The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 2007 AFD (no consensus) already noted a lack of in-universe and real-world notability; even
Sexuality in Star Trek only mentions this concept as a See also link. I would driveby-redirect this to
Vulcan (Star Trek)#Mating drive where IMO this is already sufficiently covered, but I just know it would get reverted. –
sgeurekat•
c 23:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep1,
2,
3,
4. Four reasonable academic sources, which all appear non-trivial from snippet/preview view, and plenty more on Google Scholar (if you add -"Pon Farr Press" to the search string) suggest that this is actually a notable topic. No real objection to a merge, but it's clear it has enough coverage for independent notability.
Jclemens (
talk) 00:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Vulcan (Star Trek)#Mating drive, this seems like a
WP:OVERLAP with the article about their fictional race even regardless of whether or not it's notable, but right now it's entirely
WP:OR.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 04:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a
WP:SS breakout, not an OVERLAP, as you can see by the "main" template in the article section, so the expectation would be to merge the material back appropriately.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Vulcan (Star Trek)#Mating drive - This is a
WP:NOPAGE situation, where even if the topic has coverage in reliable sources, it would be much better covered on the main topic on the fictional Vulcan race in general rather than split out. Merging would not be appropriate in this case because this current article has no material that would be suitable to merge - those sources found by Jclemens above can likely be used to bolster the section in the main Vulcan article, but as they are not currently included in this article, merging is not needed to do that.
Rorshacma (
talk) 17:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Vulcan (Star Trek). I think there is some interest in the topic, and each episode that mentions it links to it, but I don't think it's enough to be its own article. --
Mgp28 (
talk) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect or possibly Merge but I notice the article is badly sourced and looks like cruft. I don't think there is massive interest in the episode, it wasn't one of the best. I don't see enough for a standalone article. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or redirect due to sourcing issues. Needs more independent coverage and would be a mention as part of a broader Star Trek topic.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom, fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 18:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment this was more than a routine car crash. Typically, when commercial vehicles like buses are involved in traffic accidents and there are multiple fatalities, the NTSB gets involved and news coverage will go beyond just a simple report on the event itself. Would be okay with a merge to
New York State Route 37 but I wouldn't dismiss this topic as NOTNEWS.
Highway 89 (
talk) 23:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don’t think an investigation from the NTSB makes an event notable. Also, there was not an NTSB investigation mentioned in the article.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think it does either, but it was worth pointing out that this was more significant than a run-of-the-mill car crash.
Highway 89 (
talk) 00:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 23:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't find any continuing coverage of the crash, small number of deaths, while tragic is somewhat to be expected in crashes of this nature.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There is nothing that sets this particular crash apart from the thousands(?) that occur every year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 13:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
He competed at two Olympic Games but didn't win medals in either and I couldn't find sources with a
WP:BEFORE search to otherwise show notability. There isn't a clear redirect but
Bulgaria at the 1964 Summer Olympics may be best as that's the Olympics he ranked highest in.
Suonii180 (
talk) 19:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - An old article that could be permanently affected by newer and possibly temporary rules that aide deletion.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 03:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - I found
BNR which looks really good. If there is another source out there of a similar calibre, this should be kept and expanded.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 23:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Bulgaria at the 1964 Summer Olympics. BEFORE showed stats, mentions, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Per nom, fails WP:GNG, BIO SNGs and NOLYMPICS. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 02:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This section was overwhelming the actual
Wild Wild West tv series page, so I followed the example of the "
List of James Bond gadgets" wikipage and put them on a separate page. This had been mentioned on the Wild Wild West talk page.
Plummer (
talk) 00:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete A pointless split due to the entirely
WP:OR nature of the list; this information should simply have been removed and nothing more.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 04:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the above delete lvoters. Unlike Star Trek for example, the WWW gadgets achieved no cultural traction.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 13:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Completely unsourced list of trivia that fails
WP:LISTN. While there are some sources upon searches that mention the show's gadgets, they are the type that would support a few sentences on the topic in the main article, not this massive spinout list.
Rorshacma (
talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:LISTN. At most, this might warrant a sentence in the main article.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 14:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:LISTN I do not see enough blue links so I do not see this aiding in navigation or providing information.
Lightburst (
talk) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Could not find anything to advance
notability. Seems like an advertisement push for some kind of game that was apparently a flop. Found "zero" on the game. The STE points
section states: "However, currently, due to financial difficulties, the cruise has been canceled until further notice".
Otr500 (
talk) 23:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: The game won an
Origins Award, but I don't know how much coverage it received beyond that.
BOZ (
talk) 10:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find anything other than a smattering of reviews, some product listings, and a few forum posts. —
SamX [
talk·contribs] 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Feel good article, I'm not seeing BLP being met. Shipping oxygen to India is noble, but not wiki worthy. Nothing found for this business person.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: The controversy part and available references make him notable. passes
WP:BASIC. ~~ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mankishalberto (
talk •
contribs) 05:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails GNG, BIO, 1E. A minor controversy doesn't make someone notable. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 06:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I see a lot of citations to aggregated content, articles without bylines, interviews, and some mentions that are not in-depth coverage. Not enough to justify a
WP:BLP. --Kinut/c 01:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't find any sources to suggest that he meets
WP:FILMMAKER,
WP:AUTHOR or
WP:GNG. His claim to notability is apparently being involved in a world record but the film that allegedly broke this world record does not seem to be notable itself so I cannot see how Acharya, as its associate director, would be notable. None of his novels seem to have gained any media attention either.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:FILMMAKER,
WP:AUTHOR or
WP:GNG, sources in the article are all promotional. BEFORE showed no reviews of films or writings that has SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 01:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article subject isn’t covered in any significant depth by reliable independent secondary sources, e.g. fails
WP:GNG,
WP:AUTHOR and
WP:FILMMAKER.
Shawn Teller (
talk) 23:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Sources in Azerbaijani exist (
1,
2,
3,
4, &
5).
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 22:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Most of these
WP:PRIMARY. Him doing a speech or an interview. Really need secondary sources
WP:SECONDARY to satisfy
WP:BLP. I don't think he passes
WP:NPROF and I don't think I can see any reviews for books or chapters he's written. Being a rector doesn't make you automatically notable. At least I don't think so. scope_creepTalk 23:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
If the rector of this university has the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution" then he is notable per
WP:PROF#C6.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:PROF#C6. From what I can see, rector is indeed the head of what in this case appears to be a historic and nationally-significant university. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I wasn't sure. I do remember a rector getting elected at my uni years ago and it didn't seem such a big thing at the time. I'll leave this open for a couple of days, even though it is settled in the hope that some drive-by Azerbaijan editor can add some more references. scope_creepTalk 09:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
"Rector" can mean very different things in different countries. I do not know what it means in Azerbaijan.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I believe it means the Dean or head of academics for a college or major university division. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think this passes
WP:PROF#C6, needs better referencing. More notable than 95% of the athletes and actors on Wikipedia. Since it is a BLP, I removed the material that was unsourced since 2015. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be a fairly pointless disambiguation page now. It once disambiguated a lot of pages, but not anymore, as they got removed due to being plotcruft.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 22:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I was unable to find any sources that would comply with
WP:SPORTBASIC or
WP:GNG and no achievements that meet
WP:NTENNIS. She does not appear to have won or participated in a tournament in either singles or doubles that would make her automatically notable. In terms of coverage in the English language, I found nothing better than
Armenpress, a single passing mention in a list of players called up to a Fed Cup tie. Surprisingly, there was very little in Armenian either.
Tert was the best that I could find but it's a painfully brief tournament recap for a minor tournament. The coverage is so weak that it doesn't even give basic details of the matches that she won, it simply states that she won and nothing else. Clear consensus at sportspeople AfDs that this is not good enough to justify an article for a BLP.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
’’Delete’’ no evidence of notability.
Nocturnal781 (
talk) 21:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find any secondary, independent source covering the subject significantly, even in Armenian. Fails
WP:GNG.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 22:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Note - I tried to find anything she did other than Fed Cup, and struck out. No special awards or achievements from her own country.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 07:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete starving actor, not meeting GNG. Bit parts, nothing for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 21:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Out of the five sources attached one is an IMDB profile, two are a dead links, one is a user-generated profile on his representative agency's website (Lowy Hamilton Artists), and a passing mention on the Guardian piece:
Last month, Asa Elliot, who appeared in the ITV sitcom Benidorm between 2010 and 2014, told BBC Look North he had been working as an Asda delivery driver since July last year. Elliot had been singing on cruise ships before the virus struck.
Delete - He tried to follow his dreams but it didn't work out, and now he has a day job like the rest of us. Sorry, but that does not make him notable per
WP:NACTOR or
WP:NMUSICIAN, despite some honest work in minor productions back in the day. He does have a news article here:
[1], but it was probably the result of a press release in which he tried to drum up some more publicity in a "where are they now" sort of way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Selangor F.C.. If there is content worth Merging, an editor can find it on the Redirected page. LizRead!Talk! 21:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's only mentioned there because there is an article, but if this isn't kept this won't be the case anymore, so it should not be redirected there.
Avilich (
talk) 03:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
They should be mentioned in passing there anyway, even if it's just one sentence saying there are youth teams, and listing names and age groups.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - Add it to the main Selangor FC page. I don't think it would be a problem and you wouldn't lose any info.I don't know if there will ever be a lot of info since they are 3rd and 4th teams.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails per GiantSnowman. The article has unsourced info about LPs so it should be deleted and then if there is a consensus redirected. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the usual PR-heavy, short "executive profiles" in various magazines, which he probably submitted himself. The one possible good source is SmartBusiness Magazine, but the content of that lengthy article is mainly his own statements; it does not meet "independent". Much of what is in the WP article is not found in any sources that I looked at. BTW, the article was started by a user:Barhorst, but also worked on by a number of SPAs and a bunch of socks that have been banned.
Lamona (
talk) 02:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Lamona. Most of the sources are at best PR churnalism. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 19:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep: The GlobalGrind piece is not that great but somewhat okay compared to the rest of the sources. The other sources are either user-generated profiles, or interviews. Both the Early life and the Other projects sections are written like a resume and need substantial editing.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 22:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete not seeing enough indepth coverage to meet
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the sources here are substantially about her, and some don't mention her at all. I found one more
video interview, and an
article by her about herself. The remainder are brief mentions or name-checks on advertisements for products. Possibly TOO SOON.
Lamona (
talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Might be TOOSOON, but Wikipedia isn't a place for resumes. Sources in article and BEFORE, showed promos, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. I don't even see mentions of this subject, never mind the RS which would be needed for notability.
JMWt (
talk) 19:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find any source for
Union Labour. I even looked for old archived print sources, and nothing comes up. Fails
WP:ORG.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 19:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete All sources I found were referring to the UK party of the same name, even documents that
purported to be about Canada. It sounds like this was a breakout group that never achieved "real party" status. There may be info in archives, but that would be Original Research.
Lamona (
talk) 02:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unsourced and forgotten OR from 2004. At best this was a short lived fringe group with nothing of LASTING impact in their history. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Countess Free Church, Ely, which has undoubted notability as a Grade II-listed building mentioned in Christopher Stell 's Nonconformist Chapels and Meeting-houses in Eastern England (2002). New Connexions Free Church is a
church plant from this but has no independent notability. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Countess Free Church, Ely, as suggested above. There is no reason to think that this church is independently notable.
Athel cb (
talk) 08:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect -- The target is a much better article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:ROUTINE biography of a local businessman from Italy, apparently written by a family member, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. The corresponding article at it.wikipedia.org was deleted in 2019.
Belbury (
talk) 18:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find any good sources for the subject; all that comes up is either a passing mention or genealogy chart website. Fails GNG and
WP:BIO.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Patents and the other sources used don't show notability. I can't find anything for this person. Feels like a MEMORIAL, which wiki is not.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Subject is notable. Check multiple reliable sources such as
this,
this,
this, and
this.
151.82.84.5 (
talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge properly sourced material into
Morassutti family. Subject doesn't pass GNG or BIO, but there is a nice home for it here. Also no reason to fragment the content, even if subject squeeks by notability, does not mean there must be another two penny stub article and in this case properly sourced content has a much better place. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm unable to find sources which demonstrate that either
WP:BIO or
WP:CREATIVE are satisfied. Whilst there are numerous sources cited, they merely confirm that she has published poetry, but it does not appear to have attracted any critical commentary in reliable sources.
SmartSE (
talk) 17:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't understand why these categories are questionable. They are a poet. They are from Tennessee in the United States.
Canestrari (
talk) 20:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I doubt this is related to this author's gender. It appears it has more to do with the credibility of the sources that were cited. My mistake. When they get on the NYT, then maybe they will be "credible" enough for this editor.
Canestrari (
talk) 19:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I have also removed any gender-specific references. I wasn't sure if this was an issue, so did this for good measure anyway.
