonly referenced in media and academics (ie: Kim family), but the article itself lacks WP:RS. The article should exist, but definitely not in its current form. Ravens ( talk). 00:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ashima Sharma

Ashima Sharma (  | 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)

Searches turn up namedrops and trivial quotes of the subject, but no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. M4DU7 ( talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

David Fisher (architect)

David Fisher (architect) (  | 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 think that it is not possible to have a proper biography of this subject. I think that a proper biography of this subject does not in fact exist anywhere.

There are three versions of this article:

The version that has been pushed by single-purpose account Hakaik.wiki ( talk · contribs)
This is largely the version at the time of nomination. Whilst superficially it may appear reliably sourced, there are serious problems with the sourcing, starting with Special:Diff/769482745. As textbooks on Italian law reveal, an indulto is a form of pardon in Italian law. The translation to pardon has been edited out several times in the article's edit history. This misrepresentation of the source is not accidental. Other sources for the legal proceedings are either now nonexistent or don't report the outcome. Then there's the Business Insider, which uses a question headline in standard journalistic fashion to avoid stating things as fact. Everything else in this article is in fact about the Dynamic Tower, more on which in a moment.
The version that has been pushed by (by my count) 8 single-purpose accounts and 9 distinct IP addresses
This is mostly the Hakaik.wiki version with most of the negative information taken out. The latest in this 14-year-long parade of single-purpose accounts, 27corazz ( talk · contribs), actually went so far as to make on-wiki legal threats: Special:Diff/1082103565. There have been more veiled threats for years, including the edit summary in Special:Diff/453418632. Some of the single-purpose accounts have put discussion page edits into the article, such as Special:Diff/453229803 where there is a claim of "my client", notice, and a lengthy argument about Italian law. And of course there has been one that follows that oft-repeated law about account names: Truth4321 ( talk · contribs). Interestingly, single-purpose account Sodiumthiopental ( talk · contribs) and the edit summary at Special:Diff/421338522 demonstrate that the perl version of the law has a bug. ☺
The version that has been also pushed by single-purpose account Enothea ( talk · contribs) and others
This is just a straight up copy and paste of the subject's autobiography, full of stuff like "Dr. Fisher has a 360-degree experience". This has been done multiple times over the edit history, but Special:Diff/499193893 is particularly of interest because of its statement of how the article subject has approved only that, and the veiled legal threat, in article space, at the bottom.
There are essentially three sets of sources available, from looking around, and they are all bad:
  • In 2008 there was a flurry of uncritical inexpert press coverage about the building proposal, and there have been a few more in the intervening years asserting things like how the building will definitely be built by 2010, or by 2020, or at least within a mere few weeks of the start of construction whenever that happens because it is so "revolutionary". Special:Diff/778223714 has quite a list, and the one of particular interest is McLaughlin 2017. "But it's the Daily Mail!", you may cry. Yes, and the Wikipedia editorship has a problem with the Daily Mail's journalistic standards. But one thing to say about the Daily Mail is that in many cases it actually specifically states how poor its standards are. This article is a case in point: it actually tells the Daily Mail's readership outright that the only source here used by the Daily Mail is this article subject's own claims from this article subject's own WWW site. The problem here is that all of the other, supposedly more reliable, sources just did the same as the Daily Mail. There's not a one of them that hasn't sourced the biographical statements that they make in their coverage of this person, as background to news on the tower, to autobiography and statements made by this person. Even the books that come up in a book search, most already cited in the article, have done this. The 2008 book by Randl is quite clear that it is sourcing to the article subject with "Fisher expects" and "Fisher recalled", and it's actually nothing more than yet more gushing uncritical coverage like the newspaper articles.
  • There was coverage of a bankruptcy case in Italian sources. Most of these sources do not exist, now, and the single-purpose accounts are claiming that that is not just link rot but because their publishers actually retracted them. The main detailed source, an analysis by a firm of lawyers involved in the case, is obviously partisan and a poor source. And it also doesn't seem to exist any more, in any case. I looked on the hyperlinked WWW site, and there's only a paragraph there, now, and it doesn't support what this article says. It doesn't name names, for a start. The Microsoft Word documents cited in edits years ago are not to be found, and wouldn't be independent sources anyway.
  • There are a fair number of self-published, anonymously-authored, sources around the WWW casting doubt on all of this. The subject's autobiography has been accused of being highly suspect, and actually the sort of false autobiography that is the reason why Wikipedia has rules about trusting autobiographies. They point out that the building doesn't exist, there has never even been a construction project begun, there have been a string of highly dubious excuses, no-one even seems to know what continent it is purportedly going to be built on, and that the journalists don't seem to have asked properly probing questions about any of this in their rush to fill space with fluff pieces about a building that is definitely going to be built, any day now, honest.
The Dynamic Tower is documented by newspapers as a proposal, but the biography of the person making the proposal is highly suspect. The supposedly reliable sources have clearly based it upon autobiography alone. There are strong doubts about its veracity, especially given its slippery nature of changing when people have attempted to verify one of its claims. The consulship is sourced, ironically, to something that says that it wasn't really the case. And the sourcing for the one other thing, the court case, is insufficient; as people have observed the three times that this article has come upon the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

I thought about redirecting this article to Dynamic Tower, but (a) that seems a useless redirect, and (b) upon reflection I think that this whole edit history needs to be deleted, not just the article blanked.

Uncle G ( talk) 05:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I-shakti

I-shakti (  | 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 table salt brand. After cleaning up the article, there's no viable content left. References are hard to come by; one about the fumbling of the brand (not this specific product), but not enough to establish notability. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, a non notable product. It is a publicity stunt to promote company's products. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mariela Anchipi

Mariela Anchipi (  | 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)

Mariela Anchipi

BLP that does not satisfy any notability guideline as written. An article should speak for itself, and this does not establish notability. In particular, the article does not establish general notability, entertainment notability, or musical notability. The article also has tone problems and content problems. It appears to have been written for fans of the subject, and contains too much trivia and gossip; if it established notability, it would need to be trimmed of non-encyclopedic material, but it doesn't establish notability. It also contains too much indiscriminate information.

It should not be necessary to review 27 references, or 22 references, because 5 of the notes are annotations rather than references. However, the references have been checked, and none of them present significant secondary coverage:

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 An annotation, not a reference.
2 An annotation, not a reference.
3 Infobae.com A story about her wedding. No No ? No
4 Infobae.com Appears to be a fan story No No ? ?
5 ciudad.com.ar Celebrity gossip Yes Yes? ? No
6 ciudad.com.ar Description of a show - Doesnt mention the subject Yes No ? No
7 lavoz.com.ar Paywalled ? ? ? ?
8 elterritorio.com.ar Celebrity gossip Yes No ? No
9 clarin.com Coverage of a sexual harassment case in which she was one of multiple complainants Yes No ? No
10 miafm.cienradios.com A celebrity profile No No ? No
11 ciudad.com.ar Discussion of whether she has had cosmetic surgery No No ? No
12 radiomitre.cienradios.com Interview with subject No No ? No
13 eltrecetv.com.ar Another interview No No ? No
14 rionegro.com.ar Account of a reality show that she was in Yes No ? No
15 infobae.com Account of a reality show that she was in Yes No ? No
16 diarioshow.com Another reality show account Yes No ? No
17 eltrecetv.com.ar Another reality show account Yes No ? No
18 lanacion.com.ar Interview with the subject No Yes ? No
19 An annotation, not a reference.
20 An annotation, not a reference.
21 An annotation, not a reference.
22 pizzabypizzaparty.com.ar An ad for pizza and a passing mention No Yes ? No
23 lanacion.com.ar An article about a show, passing mention Yes No ? No
24 YouTube No No No
25 espectaculosdeaca.com.ar An article about a show, passing mention Yes No ? No
26 radiocut.fm Quotes from the subject No No ? No
27 radiomitre.cienradios.com Interview with subject No No ? No

The originator created this BLP in both draft space and article space, possibly in order to game the system by making it impossible to draftify the article. The originator then redirected the draft to article space. It is not impossible to delete the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok, but i don't understand if i have to delete 24 references or i have to change it, but what you tell me i will do it with the article. 213.94.15.99 ( talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I've been trawling through this editor's other recent creations, none of which follows Wikipedia guidelines. Deb ( talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. There is nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. JoyStick101 ( talk) 05:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm (MA) (Zervoudakis & Tsafarakis, 2020). No experienced editor wants to keep this, and the proposed redirect is an appropriate WP:ATD. Sandstein 16:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayfly optimization algorithm

Mayfly optimization algorithm (  | 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)

However noteworthy this may be, it doesn't seem to have been much noted. NN.

Yet links to it -- and to "Flying Fox optimization" aka "Flying Fox Optimization Algorithm", another creation of Konstantinos Zervoudakis and Stelios Tsafarakis -- have been added rather vigorously, to "Genetic algorithm", to "List of metaphor-based metaheuristics", to "Table of metaheuristics", to "Heuristic (computer science)", and to "Differential evolution".

The article was created by someone with a declared COI, and the recent vigorous linking to it seems compatible with undeclared CoI. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The main paper on this topic has 127 citations already, as listed in Google Scholar, high for a 2020 publication. Nevertheless I strongly believe that this whole line of biologically inspired optimization algorithms, despite some initial successes, has devolved to become largely or almost entirely junk, or maybe pyramid-scheme science (if you hype up your topic enough to bring in enough new researchers to cite your papers, you can get high citation counts and succeed in measures of quality and performance based on citation count regardless of the boilerplate nature of the actual research). For a more informed insider opinion reaching similar conclusions, see "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room", doi: 10.1007/s11721-021-00202-9. The question for us here, though, is, can Wikipedia guidelines justify removing content because we believe it to be junk, or must we keep popular junk? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Metacomment: "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room" is open access, and very readable. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
A suggestion to delete an article from wikipedia that lacks logical or scientific evidence with only the valid argument the reference to the idea of the article "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room" lacks seriousness and I cannot characterize it something other than funny. As I imagine the author of the comment has not understood what the article he quoted mentions, I beg him to consider in which journal the mayfly algorithm is published, what is the impact factor of the journal, who are the reviewers of the journal and many other similar information that we all have in our mind when judging a scientific paper. So how is it concluded that an article say that algorithms of this type are junk? Does this article focus on the features of published unreliable algorithms? Do not try to create what is called in philosophy a “logical fallacy”. If you want, prove your claims.
My view is to put aside our subjective judgments and our ideology of what is junk and what is not and let those who work on the field to judge it. With proofs. Besides, I do not think it results from the paper's references, several of which are in internationally renowned journals and from scientists in the field stating its validity, that as an algorithm it is usefulness. That is why you should let time judge it and not try to create impressions. Useless to me are the comments that try to persuade without any serious counter-argument, depriving the freedom of speech of its creators. Kostas 0231 ( talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Those 127 citations include MDPI journals and physics conference proceedings, neither of which are known for a high standard of review. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Not only... The most are Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, IEEE... I see also journals with high impact factor... Do you think you have the authority to jurge and downgrade that? Beyond that, my purpose is not to prove something you disagree with. My goal is to remind you of the role of wikipedia. However, it is not censorship or ill-intentioned and unsubstantiated criticism. Kostas 0231 ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I am, in fact, entirely comfortable with dismissing Impact Factor as a means of evaluating anything. My present opinions about the topic at hand broadly align with those expressed by Elemimele below, who aptly summarizes the "role of Wikipedia". XOR'easter ( talk) 19:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Something from Wikipedia and i stop here because several dont understand what freedom of speech means... "Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge".
Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. Kostas 0231 ( talk) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Per policy, Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, David Eppstein we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. Elemimele ( talk) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yes, for example, Karami et al. (2021) just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". XOR'easter ( talk) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We have articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Holding my nose, I say that other things being equal, junkiness is fine. Popularity isn't a criterion for inclusion, although it tends to determine written-about-ness, which determines "notability", which is a criterion. If a metaphor-based metaheuristic (or whatever) becomes "notable" (as defined by Wikipedia) then its exposure (whether simultaneous or subsequent) as worthless doesn't diminish its "notability". However, "notability" needn't, and here shouldn't, be simply determined by an easily grasped (but notoriously inflated) number that Google puts atop a page of search results. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I think that you have totally misunderstood the complete nature of an academic paper. And I can't accept the term "junk" about an algorithm that has been published on a high impact factor journal and used as the main algorithm in various research and was reviewed by well known researchers in the field.
This is really offensive.
It also appears that you searched about the 127 citations but you totally ignored that too many of those papers use this algorithm as the main algorithm of the research.
This is also offensive.
Moreover it feels like the main problem is the popularity of a method, which feels wrong.
I will add the papers that use the mayfly algorithm in the wikipage the following days.
As regards the paper that you mentioned regarding the quality of an algorithm, the mayfly algorithm was built, compared and tested according to this paper and according to various other metaheuristic-introduction papers.
I need about one week to improve the page. GusRDRM ( talk) 14:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Please don't feel personally attacked! It's not really like that. The situation is this: We mustn't forget that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia read by a very broad readership, it's not a primary, or even secondary source of academic information. Something can actually be very good, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article until it's been widely written-about by secondary sources. That may feel like "popularity", but it's really about ensuring we have reliable information before we start writing articles. The ideal point at which a WP article can be written about an algorithm is when the algorithm is mature enough to feature in textbooks and broad reviews about its applications, strengths and weaknesses etc.; not when it's reached the stage that it's being used in primary publications by people who have read the original primary publication. My impression at the moment is that the citations are largely people recognising that it exists, or applying it, not reviewing it. If you are improving the article, GusRDRM, I would advise you to find reviews by unconnected authors, if at all possible. And if you can find them, they will greatly contribute to the strength of the article, and its likelihood of surviving this AfD discussion. My comments about junk, above, were similar to those of Hoary, and really meant that it is not necessary to assess whether this algorithm is junk or good in order to assess whether it should have an article. It gets an article if someone writes about it. If it is later found to be junk it still gets an article, but we report, fairly, what's been said about it and its field. We have no axe to grind, we are not here to judge quality directly, only to judge our sources and reflect them accurately.
Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be WP:TOOSOON. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? Elemimele ( talk) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The WP:SIGCOV criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar Firefly algorithm. Note that as an WP:ATD, a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as GusRDRM proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that List of metaphor-based metaheuristics has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to an appropriate section of List of metaphor-based metaheuristics as suggested above. I agree with that evaluation of the available sourcing. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I am focusing on gathering more sources that use the mayfly algorithm as the main algorithm, to improve the article. There may be a slight delay due to the holidays. Thank you! GusRDRM ( talk) 10:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The Berry