Canestrari (
talk) 20:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
You've provided a list of sources and some of them include numerous articles that support her creative work. She is a poet, not a novelist. Can you recommend some additional sources that offer reliable critical commentary for poetry, other than books?
Canestrari (
talk) 18:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can't find any in-depth coverage of them. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 13:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: I was hoping this would be a keep, but nothing with SIGCOV for a BLP. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable primary school. Does not meet
WP:GNG. Could be redirected to the school district, where both schools are mentioned, but that was contested.
Onel5969TT me 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG. I oppose a redirect since "Pickerington Junior High Schools" is not the name of a school and therefore an unlikely search term. However, the two individual junior high schools should be redirected to the district page (both currently redirect the "Pickerington Junior High Schools" page). FrankAnchor 17:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is for helping spread information. So why would you delete a page if it has correct and accurate information.
Jokerpower71 (
talk) 18:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing found for GNG, it's just another high school.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment This article was moved to two different page titles, turned into a redirect and the content cut & pasted into a new article. This was highly disruptive and has all been reverted. Please do not do this again. LizRead!Talk! 06:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Hair transplant doctor to the stars" is not notable. I don't find any sourcing, or understand why this person gets a wikipedia article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not even close... //
Timothy ::
talk 16:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sourcing is all promotional routine coverage, no evidence of independent sources establishing notability.
Jdcooper (
talk) 16:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: anthing about vegans out of spite. Also clearly promo. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about
Noel Fielding's partner. She has presented a few radio shows, and appeared in a few plays, and been a guest on a few TV newscasts, and writes for a blog or two, but there's nothing in this article or its references to suggest that she has any particular notability. Suggest a merge to
Choose Love, the charity founded by the subject.
Flip Format (
talk) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the charity seems like a fine option, otherwise coverage is celebrity fluff articles.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Oaktree, this is Lliana...s i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page and i was a little saddened to see that my page had been deleted, and that all i had worked so hard for had been seemingly erased and reduced to "celebrity fluff". I have to defend this, but what was discussed felt reductive of my achievements and life's work...
I hold the honour of being the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for longer than a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.
I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.
I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.
I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.
I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.
I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.
I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.
I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).
It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the insinuation that my life's work is "celebrity fluff" hard to accept.
82.3.12.222 (
talk) 11:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Choose Love. The merge could be a problem because of the lack of IS RS in this article. If any new content can be properly sourced, no objection to merging that, but improperly sourced BLP content should not be merged. //
Timothy ::
talk 03:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Flip Format, as i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page i was a little saddened to see that you had requested my page be deleted. More so that the reason you suggest is that i as just the partner of someone famous, and have not done much myself. I did not set up my wikipedia page, and so feel sad i have to defend this, but what you have stated feels somewhat reductive of my achievements...
I was the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for over a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.
I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.
I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.
I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.
I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.
I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.
I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.
I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).
It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the implication that i am just someone's partner, and that i have done "a few radio shows" quite insulting, and even a little misogynistic.
I would ask that perhaps you reconsider.
Llianabird (
talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Flip Format, as i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page i was a little saddened to see that you had requested my page be deleted. More so that the reason you suggest is that i as just the partner of someone famous, and have not done much myself. I did not set up my wikipedia page, and so feel sad i have to defend this, but what you have stated feels somewhat reductive of my achievements...
I was the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for over a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.
I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.
I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.
I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.
I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.
I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.
I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.
I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).
It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the implication that i am just someone's partner, and that i have done "a few radio shows" reductive of my life's work.
I would ask that perhaps you reconsider
82.3.12.222 (
talk) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. I'm not sure about the quality of the sources I found with my quick search, but if it were up to me, I'd consider it sufficient to indicate notability:
[2],
[3],
[4]KhinMoTi (
talk) 15:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
And the last is straight-up promo
HighKing++ 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Just another mid-tier software company that fails
WP:CORPMNewnham (
talk) 03:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. I am unable (for now) to access the single reference in the article but one reference is not sufficient and I am unable to locate any other references that meet the criteria.
HighKing++ 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Searches also find an advertorial summary of the firm's service (YourStory, 2018 (blacklisted so no link here)), their inclusion in sets of HR startups (the Inventiva and Digit pieces discussed above; YourStory, 2018) and in-role citations and pieces written by the company CEO, but I am not seeing anything indicative of more than a firm going about its business. Fails
WP:NCORP.
AllyD (
talk) 19:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nominators explanation. Lots of POV. Doesn’t warrant its own article.
Nocturnal781 (
talk) 23:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - The split from
Indian National Army appears justified under
WP:TOOLONG given the fact that that article is already quite long. The 2008 redirect decision clearly considered that the article could be BOLDly re-created. The article has been heavily edited since the 2008 discussion and is not the same article.
FOARP (
talk) 13:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The important content already exists at
Indian National Army#Controversies. This page is a POV cruft and fails
WP:NOPAGE. Further,
WP:TOOLONG does not take a strong stand in this case (less than 60,000 characters of reading material). Dont think it can overrule the NPOV concerns.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 18:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thankyou to both sides contributing to the argument for "keep" and for "delete". I originally created this article necessarily because I felt the parent section in the article "Indian National Army" was getting too long (ie the WP:TOOLONG). I am not going to argue for against the deletion, but this I think needed to be highlighted. If the forum decides this is not the case any longer, then the article I am sure does not meet the criteria for independent articleship. Quick note (I say this without any sense of being upset), if you want to build something collaborative, throwing allegations of NPOV will neither help you build consensus nor collaboration, and wont help you get your point accross. I've been in WP long enough to see that. Good luck, and thanks again to both sides for their efforts.
rueben_lys (
talk·contribs) 09:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not only it fails WP:NOPAGE but a big problem is also with POV pushing.
Shankargb (
talk) 03:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't see the need for a separate 'controversies' fork, considering that INA isn't particularily controversial. The article fails to outline any major controversies, apart from author-voice insinuations. --
Soman (
talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 15:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Notwithstanding the
WP:POV issues in this article, I did some searching and found that there is already a place for this content at
Indian National Army#Controversies. Essentially, Wikipedia policy dictates that the topic doesn’t merit an article separate from what already exists.
Shawn Teller (
talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no reason for this list of mostly non-notable clubs to be here
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment The See Also section links to a whole series of articles relating to this bill. I don't believe the nominated article is a POVFORK as such; more like an attempt to split the main article into this series of subarticles. The sourcing is all over the place (generally poor), so I suspect they should all be merged into
Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 16:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with main article. OTOH, it all needs a total rewrite, as does much of the Fiji material from this era. Unfortunately a lot of original sources were purged during the coup.--
IdiotSavant (
talk) 23:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what exactly could be merged when almost all of the article is unsourced commentary, essentially. Quotes from people and whatnot. I understand the desire to preserve information but I'm not seeing anything that'd make merging useful. If it needs a total rewrite, what would we be merging? Maybe you could explain a bit more so I could understand your perspective? I don't mean to be harsh and I appreciate your efforts to try and improve what you can.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 00:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm assuming sources can be found e.g. on
RNZ (the same applies to the main article). The problem is deciding which reactions are worth keeping - which is probably addressed by rewriting the main article and its other subsidiaries.--
IdiotSavant (
talk) 08:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for clarifying.
This page explains that this is a rationale to avoid in deletion discussions. However, if you can actually find such sourcing, feel free to add it. As you said, another matter is deciding whether there are reactions worth keeping, even if you can source them. If there is, I'd suggest creating a section called "Reception" on the main article. I know you haven't suggested anything other than merging, but I feel it worth mentioning for future participants that "nuanced views" on a subject implies that whoever isn't giving their opinion is not being nuanced, which is why I compared it to a POVFORK.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 13:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, normally I'd just go through and add the sources, but this whole area is such a mess that it requires more work than I can do ATM.
I think a section on "reception" in the main article is a good solution, and this can also incorporate information worth keeping for the related international, religious, and military reactions articles.--
IdiotSavant (
talk) 01:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not retrievable - it's a muddle of hearsay, opinion, and POV fork. Any relevant, sourced debates and reactions should be recorded in the main article.
Plutonium27 (
talk) 17:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
WP:TNT. Incredibly poorly sourced, if you took all the info out which did not pass
WP:VERIFY, you'd be left with a blank page.
Onel5969TT me 01:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
G7 with no substantive contributions from others. StarMississippi 01:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BLP1E,
WP:NOTNEWS,
WP:SUSTAINED. BLP of a non-notable person who made the news around 2016/2017 for having a large teddy bear collection as recognized by Guinness World Records, but this is the only claim to notability - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 15:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
DELETE - I am the OP and I am filing for Uncontested Deletion. I don't want to go into the situation and I'd rather it be removed so I can focus my efforts on other pages.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 15:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
You can tag with G7 if you want the article to be deleted.
Sungodtemple (
talk •
contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Suriname women's national football team - as she is a leading international for Suriname, but there is insufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. I searched the Times of Suriname and found nothing, which isn't surprising because she played decades ago.
Jogurney (
talk) 19:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I found
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9] among many more Dutch sources. Clearly significant figure in Surinamese women's football with ongoing international career and club career abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 21:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Those are the same useless sources you added to the Griffith Vaissaire AFD.
Dougal18 (
talk) 13:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. First source good, not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The first source is a pure Q&A interview with just two sentences of introduction, nowhere close to SIGCOV. And the rest are even worse. No GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - the sourcing lacks the necessary depth. Call up announcements do not address her in detail so do not confer notability.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article fails
WP:GNG; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Jogurney (
talk) 16:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I found
[10],
[11],
[12], and
[13], among many more Dutch sources. Clearly significant figure in Surinamese women's football with ongoing international career and club career abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 21:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. First source above is paywalled, rest not good enough. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The first source is pure Q&A, the rest are routine and nowhere close to GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Seems like the best non-interview coverage available is from
De Ware Tijd, and that's just a name drop in a list of diaspora players the Suriname coach intended to call up to the national team. I'm afraid there is no SIGCOV at all.
Jogurney (
talk) 13:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I found
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18], and
[19] among many many more Spanish sources. Clearly significant figure in Venezuelan football with ongoing international and fully pro career abroad. Articule enes improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 20:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
[1] and [4] are about a different person(!) the rest of these are mostly interviews or quote-heavy (not independent) or individual match reports and so do not count toward GNG.
Avilich (
talk) 23:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While I agree that Das osmnezz was careless with providing some of those links, I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of the
Diario AS article. It is not a match report in the conventional sense (in fact the newspaper did its routine match report
here), but rather a recap of Gaby's career which notes that she reached a milestone (100 competitive matches with Deportivo) that no other woman had yet accomplished. It certainly counts toward SIGCOV, and if there's something more, I'll be !voting keep.
Jogurney (
talk) 16:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Per sources above and what's on
es:Gabriela García, I feel there is just enough to pass basic GNG. Regards.
Govvy (
talk) 23:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Besides the sources I found above, I also found
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25], and
[26], among many many more Spanish sources. Clearly significant figure in Venezuelan and Spanish league football with ongoing international and fully pro career abroad. Articule enes improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 00:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
the same applies to these, more Q&A interviews and other quote-heavy articles.
Avilich (
talk) 00:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources posted by Das osmnezz (excluding the two about a different subject). There is enough content that isn’t quotes/interview answers in there for a close pass of GNG.
Carson Wentz (
talk) 02:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - There are a pair of good Diario AS sources, plus a number of lower quality sources from Marca and El Estímulo, and I believe it's enough to meet
WP:GNG.
Jogurney (
talk) 16:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep sources provided by other users show article meets
WP:GNG. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 23:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. AFAICS the Royal Gazette contains exclusively mentions in routine event recaps and announcements. GNG not met.
JoelleJay (
talk) 15:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I searched the Royal Gazette and only found routine and trivial mentions of her, e.g.
[27][28]. Couldn't find anything in the Bermuda Sun[29]. If even her local newspapers aren't reporting on her in depth, it's unlikely there's international coverage either.
JoelleJay (
talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Meets
WP:NCRIC having played international cricket at the highest level. Her
Cricinfo profile provides some detail, and enough has been gleaned (even if the referencing isn't the best) to get the article to its current state. Seeing as she played Test cricket and a decent number of ODIs, definitely the chance that offline Dominican/Caribbean sources about her exist. At the very least, redirect to
List of West Indies women Test cricketers or
List of West Indies women ODI cricketers.
Mpk662 (
talk) 16:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG takes precedence over any sport related criteria. Is there any independent, significant sources about the subject?