The Berry (  | 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 Darrelljon ( talk) 10:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: can we have some input please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I simply could not find any significant coverage of this student newspaper in independent reliable sources—none at all. As best I can tell, it doesn't come close to meeting the GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. A merger wouldn't be appropriate here, in my view: including this minor newspaper in the main University of Cambridge article would not comport with our due weight policy given the dearth of reliable sources discussing it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Given the (non-sock) comments and an otherwise equal participation, there was consensus that this shouldn't still be sitting here, but a no-consensus otherwise, and so I'm defaulting to draftifying it. Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tom Feister

Tom Feister (  | 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)

Artist does not meet notability guidelines. Sources are from an inactive website, The article is also written like a resume. Crimson Comedian Talk 04:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment He is award winning artist. The only issue I see with the article is" it's written like resume" Mbilalwiki ( talk) 13:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Agreed, this is written like a resume. He's mentioned enough times as a comic book artist, not sure how notable he is. No fixed opinion. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No assertion of notability as no sources can be found. Fails GNG.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found one Publisher's Weekly review that names him as an author. Adding even a few of his titles to the article could bring this up to WP:NAUTHOR. The Google Books search reveals a large number. Lamona ( talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third time is a charm for some additional input?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify As written, subject does not have clear case for notability per WP:GNG. Claims that would establish that need independent sources, but I do not think deletion is the next step here. NiklausGerard ( talk) 05:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Louise Crisp

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. If she won some awards that would add to notability but being shortlisted is not the same. LibStar ( talk) 02:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment/leaning keep WP:ANYBIO deems people notable if they have been nominated for well-known or significant awards or honors several times. She seems to meet that criterion. Would anyone dispute that - i.e. does anyone consider these awards to not be well known or significant? CT55555 ( talk) 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 2. After doing more WP:BEFORE type work, I have added to the article. Also seems like she meets WP:POET on basis of:
  1. https://www.smh.com.au/culture/books/the-books-to-read-in-2020-20191220-p53lyg.html
  2. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6441807/poems-of-long-walks-and-lost-latin-names/
  3. https://bronasbooks.com/2021/08/14/yuiquimbiang-louise-crisp-aww/ CT55555 ( talk) 10:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per CT55555. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As much I would like to keep the page, it is WP:TOOSOON. CT55555: WP:ANYBIO deems people notable if they have been nominated for a well-known or significant award or honor several times. She has been nominated for 3 separate awards, one time each. The SMH and Canberra Times articles are WP:RS but not sufficient to establish WP:ANYBIO-- they are simply reviews of a singular work and do not establish that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". The third ref you include is a blog and not WP:RS. I additionally found a good RS in The Weekend Australian (Against the tide, June 22, 2019 by Gregory Day (Page 25, Review)) but again, it's not sufficient to meet ANYBIO. So unfortunately I think it has to be Delete... Cabrils ( talk) 00:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Keep I'm persuaded by SouthernNights. (And have now added The Weekend Australian ref.) Cabrils ( talk) 05:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Part 1, 3 prize nominations
    If we were here to apply rules, I would have to concede your point. In the context of our role to be to exercise judgement based on lines that guide us (guidelines), I think it is fair to say that three nominations for three awards is comparably notable as 2 nominations for 1 award.
    Part 2, blogs
    I think we take a analytical views of blogs. Are they written by someone who has expertise? Is the blog well established? Is this PROMO? This is a blog that claims (and no reason to doubt) to be 13 years old, written by a teacher about her areas of expertise. It's not New York Times review of books, but it is credible.
    Conclusion
    I think we can use our judgement here and make a common sense argument and I have read and considered what you have wrote, but I still think it's fair to remain keep. CT55555 ( talk) 05:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Under WP:ANYBIO it states a person is notable is they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." That phrasing doesn't mean they have to be nominated for the same award multiple times. Instead "such an award" means someone has been nominated several times for "a well-known and significant award or honor." This subject has been a finalist several times for well-known and significant awards so she absolutely meets our notability guidelines.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 17:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SouthernNights's clear reasoning. pburka ( talk) 18:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per CT55555, the title is meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Lovett

Jonathan Lovett (  | 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)

With WP:NFOOTY now deprecated/removed/whatever you want to call it, I have been unable to find any indication that Lovett meets WP:GNG. The only sources I can find on any search appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I don't contest the reliability of the book cited in the article, but a little coverage in one source isn't enough for a GNG pass.

Even the article makes a clear case for his lack of notability: after playing a single game at the highest level, he "left the club soon afterwards, and his whereabouts thereafter are untraced." Unfortunately although there is a List of Burnley F.C. players, it only includes those with 100+ appearances, so this article can't be merge/redirected there. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

George Longinidis

George Longinidis (  | 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:NKICK and WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 01:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tiago Azevedo

Tiago Azevedo (  | 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 about a non notable painter. He has done only one exhibition in 2015 and two of his paintings were sold at $7500. After that no exhibition can be found. In 2017 he published a self-published book which none knows about. Doesn't satisfy WP:ARTIST from any angle. The artist claims to be part of lowbrow movement but there is no mention in independent media about the same other than some paid for articles about this person. There is an interview on the flaunt magazine, but being an interview it doesn't count for notability thus he lacks WP:SIGCOV as well. Also, the article badly suffers from promotionalism and reads like an advert. This painter has been portrayed as may be 100 times than what he is. And the cherry topping is the SPA who created the article and a number of other SPA that added contents in the article. Wikipedia can't be allowed to be used as a vehicle of promotion. Chirota ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found several articles, but as both ritzherald (dot) com and influencive dot com are on the blacklist and have content similar to the ones I found, guessing paid for promotion/without editorial control. Has me leaning delete, but will look for more. Star Mississippi 02:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Due to massive critical reception, Azevedo was invited to exhibit pieces of his first collection "Fairy Tales" in New York and Cannes on the following year." is cited to an publication by a company that tries to sell "Luxury Beer": https://www.neuschwansteiner.com/blog/neuschwansteiner-in-cannes-luxury-art/ Some sources listed on his own website, https://www.tiagoazevedo.com/press are obvious press releases (Renderosity, Cision), others less so. The subject of this article claims that he has had "several exhibitions at major institutions, notably The Carrousel du Louvre in Paris, Canne, and Rome Museum of California Art (2014 –2017); Art Expo New York and Museum of Angra do Heroísmo". The Carroussel is a perpetual presence in art promo. It is not curated by the Louvre, even if they share a name. The "Rome Museum of California Art" is puzzling, I can't find any indication that it exists. ArtExpo New York is an art fair that will show anything, as long as you pay for a booth. Lastly, the Museu de Angra do Heroísmo is not a major institution at all, but a tiny regional museum. Vexations ( talk) 12:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nominator, the topic doesn't satisfy WP:NARTIST. JoyStick101 ( talk) 05:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Veell

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nom Tow ( talk) 01:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I cannot find any reliable sources mentioning this musician. No references in the article. Fails notability. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No reference. per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_12&oldid=1083909203"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 11 April 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tailgate Clothing Company

Tailgate Clothing Company (  | 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)

BEFORE does not show any significant coverage. Article contains WP:OR in associating images of celebrities wearing the product. This also seems to be an attempt at notability by association. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter ( talk) 19:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying to solicit more feedback on this AFD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per nom, there is no significant coverage of the brand, with most of the sources either mentioning it in passing or not at all. Also per WP:TNT, as the article is entirely promotional and lacks any encyclopaedic value. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the article (in its entirety) is written like an advertisement; this issue was raised in 2009 and has not been resolved. Not to mention that there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of the brand. XtraJovial ( talk) 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Alpha Wolf (film)

Alpha Wolf (film) (  | 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 film, lacking significant independent coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 22:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Steph Jones

Steph Jones (  | 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 found no significant coverage. Not notable for singing, songwriting, or modeling. SL93 ( talk) 21:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Kirill Sinitsyn

Kirill Sinitsyn (  | 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)

Highest ranking of 1385 in singles does not make him notable enough as a tennis player. The vast majority of matches he played as a pro were in qualifying for futures tournaments. Even within the limited category of 'tennis players who went to Durham University' he does not stand out in comparison to Filip Veger (junior grand slam finalist) and Julius Tverijonas (Lithuania Davis Cup team), plus other people who don't even have a wikipedia article but have still been ranked higher than him (Henry Patten, Gabriela Knutson etc). This article has been up since April last year and I'm amazed it has lasted this long Holyisland ( talk) 21:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Canada. Shellwood ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS, even the version before the current controversial changes. I'd have AFD'd this myself had I seen the PROD and de-PROD from last year. Iffy★ Chat -- 08:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Satisfies neither WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. Jevansen ( talk) 04:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a long way short of WP:NBASIC Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NTENNIS before and after the current mess that is WP:NSPORTS. The editor that de-PRODded the article last year mentions the subject's college tennis titles, I can't find any sources that have significant coverage beyond statistics websites which is also a requirement to pass WP:NCOLLATH. Bonoahx ( talk) 22:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:NTENNIS as the player has a higher ranking and notability (several college championships) than a number of players with pages, for example, Eduardo Russi Assumpção. In my opinion stricter guidelines should be implemented for athletes, but this one is sufficiently notable. Sinitskilab ( talk) 12:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG as the player has won 8 national championships at 4 different levels of college athletics (identifiable in the sources provided, there might be other mentions of the record the player’s native language). This is an example why stricter guidelines are not necessarily needed. Such self-evident achievements as in the current case should constitute a relevant criterion for page selection. Annkate ( talk)) 15:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG Adamtt9 ( talk) 18:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep satisfies WP:NCOLLATH as a 4 time first-team All-American in terms of individual national award requirements. I agree Annkate that the record for national champinships is relevant, but then it should be added to the page. It’s a close call but imo would be a disservice to remove. 0racIeo1O ( talk) 09:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • The Keep votes above should be discounted entirely. One of them claims that GNG is met but doesn't present a single source that would meet GNG's requirements. Another claims NTENNIS is met because of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and also ignores recent changes to the NSPORTS world. Finally, the NCOLLATH argument is flawed too, as this player did not play in NCAA tennis tournaments, the only level relevant to NCOLLATH (and even if I am wrong and he did play NCAA tennis, he didn't achieve anything significant there). Iffy★ Chat -- 12:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • NCAA All-American results found with a quick search ITA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0racIeo1O ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment – The top of the page states that those are Division II results. I can't find any evidence of success at NCAA Division I tournaments or any coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE which is required to pass NCOLLATH - I am not particularly familiar with US college athletics so forgive me if "All-American" is something different. Another editor has given Eduardo Russi Assumpção as an example of a player who they believe to have lower notability due to their lower ranking, but don't take into account the fact that their ranking was higher in doubles (let alone the fact that rankings don't dictate notability) and they had been in the main draw of an ATP Tour event, which passes WP:NTENNIS#2. Bonoahx ( talk) 11:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd encourage the closer to view the edit histories of the three Keep voters before making a decision. Jevansen ( talk) 00:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Die fünfte Kolonne

Die fünfte Kolonne (  | 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)

Initially I was going to go to dewiki and translate/expand this article, but then I realized: the article on dewiki had no sources either. This does not appear to be receiving any significant coverage and the news section of Google shows news on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in German. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Lithuania at the 1928 Summer Olympics. ✗ plicit 23:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Haris Šveminas

Haris Šveminas (  | 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)

Sveminas was a competitior in the Olympics who did not medal. We lack any significant sources on him and my search for sources in multiple databases came up with nothing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Irish Unionist Party (2020)

Irish Unionist Party (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)

Per the discussion at Talk:Irish_Unionist_Party_(2020)#Delete, I propose that this article be deleted for falling short of the relevant notability criteria. In short, in terms of:

  • WP:NGO (which suggests that an "organization's longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered [in determining notability]") is not met. In short, this appears to be a very small org (somewhere between perhaps 1 and 20 people?), that has barely existed for a few months (Nov 2021?).
  • WP:SIGCOV (which expects significant coverage in reliable independent sources) is not met. In short, pretty much all of the coverage of this topic seems to derived from a single sensationalist piece in the Irish Sun. A source which itself is covered under WP:THESUN for exactly this type of sensationalist "journalism". And which seems to have begat all/most of the other coverage. (The Irish Central piece, for example, refers to and is effectively a reprint of the Irish Sun content. As are the other web-only reprints.)
  • WP:ORGDEPTH (which expects coverage that "extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the org") isn't met. In that we have two "bursts" of coverage. One in Nov 2021, reprints/replications of the Irish Sun's "org created" article. And another glut in Feb 2022, of the "some people still don't like my controversial views" variety. Neither of which is enough to expand beyond the very scant detail in the article. ("Teenager creates website and political group which is not registered to contest elections anywhere.")