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It also doesn't say that anymore, if you'd actually read
WP:NCRIC. It says that sources are likely to list for Test match players and Elite Umpires.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of West Indies women ODI cricketers Not sure there's enough for a GNG pass here, but there's a suitable redirect here that can be used per
WP:ATD given she made the majority of here notable appearances in ODIs. Perhaps a note can be added to link to her sole test appearance also.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 11:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Indies women Twenty20 International cricketers. There is consensus for a redirect, although there is no consensus as to the target of that redirect; I see no point in relisting, since there is no appetite per deletion and an AfD is not necessary to decide where the redirect should point to, so, as an editorial action, I have selected the article about the match where she has made the most of her appearances Salviogiuliano 14:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Mpk662, NCRIC does not override the requirement for sports biographies to meet GNG and to cite at least one SIGCOV source. The first link contains one sentence of commentary by the author, with the rest being straight quotes or repetition of things she said/felt (i.e. not independent). The second has just two sentences on her in a routine tournament recap that isn't independent/secondary (at the end it says "Congratulations to the Dominican ladies", which is a primary opinion statement that indicates affiliation with the team). The third is some trivial mentions in a team list.
JoelleJay (
talk) 00:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of West Indies women Twenty20 International cricketers Doesn't look to be a GNG pass, although there is some coverage, although redirect here is a suitable
WP:ATD as she made the most of here appearances in T20 internationals. Perhaps a note can be added also to link to her ODI appearances.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 11:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect - These sources are passing mentions and routine announcements, not significant coverage. –
dlthewave☎ 01:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep due to breaking
WP:Before/
WP:DAN rules - I've been around here for 3 years. After never having interaction with this user, we have met 14 times around a month after I rejected the user's attempt to draftify an article. The user claims it is just total chance due to his New Page Patrol work, but with over 700 people in the New Page Patrol plus dozens to hundreds of articles being posted each day, the odds are astronomical. This will be Onel's 7th Afd Nomination attempt on me within about 2 weeks. The user publicly claimed "Too late, this same editor also has
Christian Cavaletti, and
Jackie Miley, and
Harry Sperl, which I'm also probably going to nominate." before making this attempt in this thread -
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_and_Mary_Beth_Meyer. This breaks wikipedia
WP:BEFORE rules under
Wikipedia:DAN, which completely nullifies the attempt. It also breaks
WP:DLC,
WP:REVENGE,
WP:GAME,
WP:MEAT,
WP:WITCHHUNT and others. Beyond that, the article meets
WP:GNG and has in-depth coverage. I'm really sorry that everyone has to have their time wasted over personal issues. I'm sure we will all see each other again real soon when he fulfills his threat on
Jackie Miley (And if it's that much of a slam dunk case, why wait?), but either way, I'm not going to be stopped from contributing to the website
KatoKungLee (
talk) 14:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
A good-faith explanation would be that Onel5969 sees your articles as low-quality and is just going through them to see if they are NN. Also,
WP:DAN is an essay and not a guideline/policy.
Sungodtemple (
talk •
contribs) 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sungodtemple - I do not see how publicly announcing multiple nomination intentions in an unrelated thread with a user you do not get along with is possibly
WP:GOODFAITH. If you want to have a nomination discussion, why would that not do that at a wikiproject talk page or at an AFD nomination? I would also expect a user with the privileges and experiences he has to know that.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 15:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: After seeing the other discussion on grapefruit, I see the same issue presented here, no
WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
Sungodtemple (
talk •
contribs) 14:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unfortunately, unlike the other AfD mentioned by the nominator, there is nothing here that can be merged to
hamburger. Delete as clear
WP:BLP1E fail with purely
WP:ROUTINE coverage. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete another
WP:BLP1E for a Guinness World record holder, and again, they don't meet
WP:GNG. And do not merge/redirect to
hamburger as doing so would not benefit that article in any way.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 15:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete a single editor has created a run of articles about Guinness record holders. In most cases such records do not confer notability. The solution is to stop creating them, not make accusations about other editors’ conduct.
Mccapra (
talk) 20:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment as an aside, it’s remarkable that when new page patrollers try to redirect, merge or draftify new articles there’s usually a great chorus of “take it to AfD”, and when you do, you are met with indignation.
Mccapra (
talk) 21:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is another Guinness record holder, who lacks
WP:SUSTAINED coverage and any notability. In addition, I agree that this article is a case of
WP:BIO1E and
WP:NOTNEWS and merits deletion. This article brings to mind the cliche: "
Where's the beef."
Paul H. (
talk) 03:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not nominating this subject because it lacks notability. Clearly, this is a very notable organisation. However, just I can't help but feel that it would be better for Wikipedia's readers if this page's information resided at
Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank. It may be that there is enough RS to distinguish this subject from its founder but ironically the Norman Foster page gives a much better historical overview of this organisation than this company page. As far as I can see, the only purpose this page serves is to give the organisation a bit of free publicity at Wikipedia's expense. I could be wrong, so let's discuss it.
The Bicycle of Dreams (
talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I agree with Clearly, this is a very notable organisationBarnards.tar.gz (
talk) 16:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep If the article's data is correct, the firm has 1800 employees all over the world including 140 partners. It's also the largest architecture firm in the UK. The firm has an established notability that goes beyond its association with Norman Foster. The article does not read as an advertisement at all.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The article needs some work, but it is clearly a distinct topic from its founder. The article is not an "expense"
Furius (
talk) 01:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. If you think there is information at Norman Foster's article that should be here, then copy/move it (see
WP:CWW for how to properly attribute), but this is a clearly notable company independent of its founder and is no more an advert for it than any other article about a notable company with a notable founder is.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nomination, for all the content, I am not sure that it meets WP:GNG
JarrahTree 13:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no reliable sources and plenty of questionable sources.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 17:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong#2021 and merge content as appropriate. There is clear consensus here against standalone articles. Some users argue that the pages should be deleted outright as there isn't content that is independent of the Chinese government, but this is convincingly rebutted by the argument that summarizing government statistics is valuable when they are described correctly. This closure applies to all the nominated pages, but the closer tool isn't recognizing the other nominations: I'll implement the redirecting manually in a few minutes. Vanamonde (
Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2020). AfD reason there was "This is basically a repeat of the official statements from the Chinese government, not an article based on reliable, independent sources. I don't think a timeline for this region can be made based on such sources though, as the Chinese government tends to be rather controlling. But it is better not to have an article, than to function as the mouthpiece of a government."
Fram (
talk) 10:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge the daily case numbers into a table at more broad articles (ex.
COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing,
COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong...) per my rationale at the other AfD: "This article textual content is basically only the government reported case numbers, which can and should be reported in a table. The rest of the content (the videos) [where applicable] is just minor local news fluff which is not appropriate."
JumpytooTalk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 10:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom, it seems important not to use Wikipedia to host content that is lacking independence, to put it kindly.
CT55555(
talk) 16:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 13:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the same reasons mentioned in the other timeline (no possibility of being a reliable and neutral article, fails NOSTATS).
JoelleJay (
talk) 04:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge the daily case numbers into a table at more broad articles.
I agree with Jumpytoo's rationale: "This article textual content is basically only the government reported case numbers, which can and should be reported in a table. The rest of the content (the videos) [where applicable] is just minor local news fluff which is not appropriate."
Cunard (
talk) 23:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to the broader articles, but substantially consolidate the numbers. For the most part, these are reports of a handful of new cases occurring on any given day. These numbers could be summarized as a timeline by month rather than having numerous lines for two or three cases being reported on this day or that.
BD2412T 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nomination. The sources are not intellectually independent of the Chinese government; and as such the timelines fails
WP:SIGCOV due to lack of independent sources. I am not seeing a benefit of a merge or redirect of this material, or a consolidation into a table in various articles due to sourcing problems.
4meter4 (
talk) 21:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Clear
WP:CORP failure due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. All the sources but one in this article are passing mentions. The one that is is a 2nd-runner-up prize for excellence in financial management from Hong Kong ACCA (not a reliable source, not independent because 2the Max is a member of the ACCA, not really indicating notability). Listings on various databases and passing mentions of product-accreditation are not independent, significant coverage. Nothing further found in my
WP:BEFORE that would rescue this article.
FOARP (
talk) 11:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 13:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete No substantial improvement in the >15 years since the last AfD nomination.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 17:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom and Barnards.tar.gz. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. I don't see sources that verify the information on the page, but am happy if others can find something. If the information could be verified, as an AtD perhaps the content could be merged to
Western Lombard dialectJMWt (
talk) 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: not sufficient sourcing
Justwatchmee (
talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete nothing found in Gscholar or Jstor, which is where I assume you would find linguistic items.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - if no sign of sources (and the article has certainly had time for them to be found) then deletion is the right option: this certainly has the look of original research.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. I don't see much in terms of RS - a couple of refs have single lines on the subject.
JMWt (
talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per Ficaia.
Mccapra (
talk) 12:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - the Swedish Wikipedia has two references. The first is the Oxford Dictionary of Popes which offers several Theophylacts but only one sentence to the person under discussion here (page 92). The Italian and Swedish Wikipedia both also cite a book called I papi, storia e segreti.. - where the subject is mentioned once by name in passing on page 227. Neither of these references meet the requirements of notability on en.wiki.
Simply noting that other wikipedia have references is not somehow a magic bullet which shows that notability issues are proved here.
JMWt (
talk) 13:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment ok but he was an antipope. There are many early popes about whom we know very little but we don’t deem them to be non notable.
Mccapra (
talk) 21:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not my area, but as far as I understand he is not considered an antipope. Not listed at
Antipope and according to one of the sources I was reading for this discussion, is not considered an Antipope by the relevant authorities in Rome.
JMWt (
talk) 07:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, although could be turned into a general article on the
757 papal election. See, e.g., Thomas F. X. Noble, The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), pp. 193–194.
Srnec (
talk) 03:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually that reference says more about Theophylact than anything else I've read - and yet it is arguably only talking about him (Theophylact) several times in passing. We learn almost nothing about him as a person, but only as a named opponent in the 757 election. Personally I don't see that this can be used as an argument for !keeping this page, and there is barely enough for a stub of
757 papal election. If that page already existed, I might support a redirect and merge of this one.
JMWt (
talk) 07:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
See
here for more on 757 and its significance. Definitely worth an article; probably should just be this one.
Srnec (
talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
That makes little sense. You are arguing for !keep of a stub page for a figure who is essentially unknown (because there is little to find in any of the sources that name him) on the basis that some other event with which he was associated is notable enough to have a WP page. There's nothing much here which would be lost if the page was !deleted. If you wanted to write
757 papal election that's got nothing to do with the !delete or otherwise of this page - other than this guy's name will be lost from the encyclopedia.
JMWt (
talk) 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep or repurpose into an article on the Theophylact family, who appear to have been nobility active in Rome in this period, as the source found by
Srnec shows: Rome, Ravenna, and Venice, 750-1000: Byzantine Heritage, Imperial Present, and the Construction of City Identity, by West-Harling, Veronica. It may well be that we know next to nothing of this individual, apaert from him contesting the election.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I redirected this 7 minute film to
Oswald the Lucky Rabbit filmography#1931, but was reverted. Nothing but an extremely excessive plot summary, not enough evidence of
notability found to warrant a stand-alone article.
Fram (
talk) 08:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect or Delete Although I am wracked with guilt at depriving the world of "A fish is making a serenade for the worm and a giant fish appears and the fish runs away and the worm was still standing still, the giant fish thought it ate the worm but it escaped and the giant fish swam forward." and other timeless prose. ChatGPT summarise a cartoon plot, please. Fails WP:GNG, per nom. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 09:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient StarMississippi 21:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No doubt, the subject is a well-known name in Pakistan, but popularity doesn't always mean notability. The cited Pakistani media sources are only tabloid, trivial coverage of the subject's activities like viral & leaked videos, having affairs with government officials, slapping this person, marrying that person, etc. No reliable source gives any significant in-depth coverage of the subject's life and career as a social media personality. The only sources disclosing info about their personal life (place of birth, family, education, etc.) are some Indian newspapers that assumed everything published on the subject's social media handles to be accurate and made up some articles by joining different pieces from the local media. Fails
WP:BASIC.
Insight 3 (
talk) 08:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree that the article should be deleted as the coverage of her stands.it is hard to find reliable sources for even the most basic information about her such as her age (ranging form 29 to 41 years old). if her coverage was consistent in even the most basic facts about her, then I would say that this article should be kept, though as it stands this is not the case.
Roma enjoyer (
talk) 10:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per above nomination, fails
WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social media forum.
Ngrewal1 (
talk) 17:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The OP notes that the subject is "well-known name in Pakistan" which actually implies notability. In any case, a deletion of yet another biography of a woman would be a shame and unfortunate to say the least, as all the work put into creating the page would be swept away. Surely, the page can use work, but deleting it is NOT the way to go about it.
Historyday01 (
talk) 03:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, the subject is famous on internet but lacks the required SIGCOV. Just have a look at the titles of the cited sources, they are all sensational pieces about trivial things and don't help to write an encyclopedic bio.