While not wishing to seem disparaging, the subject here seems to be a very small group of people (perhaps just one person), created by a teenager, armed with a free Wix.com website and a sticker maker. That has been the subject of some "get a load of this guy" coverage in a small number of sources (the seed of which being a source which the community has agreed is to be avoided to support content or a notability claim). Guliolopez ( talk) 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - still here? delete per non notable org. Spleodrach ( talk) 22:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Manelly Zepeda

Manelly Zepeda (  | 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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Far too soon for this young actress. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

National Association of State Budget Officers

National Association of State Budget Officers (  | 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)

Insufficient coverage of this organization, doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Major contributors were affiliated with the organization, little improvement by anyone else. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

When searching for sources, I found stories using this organization as a source, but no coverage about the organization itself. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn as the article has seen significant improvement. Bearcat ( talk) 14:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Chrisler

Jennifer Chrisler (  | 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 about a former executive director of an organization, not making any strong or properly sourced claim to passing our inclusion criteria for leaders of organizations. As written, the article's notability claim boils down to "person who had a job", which isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a properly demonstrated WP:GNG pass on sourcing that analyzes the significance of her work in the job -- but the sole source being used to support the article is a deadlinked Q&A interview in an alternative weekly newspaper, which isn't enough coverage to get her over GNG all by itself.
I am willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but the page has been tagged for notability since 2010 without ever having any new content or sourcing added to bolster her basis for inclusion, so it's long past time to pull the "fix it or lose it" trigger. Bearcat ( talk) 17:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Allen Ari Dziwa

Allen Ari Dziwa (  | 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)

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a writer with no reliably sourced claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This may be an WP:AUTOBIO or some form of paid PR job, as it was created by a WP:SPA with no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic -- but either way, the referencing here is entirely to primary sources (his own self-published website, the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, etc.) that are not support for notability, with not even one WP:GNG-worthy piece of real reliable source coverage about him in real media shown at all.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn on which people are entitled to have articles just because they have jobs -- they have to be the subject of third party coverage and analysis, in sources independent of themselves, to externally validate the significance of their work, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from that.
(See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwinyai Dziwa, which appears to be an alternate name for the same person and was also first created by the same editor who created this.) Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Shaheen bhatt

Shaheen bhatt (  | 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)

It is not enough to be the daughter of a renown director or actress to establish notability. The topic does not passes WP:NACTOR, also fails WP:NAUTHOR. References do not show enough notability to justify WP:GNG. DMySon ( talk) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. https://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/ive-never-been-unhappier-alia-bhatts-sister-shaheen-bhatt-announces-paperback-of-her-book/
  2. https://vidhyathakkar.com/book-review-of-ive-never-been-unhappier-by-shaheen-bhatt/
Weak as one is by a blogger, but the blogger appears to be credible in her role as a book reviewer, but it's not exactly grade A for reliable sources. CT55555 ( talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • First source is not a review, just announcement. No indication that the second author is a subject-matter expert to consider it under WP:SPS -- Ab207 ( talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several references have been added since this deletion discussion was initiated. There's also the option to draftify instead of deleting. Where are we headed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I reviewed all the sources mentioned above or in the current version of the article, and it really comes across as trying to make a meal out of condiments. I would categorize the sources as follows:
Wading through all that, I see two pieces that are written with any amount of care: this Hindu article about the book release (though keep in mind that such coverage, at least partly, is a result of the subject's very famous sister and father being present), and this short interview/profile. However I don't think these are detailed or independent enough to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR.
Given that Bhatt's book was published in 2019, which was the impetus for most of the above coverage, I don't think working on the article for a few more weeks will help us locate better sources or develop it further. So Draftification would not help at the moment. Lastly, I believe that the current attempt to blow up thin media coverage into an encyclopedic biographies has resulted in some misrepresentations and undue amplifications that raise BLP-concerns. Examples:
  • This short and trivial "news" item is now immortalized in an encyclpedic entry as "Her father Mahesh Bhatt caused commotion with his language and tone during the launch due to which her sister Alia had to pacify him."
  • Compare the wikipedia article text, "While her father wasnt around much, she did find him to be under the infuence of raging alcoholism." with what the source (ie, Shaheen Bhatt) says, ""My father stopped drinking just days after I was born."
The current article also contains a lot of redundant, repetitious, and undue content but all that is worth dealing with only if the article were to be retained. Abecedare ( talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Reverse sexism

AfDs for this article:
Reverse sexism (  | 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 term and therefore page doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as 'Reverse sexism'. It should be deleted or redirect to 'Sexism', or at the very least, be renamed to 'discrimination against men'.

In the first nomination of this page back in 2004, most people were in favour of redirecting to sexism or 'Reverse Discrimination', though the latter is in the exact same situation as 'Reverse sexism', there's no such thing, it's just 'discrimination'. Regardless, the page doesn't redirect anywhere despite the last nominations consensus. NotIranian ( talk) 14:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Whether individual editors believe the concept exists or not, the concept is covered extensively in academia and other media. Mary Briody Mahowald wrote an article for the The American Journal of Bioethics titled "Reverse Sexism? Not to Worry" in 2001 (source here); I S Gorfinkel wrote an article for the National Library of Medicine titled "Reverse Sexism" in 1994 (source here); Eidah Hilo wrote an article for Fem Magazine titled "Reverse Racism and Reverse Sexism Don’t Exist" in 2014 - which proves the concept is discussed (source here); Gary Furlong wrote an article for Stanford University titled "Combat reverse sexism" in response to a piece published in the Aurora women's magazine, date unknown (source here); The View had a discussion on if it is reverse sexism for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election (source here); Meghan Trombly wrote an article for Strong Women Strong Girls titled "In True Backlash Fashion: The "Reverse Sexism" of Title IX" in 2012 (source here); the (long) list of sources continues. Simply not agreeing with a concept does not exempt an AfD nominator from doing a BEFORE. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, (this was an edit-conflict with the above) nominator is missing the point. The term doesn't need to make sense or describe something that exists in order to deserve an article; we have articles on hoaxes and theories that have been disproven. If the phrase/concept is discussed in depth in a range of reliable sources, then an article can be written. Even the briefest of Google searches shows that it's been the subject of publication at a wide range of levels from academic to the popular press, by a wide range of authors. The following, for example, feature the term very strongly: [16] [17] [18]; the following uses the term in a way indicating that it expects readers to be familiar with the concept: [19]; I got bored at this stage, there's loads of stuff out there. Elemimele ( talk) 17:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sorry for the edit conflict! Those are the worst! -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kbabej and Elemimele. The coverage of the term/concept easily satisfies WP:GNG. As explained above, opinions about the legitimacy of the concept are irrelevant in regards to its notability. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It meets WP:GNG. Shashank5988 ( talk) 16:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Pasarturi HSR Station

Pasarturi HSR Station (  | 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:NGEO, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirebon HSR Station. RaFaDa20631 ( talk) 14:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. There is no reliable source specifically covering the plans for this station yet. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 15:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Cirebon HSR Station

Cirebon HSR Station (  | 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 nonexistent building in Indonesia, fails WP:NGEO. RaFaDa20631 ( talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete - there's not even a conducted discussion about the HSR station on Bandung - Surabaya segment. It's non-existent (yet) FarhanSyafiqF ( talk) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is no reliable source specifically covering the plans for this station yet. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 15:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Station did not exist yet. There is no news about its construction, no news about its planning either. WP:BEFORE search on the native name of the station turns up nothing. The station for high speed rail is different from the Cirebon railway station. SunDawn talk 07:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Girth Summit (blether) 14:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thomas John Shillea

Thomas John Shillea (  | 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)

Puffy biography of a photographer which has been entirely unsourced (asie from a Worldcat link to one of his books) since it was created in 2013, by an SPA whose username matches the name given as the wife of the subject. I considered stubifying it and adding some sources, but I'm only really seeing affiliated stuff and interviews in local press promoting exhibitions. Happy to withdraw if someone can dig up some decent sources. Girth Summit (blether) 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Strands Recommender

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

An article about an e-commerce tool, accepted from AfC in 2010. I am not seeing any substantial claim to notability in the article. The given references are largely primary, mainly from a bout of product publicity / interviews 10-12 years ago. The tool may also have featured in a 2015 Voltage New Media blog post, though not in the linked 2017 article. My searches are not finding the coverage for Strands Recommender / Strands Retail which is needed to demonstrate attained notability. An article on the parent company was recently deleted at AfD so there isn't an obvious WP:ATD. AllyD ( talk) 12:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete per A9. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Shades of Perth Volume 3

Shades of Perth Volume 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable release, only a review in a local magazine (x-press), and listing in databases. The whole Shades of Perth series lacks sourcing, and the third one seems to be even more obscure than the other two [26]. Fram ( talk) 12:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Realizar Worldwide Events

Realizar Worldwide Events (  | 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 organisation. Lacks significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Rockall (band)

Rockall (band) (  | 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 musical group. PepperBeast (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Romance Academy

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

Doesn't appear to have significant coverage. Non-notable organisation. PepperBeast (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Biskupské gymnázium Bohuslava Balbína

Biskupské gymnázium Bohuslava Balbína (  | 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 school does not meet the WP:NBUILDING criteria of notability. It is no different from similar high schools in the Czech Republic, and it does not even have a long history. FromCzech ( talk) 11:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. There appears to be consensus, with the additional sources located (both in obituaries and prior), that the notability test for county councillor has been met Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hazel Erby

Hazel Erby (  | 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)

Biography of a county councillor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county council is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie in Wikipedia -- the notability test for county councillors hinges not on verifying that they existed, but on showing substantial media coverage about their work to establish the significance of it: specific things they accomplished in the role, specific effects they had on the development of the county, specific impacts they had on wider political affairs beyond their county, or other stuff which establishes a reason to regard them as significantly more notable than most other county councillors.
But two of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (her "staff" bio on the council's own self-published website and her obituary on the website of the funeral home) -- the other two footnotes are from real media but both exist solely in the context of her death, and even one of those is just a "here are her funeral details, the end" blurb rather than substantive coverage of her work in politics. And while the longer piece about her death contains enough useful information to be a start toward an article that would pass WP:NPOL, it isn't enough coverage to be a finish all by itself if it's the only notability-assisting source in the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more substance and a lot more referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 13:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 19:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Redirect won't work because the St. Louis County Council does not mention her, so it probably reflects a later date. Also, that article itself is sourced only to primary sources: two pages of the council web site. Because multiple sources from the same publication count as one, the STL public radio sources are only one source. The StL Business Journal is another. The Funeral home notice is not an independent source (probably written by a relative), and the STL Today is a brief notice of the funeral. Lamona ( talk) 22:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She is described as one of the "Matriarchs Of Black Politics In St. Louis" in significant, in-depth coverage by St. Louis Public Radio in 2021, which is currently not clear in the article but could be expanded based on this source. A separate bylined obituary by St. Louis Public Radio, titled Hazel Erby, A Towering Figure In St. Louis County Politics, Dies At 75 is significant and in-depth coverage that could help expand the article (e.g. the article states, "Perhaps Erby’s defining moment as a public figure came in 2014, right after a Ferguson police officer shot and killed Michael Brown."). Another bylined obituary, titled Trailblazing St. Louis County Councilwoman Hazel Erby dies at 75 by a local FOX station notes "Erby was elected to represent the first district as the first African American woman on the council in 2004", which could also be added to the article. These are only the first few hits in my online search, but it appears that she has WP:GNG notability well-covered and additional research can reasonably be expected to find further support. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    There is also another bylined obit: Former Councilwoman Hazel Erby leaves behind powerhouse legacy (St. Louis American), describing her as "a champion for racial equity on the St. Louis County Council", a bylined obit for a local NBC station: 'A gentle front-line soldier' | Friends remember former St. Louis County Council member Hazel Erby that includes discussion of her "lawsuit against St. Louis County accusing County Executive Sam Page and others of racial discrimination", which was also covered by the Associated Press in 2020. Her work as the leader of the Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition also received national coverage from NBC in 2014. She also received coverage in the Guardian in 2014 as a "member of the St Louis county council whose ward includes Ferguson", and in the New York Review in 2015 as a county council member, mother, and "North County resident of middle-class University City for almost fifty years". Beccaynr ( talk) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    She also has a brief profile that generally references "numerous awards for her work in the community" in African American St. Louis (2016, p. 65), more than a passing mention in Public Disorder and Globalization (2016, p. 38), and several pages related to her and her work in context in Busted in New York and Other Essays (2019, beginning at p. 127). Beccaynr ( talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also, per WP:NRV, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition [...] Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. In addition, per WP:NEXIST, The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. (emphasis added due to the !votes and nomination that appear to only discuss sources in the article). Beccaynr ( talk) 20:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. She played a key role in city politics in St. Louis not to mention the length of her service and the fact that she is a Black woman. Patapsco913 ( talk) 02:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As a civil rights pioneer, she is included in several books, including Public Disorder and Globalization - Page 38, Civil Rights in St. Louis - Page 122, Busted in New York and Other Essays. She was the first Black woman to be elected to the county council in St Louis. Found a ridiculous number of significant stories on newspapers.com. She easily meets the general notability guideline Jacona ( talk) 11:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 13:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hugh Archer ("Sagette")

Advanced search for: 
"Hugh Archer Sagette"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library


Hugh Archer ("Sagette") (  | 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)

Lieutenant in navy, who also was a spy for a short period (1912-3) in peacetime, reporting on ship locations. Does not have significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Full obituary in The Times, cited in the article. We have always considered that an obit in a major national newspaper is sufficient for notability purposes. Also clearly a captain in the navy, not a lieutenant. But rename to Hugh Archer (Royal Navy officer). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Is there actually a full obituary? Or is a short very brief death listing? I've searched for sources for "Hugh Archer" ""H. E. M. Archer". All I found that was of any substance were some results in the "Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939" book. Pikavoom Talk 12:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I believe I just said it was a full obituary! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • You won't search the Times archive with Google. Uncle G ( talk) 14:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Precisely. You can't ignore sources just because you can't find them on the internet. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
          • This has been Wikipedia policy for as long as I can remember and it's unfortunate some are choosing to disregard it. Atchom ( talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • It is a full obituary. I just checked. Atchom ( talk) 20:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. If the only basis for retention is an argument that "an obit in a major national newspaper is sufficient for notability purposes" (not policy but a claimed consensus) then that obit should be accessible for review and assessment so that Users can see whether it was truly an obit written by a staff writer or a family provided death notice. Mztourist ( talk) 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    So you are saying you voted for deletion even though you made no effort to look at one of the key sources? Wikipedia policy is very very clear: sources don't have to be online, or even readily accessible, in order to be valid sources. Atchom ( talk) 20:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I can't access the Times obituary and my past experience at AFD where obituaries have been used as the sole basis for claiming notability is that you have to read what the obituary actually says. If he actually passed BASIC there should be more reliable sources than one paywalled obituary. Mztourist ( talk) 03:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Two editors have now said that it's a full obituary. Anyone would think that you don't believe anything unless you can see it yourself on the internet, which is contrary to WP:OFFLINE. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    As you well know, I don't trust your claimed consensuses and past AFDs has shown that your and my views on what amounts to a "full obituary" rather than a family contributed one do not align, so this still doesn't pass BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 06:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    WP:AGF. You're basically saying I'm lying. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I certainly don't AGF from you. Mztourist ( talk) 05:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    And what basis do you have for accusing a long-serving editor and admin of breaching good faith? Your conduct is coming very close to being unacceptable. I'm sure you do really know this. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I faced the similar situation, with Mztourist in the opposite side. @Necrothesp Why don't you take photoshoots of some pages in the book that support your information instead of keep it as a mystery your own and make doubt from others? AGF with visible proof is better than AGF with doubt. Leemyongpak ( talk) 13:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    For the record, the obituary is approximately 280 words long; neither massive nor a tiny stub. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Exactly. Certainly not just a death notice. If The Times, Britain's principal newspaper of record, thought him sufficiently notable to write an obituary about then who are we to reject him, with our numerous articles on minor vloggers, bloggers, warblers and reality nobodies? Wikipedia should not become a repository of pop cultural information, ignoring those who were notable before the advent of the internet and even television. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Necrothesp for better or worse, our notability guidelines are largely based on significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources and a single obituary would be rather unlikely to overcome the multiple aspect. For that reason, I'd greatly appreciate if you could answer my query regarding Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939 below. Ljleppan ( talk) 11:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, I haven't got access to the book. However, consensus is very much that an obit in a major national nespaper is sufficient for notability purposes for the reasons I have outlined above. As we all (should) know, nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone, especially if consensus says something else. That's why the policies WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR exist, to point out exactly this to those who are uncomfortable with our lack of actual rules. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your reply regarding the book. I'll wait a day or two to see if Atchom or someone else can provide a description of the coverage in it beyond what's visible to me in Google Book before !voting. Ljleppan ( talk) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:BASIC, including the obituary in the UK's newspaper of record and everything else. Previous voter himself admits he hasn't made any effort to look at the source, which is unfortunate. Atchom ( talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Necrothesp and Atchom: do you have access to Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939 so that you could describe how in-depth the coverage of the subject is in that book? - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • To clarify, I'm asking because a Google Books search shows very few results in the book for sagette or archer. Ljleppan ( talk) 10:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I don't see much aside from the Sage and Sagette thing taken together, either, although there are two other books that cover that same ground. However, a search of one on-line newspaper archive indicates that the one major source plus several minor sources principle might apply, the obituary being the major source.

        The minor sources would be the aforementioned book, a marriage to Millicent Mary Pearson, in the Northampton Mercury and Bedfordshire Mercury dateline 1905-11-17, a mention in admiralty honours list in the Liverpool Journal of Commerce and Liverpool Daily Post dateline 1916-07-15, an estate of £3,476 (equivalent to £251,267 in 2021) in the Hampshire Telegraph dateline 1931-05-01, and a 1931-01-09 obituary in the Dover Express.

        All these by looking for the full name Hugh Edward Murray Archer. I don't have access to the full text, which is likewise subscription only. This does (further) indicate that Google is the wrong tool to address this with.

        Uncle G ( talk) 09:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete The relevant guideline appears to be WP:BASIC. While the The Times obituary is significant coverage at approx. 280 words, it alone is not sufficient to establish notability. The other potentially interesting sources it the Six book. That, however, does not appear to contain anything beyond passing mentions based on a Google Books search as described above. Similarly, the sourced identified by Uncle G are, according to his description, minor and would not count for significant coverage. In totality, we have one good source and a small smattering of passing mentions and run-of-the-mill news coverage. While WP:BASIC does allow for an exception where if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, in my view, this has not been reached in this case. My overall assessment is that the subject does not pass WP:BASIC based on the identified sourcing. It's always possible that other good sources exist, but would need to be identified for them to count. My !vote is weak as I do not have perfect visibility to all the references. - Ljleppan ( talk) 21:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I typed out the full text of the obit:

    Captain Hugh Edward zMurray Archer, D.S.O., R.N., of Hill House, Eastry, Kent, died suddenly on December 30 at Collinghamgardens, S.W. He was the eldest son of the late Mr. Walter E. Archer, C.B., and entered the Navy in 1894. Promoted to lieutenant in 1902, he served in the battleship Empress of India when flagship of Rear-Admiral E. S. Poe in the Home Fleet, and also in the battleship Majestic. He specialized in navigation, and was navigating officer of the cruiser Iphigenia when in 1906 she was selected as one of the first ships to be adapted for minelaying. From June, 1908, he was first and navigating lieutenant of the cruiser Perseus in the East Indies. He retired in 1910, but rejoined the active list on the outbreak of War in 1914, and was appointed for minesweeping duties at Sheerness. Later he was appointed to the Attentive, parent ship at Dover, for similar duties, and he was one of four minesweeping officers under the orders of Sir Reginald Bacon who were commended in the Admiral's book on the Dover Patrol; they "were excellent in training sweepers and in gallantly leading their ships under heavy gunfire, when ordered to sweep up dangerous minefields, both 'enemy' and our own." Captain Archer was promoted to acting commander and received the D.S.O. in July, 1916, in recognition of his services with ships of the Auxiliary Patrol. After the Armistice he was appointed to the Minesweeping Division at the Admiralty. He was confirmed in the rank of commander with effect from November 11, 1918, and in August, 1924, was promoted to captain on the retired list.

While this seems substantial, we still require multiple such sources to demonstrate notability, and these have not been provided. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There is another obituary in the Dover Express, 9 January 1931, p 8. Plus all the book mentions. Atchom ( talk) 01:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This may be useful for discussion, although still a work in progress. User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with an obituary in a major newspaper. It already shows a pretty good consensus, I think. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    A list of deletion discussions mentioning an obituary is not evidence that there is larger consensus that a single obituary alone is sufficient to establish notability. If there is an actual consensus for a single obituary to be sufficient for notability, I suggest you start up an RFC to modify WP:NBASIC accordingly as that would be quite a drastic deviation from how it is currently phrased. Ljleppan ( talk) 15:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    You will see, if you look at them, that many of those discussions do indeed come to that conclusion. But I do appreciate from prior painful experience that those opposed to such a consensus will refuse to see it no matter how much evidence is presented to them (and will probably disdainfully dismiss such evidence as fabrication and lies, since WP:AGF is alien to some if their own views are challenged). Nevertheless, I will point out that WP:CONSENSUS quite clearly states that decisions on Wikipedia are reached by consensus arrived at through both editing and discussion (which includes at AfD), and nowhere does it say that WP:NBASIC, a guideline, trumps a policy. Too many editors take it as gospel, but it is not and was never intended to be. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In addition to the Times obituary, at least two historians have written about his exploits in at least three books. pburka ( talk) 21:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Pburka: based on Google Books search results the book(s) appear to mention the subject only in passing. If you have access to the full text, and can verify that the coverage is in-depth, please give a brief description of what is said and in how much detail. Simply asserting that sources exist is not very helpful. Ljleppan ( talk) 21:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • From WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." A "passing mention" would be something like "Archer also attended the event." Each of the books devotes several paragraphs or pages to Archer and his father, addressing their espionage activities directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. For example, we learn from Boyd that the pair knew Denmark and Norway intimately, they traveled to those countries on a yacht subsidized by SSB, they exceeded the £1200 budget (leading to arguments with their handler), they were successful, and their mission was used as a model for similar coast-watching networks during both world wars. Smith goes into more detail about the funding problems: apparently the Archers refused to reveal the names of their recruits until they received an extra $10,000. (The sources I refer to are linked in the article and can be verified by anyone.) pburka ( talk) 22:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      Thanks for your reply. I can see the British Naval Intelligence through the Twentieth Century page via google books. As indicated by e.g. footnote seven in WP:BASIC, depth of coverage is a spectrum, and in my view a few sentences discussing both him and his father jointly are not very persuasive of the subject being sufficiently notable for inclusion. If we had even one extensive ref together with the obituary, I'd find it much easier to !vote keep. How long is the relevant section in The Anatomy of a Spy? Ljleppan ( talk) 22:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      All the book coverage is on the pair, "Sage" and "Sagette", and cover this one brief episode as spies in peacetime. This is not coverage of these two as individuals, but of an intelligence operation. Pikavoom Talk 05:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
      Once we have an article about the operation we can consider redirecting this biography to it. pburka ( talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as well as the obituary there is significant coverage in this book here, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 14:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Norman Ernest Archer

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

He was a lieutenant commander, a Private secretary to Eden when Eden was Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and some UK government Ireland related posts. None of these are particularly significant.