Insight 3 (
talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While the issue of woman being ignored and having their article deleted at a disparately rate is a problem( though I feel that it may not mostly be due to bias on Wikipedia's editors part and more sources paying less attention to woman, because of sexism) This issue should not be used as justification for keeping a woman's article, as it can still be the case that a woman's article is disserving of deletion. As for this article, it is clear to me that the lake of consistent information about shah means that her article should be deleted, at lest as the information about her stands. For example, her date of birth ranges form the 28th of December, as per
https://awampk.com/tik-tok-model-hareem-shah-biography-age-and-family/ to the 22th of November 1991, as per newsunzip(which I can not like to a Wikipedia block on it) and to the 22nd of November 1981, as per
https://thesportsgrail.com/who-is-hareem-shah-whose-colgate-video-went-viral-biography-age-husband-real-name-instagram-picture/Roma enjoyer (
talk) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable person who is famous in Pakistan and meets
WP:SIGCOVQwv (
talk) 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
How dose shah meet
WP:SIGCOV? Her coverage is not reliable, and as per
WP:SIGCOV a topic is ''presumed to be suitable'' if it ''received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'' The sources covering her are not reliable, one of them,newsunzip is even on a Wikipedia black list, and that's on the first page of google results
Roma enjoyer (
talk) 15:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems notable, seems to be plenty significant coverage as per
WP:GNG:
The source
[34] is just a news report about her petition in the court,
[35] is a court's direction to FIA,
[36] is about initiation of FIA against her,
[37] tells she once broke into the foreign ministry office and it heavily relies on social media posts, as I mentioned in the nom, the Indian source
[38] is just a piece of churnalism, and
[39] is about inquiry of a security breach and the intruder. Where is in-depth coverage of her life and career as a social media star in multiple reliable sources? Being in the news for this or that issue doesn't make anyone notable.
Insight 3 (
talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't understand most your objections. News reports on people are good indicators of notability. We're at a point where you've described her as well-known and agree that there are news reports about various things she has done. It makes me wonder what would convince you of someone's notability if not fame plus news coverage?
CT55555(
talk) 16:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
My concern is these kind of sources don't tell why is she in the news in the first place. What's her career really about? As the things like intrusion into a government office, money laundering, court cases, etc., do not generally define a
social media personality.
Insight 3 (
talk) 04:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Anyone's lack of understanding of why she is notable should not be confused with a lack of her notability.
I don't know why most influencers are influential, but that is besides the point.
CT55555(
talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
But we are talking about a biography here, not any metaphysical reality. Generally, we do know why particular influences are influential. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion. Regards.
Insight 3 (
talk) 05:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Aside from notability issues, I think there are serious crime/privacy issues with this article and so I have posted a notice at
WP:BLPN. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an attempt to
WP:CANVASS and I have written it neutrally with regards to notability.
CT55555(
talk) 17:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is inadequate to construct a neutral, balanced article about this person.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 21:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I'll note
WP:DEL-REASON gives Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion.
WP:BLP says it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Right now, the coverage of the subject of this article that I've found, and what's included in the article, just consists of sensationalist tabloid-like stories, as well as
WP:BLPGOSSIPy content. If that's all that is able to be included in this article, it isn't a proper biography, and isn't complying with
WP:BLP, and should be deleted. --
Tristario (
talk) 22:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I do not !vote in that thread (I would prefer to be article more sourced in general) but
pay attention it is the most viewed article nominated for deletion among women biographies by distance and yet the person was born in 1981, not 2000 or 20005.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 19:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
One issue I have with this however, is fat that it has only three results in google scholar but perhaps t is related with fact that it is Pakistan-related article. PRobably we have a lot of articles from English-speaking world which are less notable than her but it still is not eough argument to keep though, but also not argument to remove.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Based on the discussion above, most are trivial mentions. Delete unless we find substantial coverage of the individual. I can't find anything extra about them.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is
not a tabloid, it is
WP:NOTGOSSIP, and it is
WP:NOTNEWS, e.g. most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, so there are several policy-based reasons supporting deletion based on the available sources.
Beccaynr (
talk) 04:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree that being popular does not equate with being notable. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Part of the ongoing
Doug Coldwell cleanup,
User:SandyGeorgia raised the point on a number of articles included in a DYK of Coldwell: Did You Know that throughout U.S. history, different types of
mail bags have been called
mail pouch,
mail sack,
mail satchel,
catcher pouch,
mochila saddle mailbag (pictured), and
Portmanteau (mail) depending on form, function, place and time? And questioned whether many of these articles justify their own article, or should be merged. At the same talk page section,
User:Hog Farm suggested that catcher pouch be kept as an independent article, which I tend to agree with, and therefore have not nominated here (although someone else is obviously free to), and
User:EEng suggested the possibility of keeping the mochila saddle mailbag article, but stated he was uncertain if it justified it. Thus I bring to AFD's consideration a large list of related articles to discuss how much they justify their own articles. I believe that mail pouch, mail sack, mail satchel should be merged with mail bag, that Portmanteau should be merged with
Portmanteau (luggage), and possibly mochilla should be merged with mail bag, although I am less certain on that matter.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 07:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Mail bag: Merge everything with the mail bag article except the Portmanteau page which should be part of the related Portmanteau page.
Gusfriend (
talk) 08:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
So the portmanteau page should omit Portmanteau?
EEng 09:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I was agreeing with the proposal "that Portmanteau should be merged with Portmanteau (luggage)". I should clarify that by merge I mean redirect to Mail bag (and Portmanteau) and keep anything that happens to be useful which may not be much leave us with just a stub and a couple of references.
Gusfriend (
talk) 20:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
What I meant is the portmanteau mailbag article will not be receiving the merge from the Portmanteau (mailbag) article. Instead, the Portmanteau (mailbag) article will be merged to the portmanteau Portmanteau (luggage) article. I hope that's clearer.
EEng 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Wait, it's
Doug Coldwell content, and we want to merge it anywhere? Isn't that just going to make it more difficult to track down the copyvios, the unreliably sourced material, and the
downright bizarre? I spent about half a minute looking at the history of
mail pouch and found
overly close copying from 2012 that was still in the article until today.
XOR'easter (
talk) 12:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This is why I know not how to handle this mess (and appreciate that Iazyges brought it forward here for discussion). I opine that most of this content needs to go away, but await feedback from others as how to best effect that. XOR, perhaps by "merge" we mean we only copy the sources over in case they are useful, and delete all the content, as almost all DC articles have a combination of original research, failed verification and copyright issues. Particularly since
presumptive deletion applies to all DC content, and manually examining the sources is time-consuming (that is, we would not copy any content anywhere under the presumption that applies, and all of these articles are basically all DC content, allowing for subsequent technical edits by 7&6).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 13:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
My current inclination is to redirect all the others to
mail bag and clean up that one, maybe by stubbifying it and going from there. Nothing except the sources can be carried over, and often the sources just aren't that good.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I suppose that just redirecting and stubbifying is an easier path than merging and stubbifying. Mostly just think that the others have no business being articles on their own, however we want to achieve that.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Another Coldwell phony.
Toddst1 (
talk) 14:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
All this stuff should be in a single article, probably mail bag. Coldwell made a bunch of forks for reasons only he knows. @
Iazyges:Catcher pouch is another Coldwell mail-related article that should be considered.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 13:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Catcher pouch definitely should be an article (though maybe there's something it could merge with), but it's full of the usual DC drivel.
EEng 22:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
To give some credit where it's due, the original reviewer of that multi-hook DYK,
Orlady, identified many typical DC issues – misconstrued sources, too-close paraphrasing, parochial content, possible length padding – in these articles and this was a decade before the DC situation blew up. But after a gap in activity, another editor stepped in and approved it.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 22:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect and stub Presumptive deletion of DC content and excessive number of content forks. (
t ·
c) buidhe 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge All and then remove potentially offending content.
Reywas92Talk 22:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Presumptive deletion applies to all DC content, and anyone doing any merging then becomes responsible for any copyvio they move to another article.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
That just makes the bad content harder to find. Why bring extra trouble upon ourselves when the task is already plenty hard enough?
XOR'easter (
talk) 14:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Reywas92 could you please have a look at what you are suggesting? Your proposal would have another editor re-creating potential copyvio in another article-- which puts the editor doing that in an interesting spot. All of DC's content is subject to
presumptive deletion, and only some of the sources are even worth saving.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, remove the offending content first, then merge what's left. Or agree with Hog Farm below.
Reywas92Talk 13:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect as suggested by the last few contributions. There is nothing much in the article but a dictionary definition and even that seems to be excessively US-centred.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Funding and profile links, barely pass notability. Above that it is promotional. The page got recently deleted and got created again.
Lordofhunter (
talk) 05:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
DeleteTempted to flag for G4. Now serially deleted, no more notable now than it was in 2016 and 2022. Salt, to boot. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 09:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt, this is not notable, as already mentioned above. Is PROMO.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP. Google brings up nothing but social media and streaming sites, so there are no RS to establish the notability of this label.
ArcAngel (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete More Serio? This non-notable person is all over Wiki. There have also been discussions about his article, a film he did and albums by him. There is some sort of promotion going on here. Agree with nom, I can't find any mention of the record label that we can use to satisfy GNG or CORP.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - as in strong delete. The article lists other notable artists, which is an indication of notability. However, I can't find any evidence these artists ever released material on this label, not even on discogs, which is evidence of hoax.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 01:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. The claims of releasing other artists' work are unsupported and thus violate
WP:V. This and related articles seem to be part of some sort of promotional astroturfing campaign. --Kinut/c 22:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable academic and civil servant. I find no mentions of him in RS, no citation factors that could help with PROF. Zero hits in both Jstor and Gscholar, appears largely as a memorial to an otherwise non-notable individual.
Oaktree b (
talk) 04:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 04:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Not notable as a soldier. Sources given only mention him in passing and I can't find anything extra that would warrant keeping the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
this means deleting the article is against guidelines here?
Abshir55 (
talk) 05:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject just doesn’t pass
WP:GNG. If
WP:GNG were satisfied, there would be a case against deleting. However, there is no evidence that the subject meets
WP:NOTABILITY requirements that would warrant having an article. If there was evidence of
WP:NOTABILITY, then having an article could be considered. However, the subject isn’t notable as I have outlined, and therefore the article should be deleted.
Shawn Teller (
talk) 04:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable game designer that died in the war in Ukraine. Largely serving as a memorial page to the person. No sources found, barely mentioned in media
[40] is an interview with his brother that doesn't lend much to notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. For the reasons in the nomination. It's very sad that he died in the war, but there's not wide coverage of his game designing.
BoyTheKingCanDance (
talk) 07:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
GSC Game World#Russian invasion of Ukraine where he is mentioned, per
WP:ATD. He is mostly mentioned in the context of working at the company for a long period. His death is extremely tragic, especially for the gaming industry, but
WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 12:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - not notable for stand alone article, per nom.
WP:NOTNEWS applies.
Kierzek (
talk) 14:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A long passing siding, apparently used to tie on helpers though the grade here is already pretty steep. Aerials show a substantial realignment in the 1950s, the scars of which are still apparent. It may be a decent place for railfanning but I couldn't find evidence that it is notable as such.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is enough to get a
WP:GEOLAND pass, i.e. some history.
Delete I'm not sure what the editor above is referring to, but there is no notability here and this does not even come close to meeting GEOLAND.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 13:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Another unpopulated spot on a rail line. As much as I love trains, we're not the train fans gazetteer.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - No evidence of notability; the railfan sources are not impressive. –
dlthewave☎ 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Borderline on
WP:BAND. Hard to say, as the main source in the article is
this blog. Possibly passes #11, as the article states the band got heavy rotation on
WBAM; I'm not sure if this is considered a "major radio" network. Also potentially passes #5, as they had one single released on
Bang Records, and another single potentially(?) released on
FAME Records (if FAME can be considered a "major record label"). Ambiguity could be cleared up if I could find online sources, but there are few (
[41]). Perhaps someone has access to other media to help this article pass notability guidelines.
Mbdfar (
talk) 00:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is all I can find and it's not a RS
[42] but it describes the group as having a regional fame. There are likely some old paper sources that could be used to source this article, but I really don't want to dig them up; I can't find any sourcing we can use at present.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: What a strange concept for a list of two just in a city's neighborhood. There's
List of hospitals in Zimbabwe where these might fit, but these are just non-notable clinics.
Reywas92Talk 00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not seeing the utility of having a list pointing to two red-linked articles that only appear to be small local medical clinics.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm not seeing the point either — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Elinruby (
talk •
contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lacking indepth coverage with her as the subject. Fails
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 00:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - another non-notable ambassador. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I was not able to find any sufficient information online on this.
Nocturnal781 (
talk) 01:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 20:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 2007 AFD (no consensus) already noted a lack of in-universe and real-world notability; even
Sexuality in Star Trek only mentions this concept as a See also link. I would driveby-redirect this to
Vulcan (Star Trek)#Mating drive where IMO this is already sufficiently covered, but I just know it would get reverted. –
sgeurekat•
c 23:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep1,
2,
3,
4. Four reasonable academic sources, which all appear non-trivial from snippet/preview view, and plenty more on Google Scholar (if you add -"Pon Farr Press" to the search string) suggest that this is actually a notable topic. No real objection to a merge, but it's clear it has enough coverage for independent notability.
Jclemens (
talk) 00:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Vulcan (Star Trek)#Mating drive, this seems like a
WP:OVERLAP with the article about their fictional race even regardless of whether or not it's notable, but right now it's entirely
WP:OR.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 04:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a
WP:SS breakout, not an OVERLAP, as you can see by the "main" template in the article section, so the expectation would be to merge the material back appropriately.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Vulcan (Star Trek)#Mating drive - This is a
WP:NOPAGE situation, where even if the topic has coverage in reliable sources, it would be much better covered on the main topic on the fictional Vulcan race in general rather than split out. Merging would not be appropriate in this case because this current article has no material that would be suitable to merge - those sources found by Jclemens above can likely be used to bolster the section in the main Vulcan article, but as they are not currently included in this article, merging is not needed to do that.
Rorshacma (
talk) 17:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Vulcan (Star Trek). I think there is some interest in the topic, and each episode that mentions it links to it, but I don't think it's enough to be its own article. --
Mgp28 (
talk) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect or possibly Merge but I notice the article is badly sourced and looks like cruft. I don't think there is massive interest in the episode, it wasn't one of the best. I don't see enough for a standalone article. scope_creepTalk 09:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or redirect due to sourcing issues. Needs more independent coverage and would be a mention as part of a broader Star Trek topic.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom, fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 18:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment this was more than a routine car crash. Typically, when commercial vehicles like buses are involved in traffic accidents and there are multiple fatalities, the NTSB gets involved and news coverage will go beyond just a simple report on the event itself. Would be okay with a merge to
New York State Route 37 but I wouldn't dismiss this topic as NOTNEWS.
Highway 89 (
talk) 23:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don’t think an investigation from the NTSB makes an event notable. Also, there was not an NTSB investigation mentioned in the article.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 23:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think it does either, but it was worth pointing out that this was more significant than a run-of-the-mill car crash.
Highway 89 (
talk) 00:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 23:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't find any continuing coverage of the crash, small number of deaths, while tragic is somewhat to be expected in crashes of this nature.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There is nothing that sets this particular crash apart from the thousands(?) that occur every year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 13:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
He competed at two Olympic Games but didn't win medals in either and I couldn't find sources with a
WP:BEFORE search to otherwise show notability. There isn't a clear redirect but
Bulgaria at the 1964 Summer Olympics may be best as that's the Olympics he ranked highest in.
Suonii180 (
talk) 19:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - An old article that could be permanently affected by newer and possibly temporary rules that aide deletion.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 03:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - I found
BNR which looks really good. If there is another source out there of a similar calibre, this should be kept and expanded.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 23:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Bulgaria at the 1964 Summer Olympics. BEFORE showed stats, mentions, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Per nom, fails WP:GNG, BIO SNGs and NOLYMPICS. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 02:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This section was overwhelming the actual
Wild Wild West tv series page, so I followed the example of the "
List of James Bond gadgets" wikipage and put them on a separate page. This had been mentioned on the Wild Wild West talk page.
Plummer (
talk) 00:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete A pointless split due to the entirely
WP:OR nature of the list; this information should simply have been removed and nothing more.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 04:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the above delete lvoters. Unlike Star Trek for example, the WWW gadgets achieved no cultural traction.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 13:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Completely unsourced list of trivia that fails
WP:LISTN. While there are some sources upon searches that mention the show's gadgets, they are the type that would support a few sentences on the topic in the main article, not this massive spinout list.
Rorshacma (
talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:LISTN. At most, this might warrant a sentence in the main article.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 14:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:LISTN I do not see enough blue links so I do not see this aiding in navigation or providing information.
Lightburst (
talk) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Could not find anything to advance
notability. Seems like an advertisement push for some kind of game that was apparently a flop. Found "zero" on the game. The STE points
section states: "However, currently, due to financial difficulties, the cruise has been canceled until further notice".
Otr500 (
talk) 23:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: The game won an
Origins Award, but I don't know how much coverage it received beyond that.
BOZ (
talk) 10:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find anything other than a smattering of reviews, some product listings, and a few forum posts. —
SamX [
talk·contribs] 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Feel good article, I'm not seeing BLP being met. Shipping oxygen to India is noble, but not wiki worthy. Nothing found for this business person.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: The controversy part and available references make him notable. passes
WP:BASIC. ~~ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mankishalberto (
talk •
contribs) 05:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails GNG, BIO, 1E. A minor controversy doesn't make someone notable. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 06:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I see a lot of citations to aggregated content, articles without bylines, interviews, and some mentions that are not in-depth coverage. Not enough to justify a
WP:BLP. --Kinut/c 01:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't find any sources to suggest that he meets
WP:FILMMAKER,
WP:AUTHOR or
WP:GNG. His claim to notability is apparently being involved in a world record but the film that allegedly broke this world record does not seem to be notable itself so I cannot see how Acharya, as its associate director, would be notable. None of his novels seem to have gained any media attention either.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:FILMMAKER,
WP:AUTHOR or
WP:GNG, sources in the article are all promotional. BEFORE showed no reviews of films or writings that has SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 01:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article subject isn’t covered in any significant depth by reliable independent secondary sources, e.g. fails
WP:GNG,
WP:AUTHOR and
WP:FILMMAKER.
Shawn Teller (
talk) 23:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Sources in Azerbaijani exist (
1,
2,
3,
4, &
5).
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 22:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Most of these
WP:PRIMARY. Him doing a speech or an interview. Really need secondary sources
WP:SECONDARY to satisfy
WP:BLP. I don't think he passes
WP:NPROF and I don't think I can see any reviews for books or chapters he's written. Being a rector doesn't make you automatically notable. At least I don't think so. scope_creepTalk 23:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
If the rector of this university has the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution" then he is notable per
WP:PROF#C6.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:PROF#C6. From what I can see, rector is indeed the head of what in this case appears to be a historic and nationally-significant university. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I wasn't sure. I do remember a rector getting elected at my uni years ago and it didn't seem such a big thing at the time. I'll leave this open for a couple of days, even though it is settled in the hope that some drive-by Azerbaijan editor can add some more references. scope_creepTalk 09:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
"Rector" can mean very different things in different countries. I do not know what it means in Azerbaijan.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I believe it means the Dean or head of academics for a college or major university division. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think this passes
WP:PROF#C6, needs better referencing. More notable than 95% of the athletes and actors on Wikipedia. Since it is a BLP, I removed the material that was unsourced since 2015. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be a fairly pointless disambiguation page now. It once disambiguated a lot of pages, but not anymore, as they got removed due to being plotcruft.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 22:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I was unable to find any sources that would comply with
WP:SPORTBASIC or
WP:GNG and no achievements that meet
WP:NTENNIS. She does not appear to have won or participated in a tournament in either singles or doubles that would make her automatically notable. In terms of coverage in the English language, I found nothing better than
Armenpress, a single passing mention in a list of players called up to a Fed Cup tie. Surprisingly, there was very little in Armenian either.
Tert was the best that I could find but it's a painfully brief tournament recap for a minor tournament. The coverage is so weak that it doesn't even give basic details of the matches that she won, it simply states that she won and nothing else. Clear consensus at sportspeople AfDs that this is not good enough to justify an article for a BLP.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
’’Delete’’ no evidence of notability.
Nocturnal781 (
talk) 21:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find any secondary, independent source covering the subject significantly, even in Armenian. Fails
WP:GNG.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 22:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Note - I tried to find anything she did other than Fed Cup, and struck out. No special awards or achievements from her own country.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 07:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete starving actor, not meeting GNG. Bit parts, nothing for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 21:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Out of the five sources attached one is an IMDB profile, two are a dead links, one is a user-generated profile on his representative agency's website (Lowy Hamilton Artists), and a passing mention on the Guardian piece:
Last month, Asa Elliot, who appeared in the ITV sitcom Benidorm between 2010 and 2014, told BBC Look North he had been working as an Asda delivery driver since July last year. Elliot had been singing on cruise ships before the virus struck.
Delete - He tried to follow his dreams but it didn't work out, and now he has a day job like the rest of us. Sorry, but that does not make him notable per
WP:NACTOR or
WP:NMUSICIAN, despite some honest work in minor productions back in the day. He does have a news article here:
[1], but it was probably the result of a press release in which he tried to drum up some more publicity in a "where are they now" sort of way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Selangor F.C.. If there is content worth Merging, an editor can find it on the Redirected page. LizRead!Talk! 21:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's only mentioned there because there is an article, but if this isn't kept this won't be the case anymore, so it should not be redirected there.
Avilich (
talk) 03:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
They should be mentioned in passing there anyway, even if it's just one sentence saying there are youth teams, and listing names and age groups.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - Add it to the main Selangor FC page. I don't think it would be a problem and you wouldn't lose any info.I don't know if there will ever be a lot of info since they are 3rd and 4th teams.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails per GiantSnowman. The article has unsourced info about LPs so it should be deleted and then if there is a consensus redirected. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the usual PR-heavy, short "executive profiles" in various magazines, which he probably submitted himself. The one possible good source is SmartBusiness Magazine, but the content of that lengthy article is mainly his own statements; it does not meet "independent". Much of what is in the WP article is not found in any sources that I looked at. BTW, the article was started by a user:Barhorst, but also worked on by a number of SPAs and a bunch of socks that have been banned.
Lamona (
talk) 02:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Lamona. Most of the sources are at best PR churnalism. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 19:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep: The GlobalGrind piece is not that great but somewhat okay compared to the rest of the sources. The other sources are either user-generated profiles, or interviews. Both the Early life and the Other projects sections are written like a resume and need substantial editing.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 22:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete not seeing enough indepth coverage to meet
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the sources here are substantially about her, and some don't mention her at all. I found one more
video interview, and an
article by her about herself. The remainder are brief mentions or name-checks on advertisements for products. Possibly TOO SOON.
Lamona (
talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Might be TOOSOON, but Wikipedia isn't a place for resumes. Sources in article and BEFORE, showed promos, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. I don't even see mentions of this subject, never mind the RS which would be needed for notability.
JMWt (
talk) 19:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find any source for
Union Labour. I even looked for old archived print sources, and nothing comes up. Fails
WP:ORG.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 19:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete All sources I found were referring to the UK party of the same name, even documents that
purported to be about Canada. It sounds like this was a breakout group that never achieved "real party" status. There may be info in archives, but that would be Original Research.
Lamona (
talk) 02:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unsourced and forgotten OR from 2004. At best this was a short lived fringe group with nothing of LASTING impact in their history. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Countess Free Church, Ely, which has undoubted notability as a Grade II-listed building mentioned in Christopher Stell 's Nonconformist Chapels and Meeting-houses in Eastern England (2002). New Connexions Free Church is a
church plant from this but has no independent notability. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Countess Free Church, Ely, as suggested above. There is no reason to think that this church is independently notable.
Athel cb (
talk) 08:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect -- The target is a much better article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:ROUTINE biography of a local businessman from Italy, apparently written by a family member, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. The corresponding article at it.wikipedia.org was deleted in 2019.
Belbury (
talk) 18:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Couldn't find any good sources for the subject; all that comes up is either a passing mention or genealogy chart website. Fails GNG and
WP:BIO.
AmshitBalcon (
talk) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Patents and the other sources used don't show notability. I can't find anything for this person. Feels like a MEMORIAL, which wiki is not.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Subject is notable. Check multiple reliable sources such as
this,
this,
this, and
this.
151.82.84.5 (
talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge properly sourced material into
Morassutti family. Subject doesn't pass GNG or BIO, but there is a nice home for it here. Also no reason to fragment the content, even if subject squeeks by notability, does not mean there must be another two penny stub article and in this case properly sourced content has a much better place. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm unable to find sources which demonstrate that either
WP:BIO or
WP:CREATIVE are satisfied. Whilst there are numerous sources cited, they merely confirm that she has published poetry, but it does not appear to have attracted any critical commentary in reliable sources.
SmartSE (
talk) 17:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't understand why these categories are questionable. They are a poet. They are from Tennessee in the United States.
Canestrari (
talk) 20:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I doubt this is related to this author's gender. It appears it has more to do with the credibility of the sources that were cited. My mistake. When they get on the NYT, then maybe they will be "credible" enough for this editor.
Canestrari (
talk) 19:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I have also removed any gender-specific references. I wasn't sure if this was an issue, so did this for good measure anyway.
Canestrari (
talk) 20:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
You've provided a list of sources and some of them include numerous articles that support her creative work. She is a poet, not a novelist. Can you recommend some additional sources that offer reliable critical commentary for poetry, other than books?