He is not covered significantly in reliable sources. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Recipient of the CMG. We have always considered the CBE and above to be sufficient for notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. See here for clear confirmation of this consensus. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Which he received since he was the private secretary of someone important (Eden). What is lacking is actual coverage of Archer. Pikavoom Talk 12:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't see why it's relevant that he received it as "private secretary of someone important". Consensus is perfectly clear that recipients of the CBE and above are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There appears to be a misunderstanding about WP:ANYBIO above. It states very clearly that "meeting one or more (Of the ANYBIO criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not override WP:BASIC - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." What's interesting about this article is how little we have to say about this individual - an indication of his lack of notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Given the article is far more than a stub (and stubs are perfectly valid in any case), that is blatantly not true. In addition, Wikipedia is a work in progress, so it is even more blatantly not true. There appears to be plenty to say about him. And I think you'll find I have been here long enough not to misunderstand anything about Wikipedia. Maybe you should read WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy. It is very clear what the consensus is here. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of text but what does it say? He worked for a notable person (He cannot inherit notability from them) He worked in the Dominions Office. He worked as a secretary to a diplomat. Nothing really screaming out notability here. With regards to consensus I think one of the most fundamental elements of community consensus is the requirements at WP:BASIC. Has Archer been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Not that I can tell. One thing I do know is your views on the notability of certain British upper-class individuals such as hereditary peers does not have community consensus, as shown in recent AfDs. This is similar - you are insisting anyone awarded certain honours gets a free pass on source notability. WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria. It does not, as explicitly stated, exclude or override the requirement to meet BASIC. Yet you continue to quote ANYBIO out of context in AfD discussions and ignoring the non-negotiable source coverage requirements. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
So, if he was so non-notable, why did the British government consider him to be worthy of a fairly high award? There's no WP:INHERIT here. What, precisely, are my "views on the notability of certain British upper-class individuals such as hereditary peers"? Please point out where they do not have consensus. All peers until very recently were clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN and as far as I recall no peer who sat in the House of Lords has ever been deleted. What I cite,and you ignore, is WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia has no set-in-stone rules; everything we do is determined by consensus, and consensus on the issue of which British honours are considered to meet notability standards is extremely clear. To quote WP:ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". By consensus, he does. Your argument is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You cite a guideline which does not actually support your argument and ignore a policy which does support mine. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Regarding hereditary peers, your userpage states you regard them as inherently notable irrespective of whether they sat in the Lords, which is directly contrary to AfD consensus. I'm purely bringing this up to point to the WP:ILIKEIT rationale you regularly deploy at AfDs on certain topics such as military history and royalty and nobility. This was rejected by a highly-respected admin in a deletion rationale in March. You used a similar, groundless rationale recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Irina of Romania in which another editor called this out. I see you have taken WP:ANYBIO out of context again, ignoring the part that says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" AusLondonder ( talk) 11:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
However, I have not argued that at AfD for a long time as I appreciate it goes against consensus and I respect consensus. And as I said, consensus is clear on the subject at hand. You cannot possibly argue otherwise and expect to be taken seriously, as I have provided clear evidence. Also note that I am allowed to express an opinion at AfD, which is what I have done in the AfDs you cite (note, incidentally, that I too am an admin, so your "highly-respected admin" comment is neither here nor there). If consensus goes against me then fine, but it is very obviously not against me here. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 03:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Passes BASIC? BASIC says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources here? Pikavoom Talk 05:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Mentioned in at least 3 books, that meets the criteria for significant coverage. Mztourist ( talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Most of his book appearances are mere mentions or being on a list like the navy list. Pikavoom Talk 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:BASIC is clearly met here, the sources provide detailed coverage, and he additionally meets the WP:ANYBIO and the well-established consensus re honours. I had a quick look through the Times/Telegraph archives and there is a lot more coverage that can be added in. Atchom ( talk) 20:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I just looked at Canadian newspaper sources, and lo and behold he scored several hits there as well, included a CP wire story in national newspapers. Atchom ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As per the OBE, while it is an honor, it's hardly a rarity. "There are no limits applied to the total number of members of the fourth and fifth classes, but no more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members may be appointed per year." OBE Assuming that is correct, there are undoubtedly many thousands of folks in the world today who are so designated. (Note that there is even a site called "How to get an OBE" with nomination tips, etc.) If a person is notable by other criteria, the OBE doesn't hurt, but I can't see how it alone can confer notability. Of the sources listed here, #1 is a kind of directory entry and seems to be self-published (ISSUU is essentially a printer of PDFs) #3 is crowd-sourced, #4 is a single mention in one sentence of a book, #5 is a mere list, #6 fails validation (it links to the home page of a professor but nothing about this subject), #7 actually has a few paragraphs about him and could be considered a reliable and substantial source, #8 I can't view, #9 doesn't mention him and is therefore irrelevant to his notability. I also wonder about the photographs. The main editor on this article is User:Sagette who also appears to have uploaded the photographs all listed as "own work" - including photographs that I'm going to guess pre-date that editor's birth. (I also note that the article states that "undercover" Archer's name was "Sage".) This all saddens me because the article is nicely done, but I do think we need at least one other reliable source, and someone with photo copyright chops should take a look at the photos. Lamona ( talk) 04:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Endorse this. It looks like a quality article but the sources just aren't there. AusLondonder ( talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Nobody did say the OBE conferred notability. We said the CBE and above confers notability. That's the level above OBE. And the CMG is the equal level to the CBE but in a more senior order. OBEs and MBEs are far more commonly awarded than CBEs and above (fewer than 100 of the latter every year in peacetime, although more in wartime for obvious reasons). In a country of 60 odd million, that's not exactly very many! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks, and sorry if I misinterpreted the discussion above. I looked at CMG and note that he is not listed there as having received one. Do you have a source that confirms this and gives a date? Because the statement that he is CMG/OBE is un-referenced and I don't see how we can use those to confer notability without reliable sources. He is listed such in the ISSUU (ref #1) but from what I can tell that was the work of an individual and self-published. He claims he took the information from government documents, but it would be much better to have actual government documents that we could rely on. Lamona ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
p.s. I just searched the London Gazette and found it! here. So I will add this reference to the article. Lamona ( talk) 16:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
This edit generated a reference error, so I have used the {{ London Gazette}} template instead. It also had me wondering about when he got his OBE, so I added the Gazette link to it too. [30] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Nick Gonzalez

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject, only database sites. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 08:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Amir Atif

Amir Atif (  | 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)

Disputed move to Draft space. Moved by a different editor to mainspace with no improvement shortly after being draftified by Robertsky. The issues remain. Normally I would draftify this, but doing so now would be move warring without full community consensus. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, Is currently WP:ADMASQ, likely to be a translation of an article that I cannot find from an Arabic language Wikipedia, and not attributed as a translation currently. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Akela the Alone

Akela the Alone (  | 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 film which does not meet WP:NFILM requirements. No citations apart from an IMDb link. Could not find any reliable sources of this topic in WP:BEFORE search. -- Ab207 ( talk) 07:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify to Draft:Huntingtower School.. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Huntingtower School

Huntingtower School (  | 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 school lacks enough independent sources with significant coverage for it to be its own article. The only article I found was https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/results-reflect-huntingtower-of-class-strength-20111220-1p401.html, but I believe just one is not enough. 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would Draftify be a possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify per The Banner and Liz. Once the sources are improved to meet GNG it can be moved back to mainspace. I see that Archivingperson has incentive for improving this article. 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 06:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I've tried to just update some links and add citations without changing the meaning or content. There are still areas that don't have citations and I don't know if those could just be left there with a flag (for more citation research) or should they be removed? There's also that one incident that could be possibly removed for trivial coverage? Are there any other basic things that need to be done for this page? Thanks Archivingperson ( talk) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Archivingperson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment. The sources you have added do not contribute to notability per WP:ORGIND. Although they can still be used for citations, the article does not become notable for having them. 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 04:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Yasser Abdel Rahman

AfDs for this article:
Yasser Abdel Rahman (  | 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 that has been on the cat:nn list for 10 years. Never been referenced or updated during that period. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No effective coverage. scope_creep Talk 06:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Rlink2 ( talk) 16:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete per nom. Substantial coverage seems unavailable, though there are sources on the Arabic WP article—his awards also don't seem particularly notable, but I could be convinced otherwise. Aza24 ( talk) 07:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 14:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Sykai

Sykai (  | 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 geostub does not meet WP:NGEO or the WP:GNG. It has two sources, total, and Although the place probably did exist, no longer exists, and should be considered part of Galata. Since it's basically a duplicate article, a delete is in order, as Galata already includes everything on this article. While it should not influence the voting on this AfD, for context the creator was previously warned at ANI [31] against mass-creating non-notable geostubs with minimal unverifiable sourcing, and subsequently retired. Toadspike ( talk) 23:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly contain only minimal sourcing from atlases:
Camisene (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tendeba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tynada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Etsyena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Appolena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lalandos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toadspike ( talk) 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I am giving up soon because of the sheer number of these articles. If someone else would like to comb through [32] to find articles that use <= 2 sources, that would be much appreciated. I do not mean to suggest that all of the user's page creations should be deleted; the fact that many are indeed valid makes this harder.
On a similar note, many of the redirects created by this user have seen no use and should probably also be deleted. Toadspike ( talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, at least for now. There are multiple concerns given here: 1. notability under the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for geographic features; 2. whether the nominated places are merely alternative names for other places, for which they should be redirects; and 3. whether all of the geographic stubs created by a particular user should be deleted because he was warned about creating them, and then chose to retire. Let's consider each of these in turn.
1. With respect to notability, the geographic notability guideline says, at the very outset, "[p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." That alone seems all but dispositive as to notability. Cities and towns from classical antiquity are presumptively notable, if their existence is attested in reputable sources, such as the Barrington Atlas, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, or any of various other good sources. The fact that the name of one of these places is known from epigraphy rather than ancient writers doesn't make it non-notable. If a place meets the notability criteria for geographic features, then the general notability guideline is also presumptively satisfied.
2. The first-nominated article says that the place was located near Galata, and the fact that Waterfronts Revisited briefly says that Galata was "originally called Sykai" and then dismisses it doesn't really address that discrepancy. If a former town or settlement was later subsumed into Galata, that's not the same thing as saying that it had no independent existence, history, or significance of its own. Generally, if there is more reliable, verifiable, and useful information about a subject than can be conveniently merged into a related topic, or the subject has obvious potential for expansion beyond the prudent limits of such a merger, then the article should continue to exist, even as a stub. What is presently said under "Sykai" can probably be adequately covered under "Galata", although the fact that it was inhabited as part of Thrace rather than merely being incorporated into Constantinople by the early fifth century is not mentioned there, and unless shown to be unreliable or unverifiable that would need to be added under "Galata". Slight variations in orthography probably aren't vital to include, i.e. Justinianopolis/Ioustinianoupolis/Iustinianopolis/Youstinianoupoulous, as long as the most familiar/likely forms to be encountered are found, and others redirect to the proper section of the right article.
Nonetheless, there is potential for expansion under Sykai (or perhaps Sycae, as most historical sources consulted by English-language speakers would be expected to search under the Latin form of the name). Whether it's significant would have to be based on what various sources have to say about the place—has anybody checked to see whether the article contains everything that likely sources have to say about the place besides what's found under "Galata", as WP:BEFORE urges? The nomination doesn't say, and if all that we know is that the existing stub doesn't provide more information, then I don't think that the nomination meets the criteria for deletion. Stubs should be redirected or deleted because they don't have significant potential for improvement or expansion, not because they're currently stubs that haven't been improved or expanded.
3. As noted by the nominator, the outcome of this discussion probably shouldn't hinge on the fact that the creator was warned about creating geographic stubs in general. In fact, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with creating geographic stubs, as long as they are verifiable and meet the guidelines for notability with regard to geographic features. As I mentioned above, cities and towns from classical antiquity are presumptively notable; the notability guideline pretty clearly says so. If a particular editor exceeded the acceptable limits of this guideline in other cases, that shouldn't determine the outcome of the present nomination; each of the above-nominated articles and any related articles should only be redirected or deleted if they individually fail to meet the notability guidelines, or can be thoroughly covered in other appropriate articles. Just a quick perusal suggests that all of them are notable.
Being located near or even within a modern settlement is not the same thing as being identical with that place; we have lots of articles about Greek and Roman towns that have since become incorporated into modern places, but about which there is more history or archaeology to discuss than can be conveniently and thoroughly included in the articles about the modern sites. Sykai may indeed be fully mergeable with Galata—but it hasn't been yet, because the article contains important facts that aren't in "Galata"—and the nomination doesn't say whether anyone checked to see what additional information about the place might be readily obtainable, but perhaps too much to include under "Galata".
There is no indication whatever that this has been done with any of the other places nominated, or that any of them are identical with and can be conveniently merged into the places that they are nearest to today. Until that has been done, the only grounds for redirecting or deleting any of them are: 1) that they're stubs about formerly-populated places, which is clearly not a reason for either redirection or deletion; and 2) that they were created by a user who was allegedly overzealous in creating geographic stubs. It's neither necessary nor desirable to re-argue that case here; only to note that unless they're patent hoaxes that simply fail verifiability—which doesn't appear to be the case—they should be judged on an individual basis, not en masse; judged solely on their current content, they all have the appearance of valid geographic stubs. P Aculeius ( talk) 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- These are articles about former populated places, which have as much right to exist (if there is something known about them) as a current place. If the place has been replaced by another - a direct successor with a different name - it would be appropriate to merge the articles, leaving a redirect, but plain deletion should be out of the question. W. Smith, Classical dictionary and his various other works on classical antiquity are reliable sources, though now rather old ones. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ P Aculeius and Peterkingiron: Apoligies for the mess, I seem not have explained my thoughts well at all. A batch deletion may not have been the best solution for this. I will try to go through each of the articles and explain my thoughts here.
Sykai: This location may be notable, but the article includes no information beyond what is mentioned in Galata, and as such should be redirected.
Camisene: This article cites only one source, and a primary source at that ( Geographica), which would make it non-notable or violate WP:RS. It does, however, "incorporate text" from the "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography", but that isn't very clear. Because the sourcing is unclear and far from adequate, this should be merged with Pontus or deleted.
Tendeba, Tynada, Etsyena, Appolena, and Lalandos are suitable for a batch deletion, as they all follow the pattern of containing almost no information beyond a name, time period, and possible modern locations, and cite only atlases. These should probably best be merged into their regional articles. In order, this means that Tendeba should be merged into Caria (and it is already mentioned there); Tynada should be merged into Pisidia; and Etsyena, Appolena, and Lalandos should be merged into Phrygia.
Finally, WP:NGEO. Maps are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability at NGEO. As such, the last five articles, which only cite atlases and primary sources, should probably be deleted. I have checked the Barrington Atlas cited on these pages; the only mention of the towns in question is an entry in a table consisting, in its entirety, of a map grid, time period, name, presumed modern location, and source of information. This is nothing close to the coverage required for notability; it doesn't even say whether these places are actually towns, or some other named location (potentially unpopulated?), listing them simply as "places". The Lund University digital atlas deadlinks, and I cannot find an actual map of that project on their website, so the information is essentially unverifiable. Further, I am not sure if "legal recognition" of any of these towns has been established. This bolsters the case for merging or even outright deleting the last five articles I mentioned, and I urge all past and future voters to consider the limited extent of sourcing for these articles before saying that simply because they may have existed they deserve an article. Toadspike ( talk) 02:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply
It may well be that there's not currently enough information available about some or all of these places to require stand-alone articles, but merely because there's only enough information for a stub doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist. If with due diligence no information can be found indicating that they were populated places or otherwise notable, then merger or deletion may be appropriate; but the burden is on the person seeking to delete an article to make reasonable attempts to locate more information before the articles can be deleted; checking one or two specific sources—one of which could not be located on-line, although it does or did at one time exist—does not seem like enough.
But I need to address some of the other arguments made here: Sycae was clearly a populated place and notable; not all of the relevant facts had been incorporated into "Galata" when I wrote my previous reply, and unless that is addressed then the articles have yet to be adequately merged. It also isn't clear that a passing mention in Waterfronts Revisited is authoritative as to the identity of Sycae with Galata. Since the other sources imply that it was only later subsumed into Galata, and previously had an independent existence, there is a discrepancy that must be addressed before merger is appropriate.
The caution against relying on "primary sources" in Wikipedia articles has nothing to do with historical or geographical writing from classical antiquity; it is about things such as self-description in biographical articles, or eyewitness accounts of events—and even these can be properly incorporated if identified as such and appropriately placed in context. The fact that a place is described by Strabo neither makes it non-notable or violate WP:RS. And even these would not be concerns if, as you say, the articles are based in part on other reliable sources such as the DGRG or Barrington Atlas. If the source of the text isn't readily apparent, that's a reason to reword it to avoid unattributed quotes, and to cite the sources better; it's not a valid reason to delete the articles.
Your argument, "[m]aps are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability at NGEO. As such, the last five articles, which only cite atlases and primary sources, should probably be deleted" is a complete non-sequitur. The appearance of a location on a map does not establish notability, but this is because maps don't always provide adequate details. Maps that do include such information—for instance by indicating whether a place is populated, or what that population is—may go toward establishing notability. And while an atlas may contain maps, that doesn't mean that it can't establish notability; atlases frequently contain substantial information about places beyond merely indicating their locations. And it's already been established that "primary sources"—such as Strabo—are not excluded in any way, shape, or form.
"Legal recognition" as described in WP:NGEO has nothing to do with ancient cities or archaeological sites, and has no place in this discussion. The fact that "legal recognition" of ancient cities or towns has not been established bolsters nothing.
But to return to an earlier point: inadequate sourcing in an article of any length is a valid reason to improve the sourcing of the article in question. It is not a valid reason for deleting it or merging it with another article. WP:BEFORE makes clear that the onus is on the editor urging deletion to make reasonable attempts to find reliable sources; it is not enough merely to assert that the sources that are currently cited are inadequate. Checking the sources that are already cited is good, but not enough to satisfy this requirement. I further note that sources do not have to be available on-line in order to be considered verifiable; the Lund atlas may be offline at the moment, but if it still exists and can be searched somewhere, then it cannot be excluded as evidence of verifiability merely because it is difficult or inconvenient for editors to access it.
None of which establishes that none of the nominated articles can be merged or deleted; merely that a number of the reasons given for doing so are invalid, and that as yet there is no indication that reasonable attempts have been made to establish whether any of them could be improved, which is a necessary step prior to deletion or merger. P Aculeius ( talk) 05:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Recognised settlements so meet WP:GEOLAND. The fact they no longer exist is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All of these are some of the notorious geostubs created by Carlossuarez, and there are so many that his contribution statistics list doesn't load. Most are and will probably always be just literal dots on a map, which makes them non-notable according to WP:GEOLAND. Solving this through AfD is impossible, however, because there are always going to people who think low-effort database entries are valid encyclopedic articles, and who also will incomprehensibly devote multiple walls of text in defense of them. I think there was talk of mass deleting all such geostubs via administrator action in the creator's ANI thread, but the matter died there it seems. Avilich ( talk) 15:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
In the meantime I support soft-deleting all nominated articles per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NGEO. Avilich ( talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Avilich, I just wanted to let you know that hundreds of these geo-stubs were deleted in 2021 via PROD. I'm sure there are still a lot of stub articles left but many have already been cleared out with no objections or de-PRODding. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Inclined to keep, and give editors a chance to add to the article. I'm not convinced merging into the article for Galata is the answer, and simply because an editor has created a large amount of stub articles some of which may not be notable, it doesn't mean that some of them aren't. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The fact that the city no longer exists is not relevant for WP:GEOLAND. I added a source. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. pburka ( talk) 16:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a historical article meeting WP:GEOLAND. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support Its really short. - CafeGurrier66 ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 14:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Colleen Wasinger