Canestrari (
talk) 18:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can't find any in-depth coverage of them. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 13:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: I was hoping this would be a keep, but nothing with SIGCOV for a BLP. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable primary school. Does not meet
WP:GNG. Could be redirected to the school district, where both schools are mentioned, but that was contested.
Onel5969TT me 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG. I oppose a redirect since "Pickerington Junior High Schools" is not the name of a school and therefore an unlikely search term. However, the two individual junior high schools should be redirected to the district page (both currently redirect the "Pickerington Junior High Schools" page). FrankAnchor 17:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is for helping spread information. So why would you delete a page if it has correct and accurate information.
Jokerpower71 (
talk) 18:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing found for GNG, it's just another high school.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment This article was moved to two different page titles, turned into a redirect and the content cut & pasted into a new article. This was highly disruptive and has all been reverted. Please do not do this again. LizRead!Talk! 06:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Hair transplant doctor to the stars" is not notable. I don't find any sourcing, or understand why this person gets a wikipedia article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not even close... //
Timothy ::
talk 16:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sourcing is all promotional routine coverage, no evidence of independent sources establishing notability.
Jdcooper (
talk) 16:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: anthing about vegans out of spite. Also clearly promo. //
Timothy ::
talk 16:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about
Noel Fielding's partner. She has presented a few radio shows, and appeared in a few plays, and been a guest on a few TV newscasts, and writes for a blog or two, but there's nothing in this article or its references to suggest that she has any particular notability. Suggest a merge to
Choose Love, the charity founded by the subject.
Flip Format (
talk) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the charity seems like a fine option, otherwise coverage is celebrity fluff articles.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Oaktree, this is Lliana...s i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page and i was a little saddened to see that my page had been deleted, and that all i had worked so hard for had been seemingly erased and reduced to "celebrity fluff". I have to defend this, but what was discussed felt reductive of my achievements and life's work...
I hold the honour of being the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for longer than a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.
I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.
I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.
I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.
I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.
I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.
I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.
I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).
It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the insinuation that my life's work is "celebrity fluff" hard to accept.
82.3.12.222 (
talk) 11:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Choose Love. The merge could be a problem because of the lack of IS RS in this article. If any new content can be properly sourced, no objection to merging that, but improperly sourced BLP content should not be merged. //
Timothy ::
talk 03:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Flip Format, as i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page i was a little saddened to see that you had requested my page be deleted. More so that the reason you suggest is that i as just the partner of someone famous, and have not done much myself. I did not set up my wikipedia page, and so feel sad i have to defend this, but what you have stated feels somewhat reductive of my achievements...
I was the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for over a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.
I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.
I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.
I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.
I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.
I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.
I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.
I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).
It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the implication that i am just someone's partner, and that i have done "a few radio shows" quite insulting, and even a little misogynistic.
I would ask that perhaps you reconsider.
Llianabird (
talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Flip Format, as i prepare for the publication of my second book and have been asked by various publications interviewing me to share my wikipedia page i was a little saddened to see that you had requested my page be deleted. More so that the reason you suggest is that i as just the partner of someone famous, and have not done much myself. I did not set up my wikipedia page, and so feel sad i have to defend this, but what you have stated feels somewhat reductive of my achievements...
I was the longest standing female DJ on Xfm/ Radio X (one of the most known/loved stations in the UK). I was on air on this station every week, twice weekly, nationally for over 16 years. I was the first female DJ to hold the post for over a decade. I was the last ever DJ to close the much beloved Xfm, as it ended before its relaunch as Radio X.
I have published a science book (under Little Brown/ Hatchet) and am now preparing my second book to be published under Rocket Bird (part of Harper Collins) this Autumn.
I co-founded Choose Love, which is today the largest grassroots charity working with refugees. Through this work i have been the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including Liberty's Jo Cox Award.
I was named as Foreign Policy's top 100 thinkers. I was named as one of NESTA's New Radicals.
I was invited to host the London Peace talks as a result of my work, and have toured the country speaking out about my work, both in activism and in film.
I have written and directed my own short films, including 'Snapshots' which one 6 awards at film festivals.
I created and hosted two podcasts, one of which won several awards.
I have been interviewed across the press about my work, and appeared on the front cover of The Observer magazine (The New Review).
It is fine if you think this work does not make me notable enough for a wikipedia page, however i find the implication that i am just someone's partner, and that i have done "a few radio shows" reductive of my life's work.
I would ask that perhaps you reconsider
82.3.12.222 (
talk) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. I'm not sure about the quality of the sources I found with my quick search, but if it were up to me, I'd consider it sufficient to indicate notability:
[2],
[3],
[4]KhinMoTi (
talk) 15:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
And the last is straight-up promo
HighKing++ 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Just another mid-tier software company that fails
WP:CORPMNewnham (
talk) 03:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. I am unable (for now) to access the single reference in the article but one reference is not sufficient and I am unable to locate any other references that meet the criteria.
HighKing++ 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Searches also find an advertorial summary of the firm's service (YourStory, 2018 (blacklisted so no link here)), their inclusion in sets of HR startups (the Inventiva and Digit pieces discussed above; YourStory, 2018) and in-role citations and pieces written by the company CEO, but I am not seeing anything indicative of more than a firm going about its business. Fails
WP:NCORP.
AllyD (
talk) 19:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nominators explanation. Lots of POV. Doesn’t warrant its own article.
Nocturnal781 (
talk) 23:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - The split from
Indian National Army appears justified under
WP:TOOLONG given the fact that that article is already quite long. The 2008 redirect decision clearly considered that the article could be BOLDly re-created. The article has been heavily edited since the 2008 discussion and is not the same article.
FOARP (
talk) 13:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The important content already exists at
Indian National Army#Controversies. This page is a POV cruft and fails
WP:NOPAGE. Further,
WP:TOOLONG does not take a strong stand in this case (less than 60,000 characters of reading material). Dont think it can overrule the NPOV concerns.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 18:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thankyou to both sides contributing to the argument for "keep" and for "delete". I originally created this article necessarily because I felt the parent section in the article "Indian National Army" was getting too long (ie the WP:TOOLONG). I am not going to argue for against the deletion, but this I think needed to be highlighted. If the forum decides this is not the case any longer, then the article I am sure does not meet the criteria for independent articleship. Quick note (I say this without any sense of being upset), if you want to build something collaborative, throwing allegations of NPOV will neither help you build consensus nor collaboration, and wont help you get your point accross. I've been in WP long enough to see that. Good luck, and thanks again to both sides for their efforts.
rueben_lys (
talk·contribs) 09:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not only it fails WP:NOPAGE but a big problem is also with POV pushing.
Shankargb (
talk) 03:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't see the need for a separate 'controversies' fork, considering that INA isn't particularily controversial. The article fails to outline any major controversies, apart from author-voice insinuations. --
Soman (
talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 15:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Notwithstanding the
WP:POV issues in this article, I did some searching and found that there is already a place for this content at
Indian National Army#Controversies. Essentially, Wikipedia policy dictates that the topic doesn’t merit an article separate from what already exists.
Shawn Teller (
talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no reason for this list of mostly non-notable clubs to be here
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment The See Also section links to a whole series of articles relating to this bill. I don't believe the nominated article is a POVFORK as such; more like an attempt to split the main article into this series of subarticles. The sourcing is all over the place (generally poor), so I suspect they should all be merged into
Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 16:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with main article. OTOH, it all needs a total rewrite, as does much of the Fiji material from this era. Unfortunately a lot of original sources were purged during the coup.--
IdiotSavant (
talk) 23:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what exactly could be merged when almost all of the article is unsourced commentary, essentially. Quotes from people and whatnot. I understand the desire to preserve information but I'm not seeing anything that'd make merging useful. If it needs a total rewrite, what would we be merging? Maybe you could explain a bit more so I could understand your perspective? I don't mean to be harsh and I appreciate your efforts to try and improve what you can.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 00:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm assuming sources can be found e.g. on
RNZ (the same applies to the main article). The problem is deciding which reactions are worth keeping - which is probably addressed by rewriting the main article and its other subsidiaries.--
IdiotSavant (
talk) 08:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for clarifying.
This page explains that this is a rationale to avoid in deletion discussions. However, if you can actually find such sourcing, feel free to add it. As you said, another matter is deciding whether there are reactions worth keeping, even if you can source them. If there is, I'd suggest creating a section called "Reception" on the main article. I know you haven't suggested anything other than merging, but I feel it worth mentioning for future participants that "nuanced views" on a subject implies that whoever isn't giving their opinion is not being nuanced, which is why I compared it to a POVFORK.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 13:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, normally I'd just go through and add the sources, but this whole area is such a mess that it requires more work than I can do ATM.
I think a section on "reception" in the main article is a good solution, and this can also incorporate information worth keeping for the related international, religious, and military reactions articles.--
IdiotSavant (
talk) 01:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not retrievable - it's a muddle of hearsay, opinion, and POV fork. Any relevant, sourced debates and reactions should be recorded in the main article.
Plutonium27 (
talk) 17:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
WP:TNT. Incredibly poorly sourced, if you took all the info out which did not pass
WP:VERIFY, you'd be left with a blank page.
Onel5969TT me 01:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
G7 with no substantive contributions from others. StarMississippi 01:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BLP1E,
WP:NOTNEWS,
WP:SUSTAINED. BLP of a non-notable person who made the news around 2016/2017 for having a large teddy bear collection as recognized by Guinness World Records, but this is the only claim to notability - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 15:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
DELETE - I am the OP and I am filing for Uncontested Deletion. I don't want to go into the situation and I'd rather it be removed so I can focus my efforts on other pages.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 15:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
You can tag with G7 if you want the article to be deleted.
Sungodtemple (
talk •
contribs) 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Suriname women's national football team - as she is a leading international for Suriname, but there is insufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. I searched the Times of Suriname and found nothing, which isn't surprising because she played decades ago.
Jogurney (
talk) 19:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I found
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9] among many more Dutch sources. Clearly significant figure in Surinamese women's football with ongoing international career and club career abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 21:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Those are the same useless sources you added to the Griffith Vaissaire AFD.
Dougal18 (
talk) 13:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. First source good, not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The first source is a pure Q&A interview with just two sentences of introduction, nowhere close to SIGCOV. And the rest are even worse. No GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - the sourcing lacks the necessary depth. Call up announcements do not address her in detail so do not confer notability.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article fails
WP:GNG; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Jogurney (
talk) 16:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I found
[10],
[11],
[12], and
[13], among many more Dutch sources. Clearly significant figure in Surinamese women's football with ongoing international career and club career abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 21:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. First source above is paywalled, rest not good enough. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The first source is pure Q&A, the rest are routine and nowhere close to GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Seems like the best non-interview coverage available is from
De Ware Tijd, and that's just a name drop in a list of diaspora players the Suriname coach intended to call up to the national team. I'm afraid there is no SIGCOV at all.
Jogurney (
talk) 13:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I found
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18], and
[19] among many many more Spanish sources. Clearly significant figure in Venezuelan football with ongoing international and fully pro career abroad. Articule enes improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 20:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
[1] and [4] are about a different person(!) the rest of these are mostly interviews or quote-heavy (not independent) or individual match reports and so do not count toward GNG.
Avilich (
talk) 23:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While I agree that Das osmnezz was careless with providing some of those links, I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of the
Diario AS article. It is not a match report in the conventional sense (in fact the newspaper did its routine match report
here), but rather a recap of Gaby's career which notes that she reached a milestone (100 competitive matches with Deportivo) that no other woman had yet accomplished. It certainly counts toward SIGCOV, and if there's something more, I'll be !voting keep.
Jogurney (
talk) 16:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Per sources above and what's on
es:Gabriela García, I feel there is just enough to pass basic GNG. Regards.
Govvy (
talk) 23:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Besides the sources I found above, I also found
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25], and
[26], among many many more Spanish sources. Clearly significant figure in Venezuelan and Spanish league football with ongoing international and fully pro career abroad. Articule enes improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 00:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
the same applies to these, more Q&A interviews and other quote-heavy articles.
Avilich (
talk) 00:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources posted by Das osmnezz (excluding the two about a different subject). There is enough content that isn’t quotes/interview answers in there for a close pass of GNG.
Carson Wentz (
talk) 02:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - There are a pair of good Diario AS sources, plus a number of lower quality sources from Marca and El Estímulo, and I believe it's enough to meet
WP:GNG.
Jogurney (
talk) 16:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep sources provided by other users show article meets
WP:GNG. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 23:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. AFAICS the Royal Gazette contains exclusively mentions in routine event recaps and announcements. GNG not met.
JoelleJay (
talk) 15:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I searched the Royal Gazette and only found routine and trivial mentions of her, e.g.
[27][28]. Couldn't find anything in the Bermuda Sun[29]. If even her local newspapers aren't reporting on her in depth, it's unlikely there's international coverage either.
JoelleJay (
talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Meets
WP:NCRIC having played international cricket at the highest level. Her
Cricinfo profile provides some detail, and enough has been gleaned (even if the referencing isn't the best) to get the article to its current state. Seeing as she played Test cricket and a decent number of ODIs, definitely the chance that offline Dominican/Caribbean sources about her exist. At the very least, redirect to
List of West Indies women Test cricketers or
List of West Indies women ODI cricketers.
Mpk662 (
talk) 16:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG takes precedence over any sport related criteria. Is there any independent, significant sources about the subject?
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It also doesn't say that anymore, if you'd actually read
WP:NCRIC. It says that sources are likely to list for Test match players and Elite Umpires.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of West Indies women ODI cricketers Not sure there's enough for a GNG pass here, but there's a suitable redirect here that can be used per
WP:ATD given she made the majority of here notable appearances in ODIs. Perhaps a note can be added to link to her sole test appearance also.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 11:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Indies women Twenty20 International cricketers. There is consensus for a redirect, although there is no consensus as to the target of that redirect; I see no point in relisting, since there is no appetite per deletion and an AfD is not necessary to decide where the redirect should point to, so, as an editorial action, I have selected the article about the match where she has made the most of her appearances Salviogiuliano 14:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Mpk662, NCRIC does not override the requirement for sports biographies to meet GNG and to cite at least one SIGCOV source. The first link contains one sentence of commentary by the author, with the rest being straight quotes or repetition of things she said/felt (i.e. not independent). The second has just two sentences on her in a routine tournament recap that isn't independent/secondary (at the end it says "Congratulations to the Dominican ladies", which is a primary opinion statement that indicates affiliation with the team). The third is some trivial mentions in a team list.
JoelleJay (
talk) 00:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of West Indies women Twenty20 International cricketers Doesn't look to be a GNG pass, although there is some coverage, although redirect here is a suitable
WP:ATD as she made the most of here appearances in T20 internationals. Perhaps a note can be added also to link to her ODI appearances.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 11:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect - These sources are passing mentions and routine announcements, not significant coverage. –
dlthewave☎ 01:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep due to breaking
WP:Before/
WP:DAN rules - I've been around here for 3 years. After never having interaction with this user, we have met 14 times around a month after I rejected the user's attempt to draftify an article. The user claims it is just total chance due to his New Page Patrol work, but with over 700 people in the New Page Patrol plus dozens to hundreds of articles being posted each day, the odds are astronomical. This will be Onel's 7th Afd Nomination attempt on me within about 2 weeks. The user publicly claimed "Too late, this same editor also has
Christian Cavaletti, and
Jackie Miley, and
Harry Sperl, which I'm also probably going to nominate." before making this attempt in this thread -
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_and_Mary_Beth_Meyer. This breaks wikipedia
WP:BEFORE rules under
Wikipedia:DAN, which completely nullifies the attempt. It also breaks
WP:DLC,
WP:REVENGE,
WP:GAME,
WP:MEAT,
WP:WITCHHUNT and others. Beyond that, the article meets
WP:GNG and has in-depth coverage. I'm really sorry that everyone has to have their time wasted over personal issues. I'm sure we will all see each other again real soon when he fulfills his threat on
Jackie Miley (And if it's that much of a slam dunk case, why wait?), but either way, I'm not going to be stopped from contributing to the website
KatoKungLee (
talk) 14:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
A good-faith explanation would be that Onel5969 sees your articles as low-quality and is just going through them to see if they are NN. Also,
WP:DAN is an essay and not a guideline/policy.
Sungodtemple (
talk •
contribs) 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sungodtemple - I do not see how publicly announcing multiple nomination intentions in an unrelated thread with a user you do not get along with is possibly
WP:GOODFAITH. If you want to have a nomination discussion, why would that not do that at a wikiproject talk page or at an AFD nomination? I would also expect a user with the privileges and experiences he has to know that.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 15:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: After seeing the other discussion on grapefruit, I see the same issue presented here, no
WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
Sungodtemple (
talk •
contribs) 14:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unfortunately, unlike the other AfD mentioned by the nominator, there is nothing here that can be merged to
hamburger. Delete as clear
WP:BLP1E fail with purely
WP:ROUTINE coverage. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete another
WP:BLP1E for a Guinness World record holder, and again, they don't meet
WP:GNG. And do not merge/redirect to
hamburger as doing so would not benefit that article in any way.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 15:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete a single editor has created a run of articles about Guinness record holders. In most cases such records do not confer notability. The solution is to stop creating them, not make accusations about other editors’ conduct.
Mccapra (
talk) 20:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment as an aside, it’s remarkable that when new page patrollers try to redirect, merge or draftify new articles there’s usually a great chorus of “take it to AfD”, and when you do, you are met with indignation.
Mccapra (
talk) 21:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is another Guinness record holder, who lacks
WP:SUSTAINED coverage and any notability. In addition, I agree that this article is a case of
WP:BIO1E and
WP:NOTNEWS and merits deletion. This article brings to mind the cliche: "
Where's the beef."
Paul H. (
talk) 03:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not nominating this subject because it lacks notability. Clearly, this is a very notable organisation. However, just I can't help but feel that it would be better for Wikipedia's readers if this page's information resided at
Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank. It may be that there is enough RS to distinguish this subject from its founder but ironically the Norman Foster page gives a much better historical overview of this organisation than this company page. As far as I can see, the only purpose this page serves is to give the organisation a bit of free publicity at Wikipedia's expense. I could be wrong, so let's discuss it.
The Bicycle of Dreams (
talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I agree with Clearly, this is a very notable organisationBarnards.tar.gz (
talk) 16:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep If the article's data is correct, the firm has 1800 employees all over the world including 140 partners. It's also the largest architecture firm in the UK. The firm has an established notability that goes beyond its association with Norman Foster. The article does not read as an advertisement at all.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The article needs some work, but it is clearly a distinct topic from its founder. The article is not an "expense"
Furius (
talk) 01:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. If you think there is information at Norman Foster's article that should be here, then copy/move it (see
WP:CWW for how to properly attribute), but this is a clearly notable company independent of its founder and is no more an advert for it than any other article about a notable company with a notable founder is.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nomination, for all the content, I am not sure that it meets WP:GNG
JarrahTree 13:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no reliable sources and plenty of questionable sources.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 17:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong#2021 and merge content as appropriate. There is clear consensus here against standalone articles. Some users argue that the pages should be deleted outright as there isn't content that is independent of the Chinese government, but this is convincingly rebutted by the argument that summarizing government statistics is valuable when they are described correctly. This closure applies to all the nominated pages, but the closer tool isn't recognizing the other nominations: I'll implement the redirecting manually in a few minutes. Vanamonde (
Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zhejiang (2020). AfD reason there was "This is basically a repeat of the official statements from the Chinese government, not an article based on reliable, independent sources. I don't think a timeline for this region can be made based on such sources though, as the Chinese government tends to be rather controlling. But it is better not to have an article, than to function as the mouthpiece of a government."
Fram (
talk) 10:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge the daily case numbers into a table at more broad articles (ex.
COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing,
COVID-19 pandemic in Guangdong...) per my rationale at the other AfD: "This article textual content is basically only the government reported case numbers, which can and should be reported in a table. The rest of the content (the videos) [where applicable] is just minor local news fluff which is not appropriate."
JumpytooTalk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 10:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom, it seems important not to use Wikipedia to host content that is lacking independence, to put it kindly.
CT55555(
talk) 16:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 13:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the same reasons mentioned in the other timeline (no possibility of being a reliable and neutral article, fails NOSTATS).
JoelleJay (
talk) 04:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge the daily case numbers into a table at more broad articles.
I agree with Jumpytoo's rationale: "This article textual content is basically only the government reported case numbers, which can and should be reported in a table. The rest of the content (the videos) [where applicable] is just minor local news fluff which is not appropriate."
Cunard (
talk) 23:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to the broader articles, but substantially consolidate the numbers. For the most part, these are reports of a handful of new cases occurring on any given day. These numbers could be summarized as a timeline by month rather than having numerous lines for two or three cases being reported on this day or that.
BD2412T 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nomination. The sources are not intellectually independent of the Chinese government; and as such the timelines fails
WP:SIGCOV due to lack of independent sources. I am not seeing a benefit of a merge or redirect of this material, or a consolidation into a table in various articles due to sourcing problems.
4meter4 (
talk) 21:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Clear
WP:CORP failure due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. All the sources but one in this article are passing mentions. The one that is is a 2nd-runner-up prize for excellence in financial management from Hong Kong ACCA (not a reliable source, not independent because 2the Max is a member of the ACCA, not really indicating notability). Listings on various databases and passing mentions of product-accreditation are not independent, significant coverage. Nothing further found in my
WP:BEFORE that would rescue this article.
FOARP (
talk) 11:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱 13:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete No substantial improvement in the >15 years since the last AfD nomination.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 17:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom and Barnards.tar.gz. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. I don't see sources that verify the information on the page, but am happy if others can find something. If the information could be verified, as an AtD perhaps the content could be merged to
Western Lombard dialectJMWt (
talk) 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: not sufficient sourcing
Justwatchmee (
talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete nothing found in Gscholar or Jstor, which is where I assume you would find linguistic items.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - if no sign of sources (and the article has certainly had time for them to be found) then deletion is the right option: this certainly has the look of original research.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. I don't see much in terms of RS - a couple of refs have single lines on the subject.
JMWt (
talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per Ficaia.
Mccapra (
talk) 12:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - the Swedish Wikipedia has two references. The first is the Oxford Dictionary of Popes which offers several Theophylacts but only one sentence to the person under discussion here (page 92). The Italian and Swedish Wikipedia both also cite a book called I papi, storia e segreti.. - where the subject is mentioned once by name in passing on page 227. Neither of these references meet the requirements of notability on en.wiki.
Simply noting that other wikipedia have references is not somehow a magic bullet which shows that notability issues are proved here.
JMWt (
talk) 13:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment ok but he was an antipope. There are many early popes about whom we know very little but we don’t deem them to be non notable.
Mccapra (
talk) 21:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This is not my area, but as far as I understand he is not considered an antipope. Not listed at
Antipope and according to one of the sources I was reading for this discussion, is not considered an Antipope by the relevant authorities in Rome.
JMWt (
talk) 07:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, although could be turned into a general article on the
757 papal election. See, e.g., Thomas F. X. Noble, The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), pp. 193–194.
Srnec (
talk) 03:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually that reference says more about Theophylact than anything else I've read - and yet it is arguably only talking about him (Theophylact) several times in passing. We learn almost nothing about him as a person, but only as a named opponent in the 757 election. Personally I don't see that this can be used as an argument for !keeping this page, and there is barely enough for a stub of
757 papal election. If that page already existed, I might support a redirect and merge of this one.
JMWt (
talk) 07:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
See
here for more on 757 and its significance. Definitely worth an article; probably should just be this one.
Srnec (
talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
That makes little sense. You are arguing for !keep of a stub page for a figure who is essentially unknown (because there is little to find in any of the sources that name him) on the basis that some other event with which he was associated is notable enough to have a WP page. There's nothing much here which would be lost if the page was !deleted. If you wanted to write
757 papal election that's got nothing to do with the !delete or otherwise of this page - other than this guy's name will be lost from the encyclopedia.
JMWt (
talk) 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep or repurpose into an article on the Theophylact family, who appear to have been nobility active in Rome in this period, as the source found by
Srnec shows: Rome, Ravenna, and Venice, 750-1000: Byzantine Heritage, Imperial Present, and the Construction of City Identity, by West-Harling, Veronica. It may well be that we know next to nothing of this individual, apaert from him contesting the election.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I redirected this 7 minute film to
Oswald the Lucky Rabbit filmography#1931, but was reverted. Nothing but an extremely excessive plot summary, not enough evidence of
notability found to warrant a stand-alone article.
Fram (
talk) 08:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect or Delete Although I am wracked with guilt at depriving the world of "A fish is making a serenade for the worm and a giant fish appears and the fish runs away and the worm was still standing still, the giant fish thought it ate the worm but it escaped and the giant fish swam forward." and other timeless prose. ChatGPT summarise a cartoon plot, please. Fails WP:GNG, per nom. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 09:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient StarMississippi 21:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No doubt, the subject is a well-known name in Pakistan, but popularity doesn't always mean notability. The cited Pakistani media sources are only tabloid, trivial coverage of the subject's activities like viral & leaked videos, having affairs with government officials, slapping this person, marrying that person, etc. No reliable source gives any significant in-depth coverage of the subject's life and career as a social media personality. The only sources disclosing info about their personal life (place of birth, family, education, etc.) are some Indian newspapers that assumed everything published on the subject's social media handles to be accurate and made up some articles by joining different pieces from the local media. Fails
WP:BASIC.
Insight 3 (
talk) 08:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree that the article should be deleted as the coverage of her stands.it is hard to find reliable sources for even the most basic information about her such as her age (ranging form 29 to 41 years old). if her coverage was consistent in even the most basic facts about her, then I would say that this article should be kept, though as it stands this is not the case.