Colleen Wasinger (  | 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)

Biography of a county councillor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county council is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie in Wikipedia -- the notability test for county councillors hinges not on verifying that they existed, but on showing substantial media coverage about their work to establish the significance of it: specific things they accomplished in the role, specific effects they had on the development of the county, specific impacts they had on wider political affairs beyond their county, or other stuff which establishes a reason to regard them as significantly more notable than most other county councillors.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (the county council's own website and her campaign website), with not even one reliable or notability-supporting piece of media coverage shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Article should be improved rather than deleted. Possibly moved to draft. NiklausGerard ( talk) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG either as all the coverage is specifically local. Local politicians are far from guaranteed a Wikipedia page. SportingFlyer T· C 13:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Being a council member does not qualify as being notable, and not other grounds for notability are obvious. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Indian Idol. Black Kite (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Pawandeep Rajan

AfDs for this article:
Pawandeep Rajan (  | 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 subject doesn't meet GNG. Most of the coverage is in unreliable sources and subjective guideline WP:NSINGER isn't met likewise. Though, per WP:REALITYBIO, redirecting this to the article on series is permitted but I'd feel deletion as the better option provided the promotional tone of this article. It had already been redirected (per AfD) in September. The AfD action was undone by Inkbotttt and the work was later on taken care of by Matu11. I smell of UPE and COI around this page. Comments please! ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per norm. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources already cited in the article are sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 12:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Jayron32, How do the sources satisfy GNG? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
      • There are multiple sources, they are reliable, and they discuss the subject in sufficient detail. -- Jayron 32 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
        There are five sources. Source 1 is from News18 and discusses the subject in some detail but lacks the name of the author, and I won't regard this as a reliable piece. There's nothing significant in Source 2 which routinely says that he has been awarded with some non-notable award. The third source is a significant promo-piece. This one mentions the subject in passing and the last source gives him a passing mention as well. That's to say we have just two sources that discuss him in "some detail" but "their reliability" is ambiguous and these sources do not pass WP:RS and WP:IS in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : although news coverage is weak he has won The voice (Indian Version -2015) and Indian Idol (2021) so he meets the WP:MUSICBIO requirements. #9 states "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Zeddedm ( talk) 02:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Zeddedm, "what-competition"? real or reality show? The Voice isn't anything significant and I don't feel these things bestow any sort of notability to their subjects. We don't have any policy that says "the winners of the 'reality TV shows' such as the Indian Idol are notable by default". I disagree. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • How could you not consider that 2 of the biggest Song contest shows in India not to be major awards? and we also do not have policy that says that these shows are not notable. Please note that both have Wiki pages, so it would show some significance. If they had no Wiki pages, you could make the argument that they are unknown awards. I Will stick to my KEEP vote. Let the admins decide based on both sides of the argument. Zeddedm ( talk) 21:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • In Addition we could also make the argument that they meet Criteria #12 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." as part of those 2 shows. Zeddedm ( talk) 21:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Indian Idol: Several sources are just click-bait articles or interviews, which isn't helpful for notability. The COI / UPE concerns around the article creator are definitely affecting my view, but with most of the sources being tied to India Idol 12, so redirect to the India Idol article. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ashif Shaikh

Ashif Shaikh (  | 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)

References are too weak and the article is too big without proper citations. @@@ XyX talk 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD discussion as a Soft Delete but later noticed the very low edit count of the two participants. So, I restored the article and am relisting this AFD, in the hope of getting editors with more experience reviewing articles to participate in this discussion and evaluation of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Note that quite a bit of text is uncited. LibStar ( talk) 01:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth references. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - plenty of references in news and books; some just passing, others more in depth. Springnuts ( talk) 22:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hello User:Springnuts, I am the nominator of this AFD can you provided the reference of the article you said has in depth coverage or you can update the article so that we can see @@@ XyX talk 22:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a third relist, just relisting for Bijoy2020 as their recent relist didn't take effect except for leaving the note above. Consider this the second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Here’s one from news: [ [33]

But the nomination is odd: no valid reason for deletion is given - though problems with the article are alleged. Did you try to improve/clean up the article? Springnuts ( talk) 23:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Springnuts: Per The Logical Indian source you provided I personally think Mr. Ashif Shaikh in that article is completely different one. Correct me if I'm wrong? On Googling I found an Indian actor Aasif Sheikh I personally can't find any proper sources about this person, but you are very old and experienced editor finding to vote this article as Strong Keep I would love to takedown this nomination if you improve this article, I hope it won't take much time as you already have some good indepth references as you said earlier. @@@ XyX talk 23:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Bijoy2020:It appears you are wrong. Did you read the reference? Line 3: "Mr Ashif Shaikh, founder of the Jan Sahas Organisation". The article, line 1: "founder-director of the community and survivor focused non-profit organisation Jan Sahas". Friendly regards, Springnuts ( talk) 12:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Well with respect it’s for you to consider alternatives to deletion (such as cleanup or tagging etc) WP:BEFORE nominating. Springnuts ( talk) 04:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Springnuts: Not found any valid reason for tagging any tag like cleanup or something; I found less(no) WP:RS or any borderline to consider it for any other tags, I was thinking to tag WP:PROD but later considered to start an AFD. @@@ XyX talk 05:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I have added the "Autobiography cleanup" tag - that's a start. I can't give any more time to this, but the closing editor will need to decide whether WP:TNT is justified. In my opinion it is not, but there we go. That's why we have these discussions and seek consensus. All good wishes, Springnuts ( talk) 12:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. 183.82.108.172 ( talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Sources found include: [1]; [2], .. and plenty more; Google "ashif shaikh" "jan sahas" (ie both the terms at the same time) and you get plenty of good results. Springnuts ( talk) 06:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.trustconference.com/profile/index2.html?id=644b4b99-babc-42b2-8af0-26d6e83ef684
  2. ^ https://indianexpress.com/profile/columnist/ashif-shaikh/
  • Keep For notability, consider these two [1] [2] which discuss him significantly and not just his NGO. An op-ed in Hindu - [3] - also discusses his activities at some length, as does a World Economic Forum post [4]. News search shows that a number of publications like Guardian, Reuters, France 24 and SCMP (apart from Indian papers like IE, Hindu etc) have carried his quotes; thus further supporting the notability argument. Hemantha ( talk) 12:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Mehra, Preeti (22 June 2015). "Fighting for Dignity". Hindu BusinessLine.
  2. ^ Sharma, Unnati (23 September 2020). "Indian NGO founder who helped migrants in lockdown on Schwab list of social innovators". The Print.
  3. ^ "The rise of collaboratives for social impact". The Hindu.
  4. ^ "How to build long-term resilience in vulnerable communities". World Economic Forum.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis required for late added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Sources indicated by Hemantha are enough to demonstrate GNG being met. The article however needs extensive cleanup and should be tagged as such. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It looks like an advertisement. Lack of indepth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This has been up for a month and it's not going to benefit from another relist. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle ( talk) 14:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Hoze Houndz

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

Tagged for additional citations needed since 2014 with no improvement. Sources are a production company's website, IMDB, and a WP:USERGENERATED site. WP:BEFORE discloses no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No evidence this passes GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz ( talk) 03:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Having seen the articles referred to by Nfitz from National Post and Montreal Gazette, my assessment has not changed. Both articles are about Don Cherry and Ron MacLean, not about this program. They do not contribute to significant coverage about the show. Attempting to impute notability from these articles to this program is a class case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The essay WP:INHERITED does say "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group" - but I'm not clear what the class (or group) is in this case. Nfitz ( talk) 03:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Nfitz: that essay provides a definition: Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. The articles you link are neither about Hoze Hounds but rather about the animated appearance of two legendary Canadian media personalities on the show. Using those articles as evidence of significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources is not actually useful. It is significant coverage of Cherry and MacLean, not the show. The show is "...associated with some other, legitimately notable..." persons by these articles, but not legitimately notable itself. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
They're about Ron MacLean and Don Cherry working on this show, so they most certainly do count as coverage of this show. Coverage of Ron and Don in a Hockey Night in Canada context obviously wouldn't help to establish the notability of Hoze Houndz, but coverage of Ron and Don in a Hoze Houndz context most certainly does. Whether they count for enough on their own may be debatable, but they certainly don't count for nothing. Bearcat ( talk) 13:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If I implied they counted for nothing, I apologize. I certainly did not intent to. These articles are, however, the only coverage beyond the database/UGC type stuff I mentioned earlier. I do not feel they are significant enough evidence that this show had an impact. No RS covered the start of the show, its end, any other events during its broadcast history, what happened after cancellation, reviewed it, or provided any other coverage about the show. If they did, they have been lost. That is why I said these two articles about Cherry and MacLean are not by themselves evidence that the show is itself notable. I hope that explains my position in further depth. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I didn't list any other articles, as I thought the Montreal Gazette/National Post feature was more than adequate. There's certainly more out there - see comment below. Nfitz ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete On evaluation of the sources, I agree with Eggishorn above. The references aren't really about the show but the people involved, and it's not enough to meet GNG by my eyes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've added 3 more references to the article, and improved the first 3 that were added by Bearcat since the AFD started - the basis for nomination no longer exists. Nfitz ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Late addition of additional sources requires further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I still don't see much for coverage, could be a brief subsection in the Alliance Atlantis article perhaps. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Alliance Atlantis is a distributor - and not even globally I think. The production company Amberwood Entertainment would work better - but that article doesn't exist. Another alternative would be Sheldon Wiseman - the producer. I've no doubt something in between those 2 articles and this one is notable - but this is all that exists currently. Nfitz ( talk) 02:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Family dictatorship

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

A clear POV cruft which is full of WP:OR.

The basic themes of this article are:

  • 1) a family member of president/PM has political power,
  • 2) a defacto head of state was alleged of providing powers to family members.

It is largely depending on the examples like "succeeded by his" and "succeeded by his".

There is no evidence that most of the listed names were actually dictators. For example, no WP:RS would consider Heydar Aliyev, Hassan Al Bakr, etc. as dictators.

Dhawangupta ( talk) 05:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Strong Oppose Heydar Aliyev's own wikipedia page said He was also said to have run a heavy-handed police state where elections were rigged and dissent was repressed and Hassan Al Bakr was a one party state by what measure is this a serious proposal to deny that any of those were dictators is laughable Friendlyhistorian ( talk) 20:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:RS, not your personal opinion, is important in this discourse. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article tagged over the said issues for more than 12 years. Fine to delete now. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Nothing salvageable here. desmay ( talk) 13:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOR. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • TNT Clearly this is a notable topic that is discussed in scholarly literature, but the current article bears no resemblance to the way that is discussed. Delete without prejudice against recreation in a better form. ―  Tartan357  Talk 04:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • TNT This topic is something commonly referenced in media and academics (ie: Kim family), but the article itself lacks WP:RS. The article should exist, but definitely not in its current form. Ravens ( talk). 00:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ashima Sharma

Ashima Sharma (  | 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)

Searches turn up namedrops and trivial quotes of the subject, but no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. M4DU7 ( talk) 06:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

David Fisher (architect)

David Fisher (architect) (  | 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 think that it is not possible to have a proper biography of this subject. I think that a proper biography of this subject does not in fact exist anywhere.

There are three versions of this article:

The version that has been pushed by single-purpose account Hakaik.wiki ( talk · contribs)
This is largely the version at the time of nomination. Whilst superficially it may appear reliably sourced, there are serious problems with the sourcing, starting with Special:Diff/769482745. As textbooks on Italian law reveal, an indulto is a form of pardon in Italian law. The translation to pardon has been edited out several times in the article's edit history. This misrepresentation of the source is not accidental. Other sources for the legal proceedings are either now nonexistent or don't report the outcome. Then there's the Business Insider, which uses a question headline in standard journalistic fashion to avoid stating things as fact. Everything else in this article is in fact about the Dynamic Tower, more on which in a moment.
The version that has been pushed by (by my count) 8 single-purpose accounts and 9 distinct IP addresses
This is mostly the Hakaik.wiki version with most of the negative information taken out. The latest in this 14-year-long parade of single-purpose accounts, 27corazz ( talk · contribs), actually went so far as to make on-wiki legal threats: Special:Diff/1082103565. There have been more veiled threats for years, including the edit summary in Special:Diff/453418632. Some of the single-purpose accounts have put discussion page edits into the article, such as Special:Diff/453229803 where there is a claim of "my client", notice, and a lengthy argument about Italian law. And of course there has been one that follows that oft-repeated law about account names: Truth4321 ( talk · contribs). Interestingly, single-purpose account Sodiumthiopental ( talk · contribs) and the edit summary at Special:Diff/421338522 demonstrate that the perl version of the law has a bug. ☺
The version that has been also pushed by single-purpose account Enothea ( talk · contribs) and others
This is just a straight up copy and paste of the subject's autobiography, full of stuff like "Dr. Fisher has a 360-degree experience". This has been done multiple times over the edit history, but Special:Diff/499193893 is particularly of interest because of its statement of how the article subject has approved only that, and the veiled legal threat, in article space, at the bottom.
There are essentially three sets of sources available, from looking around, and they are all bad:
  • In 2008 there was a flurry of uncritical inexpert press coverage about the building proposal, and there have been a few more in the intervening years asserting things like how the building will definitely be built by 2010, or by 2020, or at least within a mere few weeks of the start of construction whenever that happens because it is so "revolutionary". Special:Diff/778223714 has quite a list, and the one of particular interest is McLaughlin 2017. "But it's the Daily Mail!", you may cry. Yes, and the Wikipedia editorship has a problem with the Daily Mail's journalistic standards. But one thing to say about the Daily Mail is that in many cases it actually specifically states how poor its standards are. This article is a case in point: it actually tells the Daily Mail's readership outright that the only source here used by the Daily Mail is this article subject's own claims from this article subject's own WWW site. The problem here is that all of the other, supposedly more reliable, sources just did the same as the Daily Mail. There's not a one of them that hasn't sourced the biographical statements that they make in their coverage of this person, as background to news on the tower, to autobiography and statements made by this person. Even the books that come up in a book search, most already cited in the article, have done this. The 2008 book by Randl is quite clear that it is sourcing to the article subject with "Fisher expects" and "Fisher recalled", and it's actually nothing more than yet more gushing uncritical coverage like the newspaper articles.
  • There was coverage of a bankruptcy case in Italian sources. Most of these sources do not exist, now, and the single-purpose accounts are claiming that that is not just link rot but because their publishers actually retracted them. The main detailed source, an analysis by a firm of lawyers involved in the case, is obviously partisan and a poor source. And it also doesn't seem to exist any more, in any case. I looked on the hyperlinked WWW site, and there's only a paragraph there, now, and it doesn't support what this article says. It doesn't name names, for a start. The Microsoft Word documents cited in edits years ago are not to be found, and wouldn't be independent sources anyway.
  • There are a fair number of self-published, anonymously-authored, sources around the WWW casting doubt on all of this. The subject's autobiography has been accused of being highly suspect, and actually the sort of false autobiography that is the reason why Wikipedia has rules about trusting autobiographies. They point out that the building doesn't exist, there has never even been a construction project begun, there have been a string of highly dubious excuses, no-one even seems to know what continent it is purportedly going to be built on, and that the journalists don't seem to have asked properly probing questions about any of this in their rush to fill space with fluff pieces about a building that is definitely going to be built, any day now, honest.
The Dynamic Tower is documented by newspapers as a proposal, but the biography of the person making the proposal is highly suspect. The supposedly reliable sources have clearly based it upon autobiography alone. There are strong doubts about its veracity, especially given its slippery nature of changing when people have attempted to verify one of its claims. The consulship is sourced, ironically, to something that says that it wasn't really the case. And the sourcing for the one other thing, the court case, is insufficient; as people have observed the three times that this article has come upon the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

I thought about redirecting this article to Dynamic Tower, but (a) that seems a useless redirect, and (b) upon reflection I think that this whole edit history needs to be deleted, not just the article blanked.

Uncle G ( talk) 05:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I-shakti

I-shakti (  | 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 table salt brand. After cleaning up the article, there's no viable content left. References are hard to come by; one about the fumbling of the brand (not this specific product), but not enough to establish notability. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, a non notable product. It is a publicity stunt to promote company's products. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mariela Anchipi

Mariela Anchipi (  | 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)

Mariela Anchipi

BLP that does not satisfy any notability guideline as written. An article should speak for itself, and this does not establish notability. In particular, the article does not establish general notability, entertainment notability, or musical notability. The article also has tone problems and content problems. It appears to have been written for fans of the subject, and contains too much trivia and gossip; if it established notability, it would need to be trimmed of non-encyclopedic material, but it doesn't establish notability. It also contains too much indiscriminate information.

It should not be necessary to review 27 references, or 22 references, because 5 of the notes are annotations rather than references. However, the references have been checked, and none of them present significant secondary coverage:

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 An annotation, not a reference.
2 An annotation, not a reference.
3 Infobae.com A story about her wedding. No No ? No
4 Infobae.com Appears to be a fan story No No ? ?
5 ciudad.com.ar Celebrity gossip Yes Yes? ? No
6 ciudad.com.ar Description of a show - Doesnt mention the subject Yes No ? No
7 lavoz.com.ar Paywalled ? ? ? ?
8 elterritorio.com.ar Celebrity gossip Yes No ? No
9 clarin.com Coverage of a sexual harassment case in which she was one of multiple complainants Yes No ? No
10 miafm.cienradios.com A celebrity profile No No ? No
11 ciudad.com.ar Discussion of whether she has had cosmetic surgery No No ? No
12 radiomitre.cienradios.com Interview with subject No No ? No
13 eltrecetv.com.ar Another interview No No ? No
14 rionegro.com.ar Account of a reality show that she was in Yes No ? No
15 infobae.com Account of a reality show that she was in Yes No ? No
16 diarioshow.com Another reality show account Yes No ? No
17 eltrecetv.com.ar Another reality show account Yes No ? No
18 lanacion.com.ar Interview with the subject No Yes ? No
19 An annotation, not a reference.
20 An annotation, not a reference.
21 An annotation, not a reference.
22 pizzabypizzaparty.com.ar An ad for pizza and a passing mention No Yes ? No
23 lanacion.com.ar An article about a show, passing mention Yes No ? No
24 YouTube No No No
25 espectaculosdeaca.com.ar An article about a show, passing mention Yes No ? No
26 radiocut.fm Quotes from the subject No No ? No
27 radiomitre.cienradios.com Interview with subject No No ? No

The originator created this BLP in both draft space and article space, possibly in order to game the system by making it impossible to draftify the article. The originator then redirected the draft to article space. It is not impossible to delete the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok, but i don't understand if i have to delete 24 references or i have to change it, but what you tell me i will do it with the article. 213.94.15.99 ( talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I've been trawling through this editor's other recent creations, none of which follows Wikipedia guidelines. Deb ( talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. There is nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. JoyStick101 ( talk) 05:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm (MA) (Zervoudakis & Tsafarakis, 2020). No experienced editor wants to keep this, and the proposed redirect is an appropriate WP:ATD. Sandstein 16:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayfly optimization algorithm

Mayfly optimization algorithm (  | 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)

However noteworthy this may be, it doesn't seem to have been much noted. NN.

Yet links to it -- and to "Flying Fox optimization" aka "Flying Fox Optimization Algorithm", another creation of Konstantinos Zervoudakis and Stelios Tsafarakis -- have been added rather vigorously, to "Genetic algorithm", to "List of metaphor-based metaheuristics", to "Table of metaheuristics", to "Heuristic (computer science)", and to "Differential evolution".