Roma enjoyer (
talk) 10:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per above nomination, fails
WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social media forum.
Ngrewal1 (
talk) 17:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The OP notes that the subject is "well-known name in Pakistan" which actually implies notability. In any case, a deletion of yet another biography of a woman would be a shame and unfortunate to say the least, as all the work put into creating the page would be swept away. Surely, the page can use work, but deleting it is NOT the way to go about it.
Historyday01 (
talk) 03:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, the subject is famous on internet but lacks the required SIGCOV. Just have a look at the titles of the cited sources, they are all sensational pieces about trivial things and don't help to write an encyclopedic bio.
Insight 3 (
talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While the issue of woman being ignored and having their article deleted at a disparately rate is a problem( though I feel that it may not mostly be due to bias on Wikipedia's editors part and more sources paying less attention to woman, because of sexism) This issue should not be used as justification for keeping a woman's article, as it can still be the case that a woman's article is disserving of deletion. As for this article, it is clear to me that the lake of consistent information about shah means that her article should be deleted, at lest as the information about her stands. For example, her date of birth ranges form the 28th of December, as per
https://awampk.com/tik-tok-model-hareem-shah-biography-age-and-family/ to the 22th of November 1991, as per newsunzip(which I can not like to a Wikipedia block on it) and to the 22nd of November 1981, as per
https://thesportsgrail.com/who-is-hareem-shah-whose-colgate-video-went-viral-biography-age-husband-real-name-instagram-picture/Roma enjoyer (
talk) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable person who is famous in Pakistan and meets
WP:SIGCOVQwv (
talk) 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
How dose shah meet
WP:SIGCOV? Her coverage is not reliable, and as per
WP:SIGCOV a topic is ''presumed to be suitable'' if it ''received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'' The sources covering her are not reliable, one of them,newsunzip is even on a Wikipedia black list, and that's on the first page of google results
Roma enjoyer (
talk) 15:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems notable, seems to be plenty significant coverage as per
WP:GNG:
The source
[34] is just a news report about her petition in the court,
[35] is a court's direction to FIA,
[36] is about initiation of FIA against her,
[37] tells she once broke into the foreign ministry office and it heavily relies on social media posts, as I mentioned in the nom, the Indian source
[38] is just a piece of churnalism, and
[39] is about inquiry of a security breach and the intruder. Where is in-depth coverage of her life and career as a social media star in multiple reliable sources? Being in the news for this or that issue doesn't make anyone notable.
Insight 3 (
talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't understand most your objections. News reports on people are good indicators of notability. We're at a point where you've described her as well-known and agree that there are news reports about various things she has done. It makes me wonder what would convince you of someone's notability if not fame plus news coverage?
CT55555(
talk) 16:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
My concern is these kind of sources don't tell why is she in the news in the first place. What's her career really about? As the things like intrusion into a government office, money laundering, court cases, etc., do not generally define a
social media personality.
Insight 3 (
talk) 04:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Anyone's lack of understanding of why she is notable should not be confused with a lack of her notability.
I don't know why most influencers are influential, but that is besides the point.
CT55555(
talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
But we are talking about a biography here, not any metaphysical reality. Generally, we do know why particular influences are influential. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion. Regards.
Insight 3 (
talk) 05:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Aside from notability issues, I think there are serious crime/privacy issues with this article and so I have posted a notice at
WP:BLPN. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an attempt to
WP:CANVASS and I have written it neutrally with regards to notability.
CT55555(
talk) 17:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is inadequate to construct a neutral, balanced article about this person.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 21:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I'll note
WP:DEL-REASON gives Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion.
WP:BLP says it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Right now, the coverage of the subject of this article that I've found, and what's included in the article, just consists of sensationalist tabloid-like stories, as well as
WP:BLPGOSSIPy content. If that's all that is able to be included in this article, it isn't a proper biography, and isn't complying with
WP:BLP, and should be deleted. --
Tristario (
talk) 22:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I do not !vote in that thread (I would prefer to be article more sourced in general) but
pay attention it is the most viewed article nominated for deletion among women biographies by distance and yet the person was born in 1981, not 2000 or 20005.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 19:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
One issue I have with this however, is fat that it has only three results in google scholar but perhaps t is related with fact that it is Pakistan-related article. PRobably we have a lot of articles from English-speaking world which are less notable than her but it still is not eough argument to keep though, but also not argument to remove.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Based on the discussion above, most are trivial mentions. Delete unless we find substantial coverage of the individual. I can't find anything extra about them.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is
not a tabloid, it is
WP:NOTGOSSIP, and it is
WP:NOTNEWS, e.g. most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, so there are several policy-based reasons supporting deletion based on the available sources.
Beccaynr (
talk) 04:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree that being popular does not equate with being notable. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Part of the ongoing
Doug Coldwell cleanup,
User:SandyGeorgia raised the point on a number of articles included in a DYK of Coldwell: Did You Know that throughout U.S. history, different types of
mail bags have been called
mail pouch,
mail sack,
mail satchel,
catcher pouch,
mochila saddle mailbag (pictured), and
Portmanteau (mail) depending on form, function, place and time? And questioned whether many of these articles justify their own article, or should be merged. At the same talk page section,
User:Hog Farm suggested that catcher pouch be kept as an independent article, which I tend to agree with, and therefore have not nominated here (although someone else is obviously free to), and
User:EEng suggested the possibility of keeping the mochila saddle mailbag article, but stated he was uncertain if it justified it. Thus I bring to AFD's consideration a large list of related articles to discuss how much they justify their own articles. I believe that mail pouch, mail sack, mail satchel should be merged with mail bag, that Portmanteau should be merged with
Portmanteau (luggage), and possibly mochilla should be merged with mail bag, although I am less certain on that matter.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 07:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Mail bag: Merge everything with the mail bag article except the Portmanteau page which should be part of the related Portmanteau page.
Gusfriend (
talk) 08:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
So the portmanteau page should omit Portmanteau?
EEng 09:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I was agreeing with the proposal "that Portmanteau should be merged with Portmanteau (luggage)". I should clarify that by merge I mean redirect to Mail bag (and Portmanteau) and keep anything that happens to be useful which may not be much leave us with just a stub and a couple of references.
Gusfriend (
talk) 20:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
What I meant is the portmanteau mailbag article will not be receiving the merge from the Portmanteau (mailbag) article. Instead, the Portmanteau (mailbag) article will be merged to the portmanteau Portmanteau (luggage) article. I hope that's clearer.
EEng 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Wait, it's
Doug Coldwell content, and we want to merge it anywhere? Isn't that just going to make it more difficult to track down the copyvios, the unreliably sourced material, and the
downright bizarre? I spent about half a minute looking at the history of
mail pouch and found
overly close copying from 2012 that was still in the article until today.
XOR'easter (
talk) 12:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This is why I know not how to handle this mess (and appreciate that Iazyges brought it forward here for discussion). I opine that most of this content needs to go away, but await feedback from others as how to best effect that. XOR, perhaps by "merge" we mean we only copy the sources over in case they are useful, and delete all the content, as almost all DC articles have a combination of original research, failed verification and copyright issues. Particularly since
presumptive deletion applies to all DC content, and manually examining the sources is time-consuming (that is, we would not copy any content anywhere under the presumption that applies, and all of these articles are basically all DC content, allowing for subsequent technical edits by 7&6).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 13:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
My current inclination is to redirect all the others to
mail bag and clean up that one, maybe by stubbifying it and going from there. Nothing except the sources can be carried over, and often the sources just aren't that good.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I suppose that just redirecting and stubbifying is an easier path than merging and stubbifying. Mostly just think that the others have no business being articles on their own, however we want to achieve that.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Another Coldwell phony.
Toddst1 (
talk) 14:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
All this stuff should be in a single article, probably mail bag. Coldwell made a bunch of forks for reasons only he knows. @
Iazyges:Catcher pouch is another Coldwell mail-related article that should be considered.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 13:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Catcher pouch definitely should be an article (though maybe there's something it could merge with), but it's full of the usual DC drivel.
EEng 22:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
To give some credit where it's due, the original reviewer of that multi-hook DYK,
Orlady, identified many typical DC issues – misconstrued sources, too-close paraphrasing, parochial content, possible length padding – in these articles and this was a decade before the DC situation blew up. But after a gap in activity, another editor stepped in and approved it.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 22:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect and stub Presumptive deletion of DC content and excessive number of content forks. (
t ·
c) buidhe 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge All and then remove potentially offending content.
Reywas92Talk 22:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Presumptive deletion applies to all DC content, and anyone doing any merging then becomes responsible for any copyvio they move to another article.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
That just makes the bad content harder to find. Why bring extra trouble upon ourselves when the task is already plenty hard enough?
XOR'easter (
talk) 14:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Reywas92 could you please have a look at what you are suggesting? Your proposal would have another editor re-creating potential copyvio in another article-- which puts the editor doing that in an interesting spot. All of DC's content is subject to
presumptive deletion, and only some of the sources are even worth saving.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, remove the offending content first, then merge what's left. Or agree with Hog Farm below.
Reywas92Talk 13:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect as suggested by the last few contributions. There is nothing much in the article but a dictionary definition and even that seems to be excessively US-centred.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Funding and profile links, barely pass notability. Above that it is promotional. The page got recently deleted and got created again.
Lordofhunter (
talk) 05:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
DeleteTempted to flag for G4. Now serially deleted, no more notable now than it was in 2016 and 2022. Salt, to boot. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 09:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt, this is not notable, as already mentioned above. Is PROMO.
Oaktree b (
talk) 20:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP. Google brings up nothing but social media and streaming sites, so there are no RS to establish the notability of this label.
ArcAngel (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete More Serio? This non-notable person is all over Wiki. There have also been discussions about his article, a film he did and albums by him. There is some sort of promotion going on here. Agree with nom, I can't find any mention of the record label that we can use to satisfy GNG or CORP.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - as in strong delete. The article lists other notable artists, which is an indication of notability. However, I can't find any evidence these artists ever released material on this label, not even on discogs, which is evidence of hoax.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 01:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. The claims of releasing other artists' work are unsupported and thus violate
WP:V. This and related articles seem to be part of some sort of promotional astroturfing campaign. --Kinut/c 22:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable academic and civil servant. I find no mentions of him in RS, no citation factors that could help with PROF. Zero hits in both Jstor and Gscholar, appears largely as a memorial to an otherwise non-notable individual.
Oaktree b (
talk) 04:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 04:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Not notable as a soldier. Sources given only mention him in passing and I can't find anything extra that would warrant keeping the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
this means deleting the article is against guidelines here?
Abshir55 (
talk) 05:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject just doesn’t pass
WP:GNG. If
WP:GNG were satisfied, there would be a case against deleting. However, there is no evidence that the subject meets
WP:NOTABILITY requirements that would warrant having an article. If there was evidence of
WP:NOTABILITY, then having an article could be considered. However, the subject isn’t notable as I have outlined, and therefore the article should be deleted.
Shawn Teller (
talk) 04:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable game designer that died in the war in Ukraine. Largely serving as a memorial page to the person. No sources found, barely mentioned in media
[40] is an interview with his brother that doesn't lend much to notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. For the reasons in the nomination. It's very sad that he died in the war, but there's not wide coverage of his game designing.
BoyTheKingCanDance (
talk) 07:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
GSC Game World#Russian invasion of Ukraine where he is mentioned, per
WP:ATD. He is mostly mentioned in the context of working at the company for a long period. His death is extremely tragic, especially for the gaming industry, but
WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 12:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - not notable for stand alone article, per nom.
WP:NOTNEWS applies.
Kierzek (
talk) 14:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A long passing siding, apparently used to tie on helpers though the grade here is already pretty steep. Aerials show a substantial realignment in the 1950s, the scars of which are still apparent. It may be a decent place for railfanning but I couldn't find evidence that it is notable as such.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is enough to get a
WP:GEOLAND pass, i.e. some history.
Delete I'm not sure what the editor above is referring to, but there is no notability here and this does not even come close to meeting GEOLAND.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 13:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Another unpopulated spot on a rail line. As much as I love trains, we're not the train fans gazetteer.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - No evidence of notability; the railfan sources are not impressive. –
dlthewave☎ 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Borderline on
WP:BAND. Hard to say, as the main source in the article is
this blog. Possibly passes #11, as the article states the band got heavy rotation on
WBAM; I'm not sure if this is considered a "major radio" network. Also potentially passes #5, as they had one single released on
Bang Records, and another single potentially(?) released on
FAME Records (if FAME can be considered a "major record label"). Ambiguity could be cleared up if I could find online sources, but there are few (
[41]). Perhaps someone has access to other media to help this article pass notability guidelines.
Mbdfar (
talk) 00:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is all I can find and it's not a RS
[42] but it describes the group as having a regional fame. There are likely some old paper sources that could be used to source this article