The article was created by someone with a declared COI, and the recent vigorous linking to it seems compatible with undeclared CoI. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The main paper on this topic has 127 citations already, as listed in Google Scholar, high for a 2020 publication. Nevertheless I strongly believe that this whole line of biologically inspired optimization algorithms, despite some initial successes, has devolved to become largely or almost entirely junk, or maybe pyramid-scheme science (if you hype up your topic enough to bring in enough new researchers to cite your papers, you can get high citation counts and succeed in measures of quality and performance based on citation count regardless of the boilerplate nature of the actual research). For a more informed insider opinion reaching similar conclusions, see "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room", doi: 10.1007/s11721-021-00202-9. The question for us here, though, is, can Wikipedia guidelines justify removing content because we believe it to be junk, or must we keep popular junk? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Metacomment: "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room" is open access, and very readable. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
A suggestion to delete an article from wikipedia that lacks logical or scientific evidence with only the valid argument the reference to the idea of the article "Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room" lacks seriousness and I cannot characterize it something other than funny. As I imagine the author of the comment has not understood what the article he quoted mentions, I beg him to consider in which journal the mayfly algorithm is published, what is the impact factor of the journal, who are the reviewers of the journal and many other similar information that we all have in our mind when judging a scientific paper. So how is it concluded that an article say that algorithms of this type are junk? Does this article focus on the features of published unreliable algorithms? Do not try to create what is called in philosophy a “logical fallacy”. If you want, prove your claims.
My view is to put aside our subjective judgments and our ideology of what is junk and what is not and let those who work on the field to judge it. With proofs. Besides, I do not think it results from the paper's references, several of which are in internationally renowned journals and from scientists in the field stating its validity, that as an algorithm it is usefulness. That is why you should let time judge it and not try to create impressions. Useless to me are the comments that try to persuade without any serious counter-argument, depriving the freedom of speech of its creators. Kostas 0231 ( talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Those 127 citations include MDPI journals and physics conference proceedings, neither of which are known for a high standard of review. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Not only... The most are Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, IEEE... I see also journals with high impact factor... Do you think you have the authority to jurge and downgrade that? Beyond that, my purpose is not to prove something you disagree with. My goal is to remind you of the role of wikipedia. However, it is not censorship or ill-intentioned and unsubstantiated criticism. Kostas 0231 ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I am, in fact, entirely comfortable with dismissing Impact Factor as a means of evaluating anything. My present opinions about the topic at hand broadly align with those expressed by Elemimele below, who aptly summarizes the "role of Wikipedia". XOR'easter ( talk) 19:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Something from Wikipedia and i stop here because several dont understand what freedom of speech means... "Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge".
Maybe are better articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Have a nice day. Kostas 0231 ( talk) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Per policy, Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, David Eppstein we have to cover junk, if it's notable junk. We have to assume that if it's that bad, eventually secondary reviewers will start to say so, and then we say so. But you're quite right that some areas of science have such high hype-value that every paper is instantly cited by everyone else creating similar stuff, and the citation count can be very high, giving a misleading indication of notability. We have to remember that things like citation count are just proxies for notability that we've chosen to use, by convention. The bottom line is that the algorithm becomes notable when it gets solid independent secondary discussion, in reasonable depth. Many of these citations will be at best passing references, or bits thrown into primary literature merely to acknowledge the existence of an algorithm related to a different piece of work that the source's authors are trying to present, so as to convince a journal reviewer of their knowledge of the field. Elemimele ( talk) 07:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yes, for example, Karami et al. (2021) just gives it a passing mention in a long sentence listing various algorithms, including the "wingsuit flying search algorithm". XOR'easter ( talk) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We have articles on junk diets, junk dietitians/nutritionists, junk myths, junk music, junk movies, junk sects, junk politicians, et cetera. Holding my nose, I say that other things being equal, junkiness is fine. Popularity isn't a criterion for inclusion, although it tends to determine written-about-ness, which determines "notability", which is a criterion. If a metaphor-based metaheuristic (or whatever) becomes "notable" (as defined by Wikipedia) then its exposure (whether simultaneous or subsequent) as worthless doesn't diminish its "notability". However, "notability" needn't, and here shouldn't, be simply determined by an easily grasped (but notoriously inflated) number that Google puts atop a page of search results. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I think that you have totally misunderstood the complete nature of an academic paper. And I can't accept the term "junk" about an algorithm that has been published on a high impact factor journal and used as the main algorithm in various research and was reviewed by well known researchers in the field.
This is really offensive.
It also appears that you searched about the 127 citations but you totally ignored that too many of those papers use this algorithm as the main algorithm of the research.
This is also offensive.
Moreover it feels like the main problem is the popularity of a method, which feels wrong.
I will add the papers that use the mayfly algorithm in the wikipage the following days.
As regards the paper that you mentioned regarding the quality of an algorithm, the mayfly algorithm was built, compared and tested according to this paper and according to various other metaheuristic-introduction papers.
I need about one week to improve the page. GusRDRM ( talk) 14:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Please don't feel personally attacked! It's not really like that. The situation is this: We mustn't forget that Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia read by a very broad readership, it's not a primary, or even secondary source of academic information. Something can actually be very good, but it's not suitable for a Wikipedia article until it's been widely written-about by secondary sources. That may feel like "popularity", but it's really about ensuring we have reliable information before we start writing articles. The ideal point at which a WP article can be written about an algorithm is when the algorithm is mature enough to feature in textbooks and broad reviews about its applications, strengths and weaknesses etc.; not when it's reached the stage that it's being used in primary publications by people who have read the original primary publication. My impression at the moment is that the citations are largely people recognising that it exists, or applying it, not reviewing it. If you are improving the article, GusRDRM, I would advise you to find reviews by unconnected authors, if at all possible. And if you can find them, they will greatly contribute to the strength of the article, and its likelihood of surviving this AfD discussion. My comments about junk, above, were similar to those of Hoary, and really meant that it is not necessary to assess whether this algorithm is junk or good in order to assess whether it should have an article. It gets an article if someone writes about it. If it is later found to be junk it still gets an article, but we report, fairly, what's been said about it and its field. We have no axe to grind, we are not here to judge quality directly, only to judge our sources and reflect them accurately.
Summary: Raw citation count is a rubbish metric; you are quite right that actual usage matters more than a mere count. To my mind, there are three levels here: primary papers that mention the algorithm but don't discuss it in depth or use it (citations, but utterly meaningless for our purposes); primary papers that use the algorithm (contribute in a sense to notability, but suffer from being primary); review articles, books etc. that discuss the algorithm in its context (secondary, the strongest evidence of notability, and the most useful to include as references). I would expect that a truly notable algorithm would eventually achieve some references in the third category; before it does, it might be WP:TOOSOON. I haven't expressed an opinion about this algorithm yet. I hope that clarifies a bit? Elemimele ( talk) 16:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't have a problem with Wikipedia documenting junk topics provided that we are generally able to document their unwholesomeness. But if the secondary literature fails to cast light the uselessness of what Eppstein's source calls useless metaphors, then we are better off without articles on them. The WP:SIGCOV criteria for the existence of sufficient sources to reach GNG requires that these sources be reliable, which means that they need to have 'editorial integrity'. In the context of peer-reviewed literature, we should demand that authors bear the burden of this editorial integrity, by critically evaluating the claims that they depend on in the literature that they cite. If work on 'metaphor-based metaheuristics' has secondary sources that critically evaluate the claim that the metaphors are not useless, then that reaches this bar for me, even if the secondary source says that the metaphor is in fact useless: if it amuses us, we can consider such work to be recreational computer science. However, I'll happily discount a dozen papers in high-impact venues that blindly build on the claims of an article if not one of them critically evaluates the significance claims. We cannot write neutrally on the topic if we lack sources with integrity. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of metaphor-based metaheuristics#A mayfly optimization algorithm. I spent a little time looking for sources that provide the kind of critical discussion I describe in my comment above of the core claims of the algorithm's proponents and found only one, The Challenge for the Nature-Inspired Global Optimization Algorithms: Non-Symmetric Benchmark Functions. While that article does have specific discussion of the article, and does generally talk about the problem of these kinds of paper cherry-picking the benchmarks that they present, this critical discussion I don't find has enough about this algorithm to write a balanced article. We're much less able to write a decent article on this topic, in view of the nature of the sourcing, than we are with the similar Firefly algorithm. Note that as an WP:ATD, a redirect outcome doesn't delete the page history, which would allow someone who found adequate sources to use the old page to write an expanded version, as GusRDRM proposed. I'd encourage anyone who wants to do this to check with other editors that the sources do suffice to properly treat the key claims made by the algorithm's proponents. I'll also not that List of metaphor-based metaheuristics has a serious problem with uncritically repeating the claims made in the abstract of the proposing papers: the target of the proposed redirect would benefit more from pruning than another merge. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to an appropriate section of List of metaphor-based metaheuristics as suggested above. I agree with that evaluation of the available sourcing. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I am focusing on gathering more sources that use the mayfly algorithm as the main algorithm, to improve the article. There may be a slight delay due to the holidays. Thank you! GusRDRM ( talk) 10:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The Berry

The Berry (  | 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 Darrelljon ( talk) 10:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 15:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: can we have some input please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I simply could not find any significant coverage of this student newspaper in independent reliable sources—none at all. As best I can tell, it doesn't come close to meeting the GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. A merger wouldn't be appropriate here, in my view: including this minor newspaper in the main University of Cambridge article would not comport with our due weight policy given the dearth of reliable sources discussing it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Given the (non-sock) comments and an otherwise equal participation, there was consensus that this shouldn't still be sitting here, but a no-consensus otherwise, and so I'm defaulting to draftifying it. Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tom Feister

Tom Feister (  | 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)

Artist does not meet notability guidelines. Sources are from an inactive website, The article is also written like a resume. Crimson Comedian Talk 04:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment He is award winning artist. The only issue I see with the article is" it's written like resume" Mbilalwiki ( talk) 13:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Agreed, this is written like a resume. He's mentioned enough times as a comic book artist, not sure how notable he is. No fixed opinion. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No assertion of notability as no sources can be found. Fails GNG.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found one Publisher's Weekly review that names him as an author. Adding even a few of his titles to the article could bring this up to WP:NAUTHOR. The Google Books search reveals a large number. Lamona ( talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third time is a charm for some additional input?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify As written, subject does not have clear case for notability per WP:GNG. Claims that would establish that need independent sources, but I do not think deletion is the next step here. NiklausGerard ( talk) 05:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Louise Crisp

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. If she won some awards that would add to notability but being shortlisted is not the same. LibStar ( talk) 02:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment/leaning keep WP:ANYBIO deems people notable if they have been nominated for well-known or significant awards or honors several times. She seems to meet that criterion. Would anyone dispute that - i.e. does anyone consider these awards to not be well known or significant? CT55555 ( talk) 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 2. After doing more WP:BEFORE type work, I have added to the article. Also seems like she meets WP:POET on basis of:
  1. https://www.smh.com.au/culture/books/the-books-to-read-in-2020-20191220-p53lyg.html
  2. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6441807/poems-of-long-walks-and-lost-latin-names/
  3. https://bronasbooks.com/2021/08/14/yuiquimbiang-louise-crisp-aww/ CT55555 ( talk) 10:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per CT55555. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As much I would like to keep the page, it is WP:TOOSOON. CT55555: WP:ANYBIO deems people notable if they have been nominated for a well-known or significant award or honor several times. She has been nominated for 3 separate awards, one time each. The SMH and Canberra Times articles are WP:RS but not sufficient to establish WP:ANYBIO-- they are simply reviews of a singular work and do not establish that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". The third ref you include is a blog and not WP:RS. I additionally found a good RS in The Weekend Australian (Against the tide, June 22, 2019 by Gregory Day (Page 25, Review)) but again, it's not sufficient to meet ANYBIO. So unfortunately I think it has to be Delete... Cabrils ( talk) 00:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Keep I'm persuaded by SouthernNights. (And have now added The Weekend Australian ref.) Cabrils ( talk) 05:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Part 1, 3 prize nominations
    If we were here to apply rules, I would have to concede your point. In the context of our role to be to exercise judgement based on lines that guide us (guidelines), I think it is fair to say that three nominations for three awards is comparably notable as 2 nominations for 1 award.
    Part 2, blogs
    I think we take a analytical views of blogs. Are they written by someone who has expertise? Is the blog well established? Is this PROMO? This is a blog that claims (and no reason to doubt) to be 13 years old, written by a teacher about her areas of expertise. It's not New York Times review of books, but it is credible.
    Conclusion
    I think we can use our judgement here and make a common sense argument and I have read and considered what you have wrote, but I still think it's fair to remain keep. CT55555 ( talk) 05:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Under WP:ANYBIO it states a person is notable is they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." That phrasing doesn't mean they have to be nominated for the same award multiple times. Instead "such an award" means someone has been nominated several times for "a well-known and significant award or honor." This subject has been a finalist several times for well-known and significant awards so she absolutely meets our notability guidelines.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 17:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SouthernNights's clear reasoning. pburka ( talk) 18:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per CT55555, the title is meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Lovett

Jonathan Lovett (  | 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)

With WP:NFOOTY now deprecated/removed/whatever you want to call it, I have been unable to find any indication that Lovett meets WP:GNG. The only sources I can find on any search appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I don't contest the reliability of the book cited in the article, but a little coverage in one source isn't enough for a GNG pass.

Even the article makes a clear case for his lack of notability: after playing a single game at the highest level, he "left the club soon afterwards, and his whereabouts thereafter are untraced." Unfortunately although there is a List of Burnley F.C. players, it only includes those with 100+ appearances, so this article can't be merge/redirected there. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

George Longinidis

George Longinidis (  | 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:NKICK and WP:BIO for lack of third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 01:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Tiago Azevedo

Tiago Azevedo (  | 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 about a non notable painter. He has done only one exhibition in 2015 and two of his paintings were sold at $7500. After that no exhibition can be found. In 2017 he published a self-published book which none knows about. Doesn't satisfy WP:ARTIST from any angle. The artist claims to be part of lowbrow movement but there is no mention in independent media about the same other than some paid for articles about this person. There is an interview on the flaunt magazine, but being an interview it doesn't count for notability thus he lacks WP:SIGCOV as well. Also, the article badly suffers from promotionalism and reads like an advert. This painter has been portrayed as may be 100 times than what he is. And the cherry topping is the SPA who created the article and a number of other SPA that added contents in the article. Wikipedia can't be allowed to be used as a vehicle of promotion. Chirota ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found several articles, but as both ritzherald (dot) com and influencive dot com are on the blacklist and have content similar to the ones I found, guessing paid for promotion/without editorial control. Has me leaning delete, but will look for more. Star Mississippi 02:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Due to massive critical reception, Azevedo was invited to exhibit pieces of his first collection "Fairy Tales" in New York and Cannes on the following year." is cited to an publication by a company that tries to sell "Luxury Beer": https://www.neuschwansteiner.com/blog/neuschwansteiner-in-cannes-luxury-art/ Some sources listed on his own website, https://www.tiagoazevedo.com/press are obvious press releases (Renderosity, Cision), others less so. The subject of this article claims that he has had "several exhibitions at major institutions, notably The Carrousel du Louvre in Paris, Canne, and Rome Museum of California Art (2014 –2017); Art Expo New York and Museum of Angra do Heroísmo". The Carroussel is a perpetual presence in art promo. It is not curated by the Louvre, even if they share a name. The "Rome Museum of California Art" is puzzling, I can't find any indication that it exists. ArtExpo New York is an art fair that will show anything, as long as you pay for a booth. Lastly, the Museu de Angra do Heroísmo is not a major institution at all, but a tiny regional museum. Vexations ( talk) 12:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nominator, the topic doesn't satisfy WP:NARTIST. JoyStick101 ( talk) 05:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Veell

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nom Tow ( talk) 01:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I cannot find any reliable sources mentioning this musician. No references in the article. Fails notability. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No reference. per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 06:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_12&oldid=1083909203"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE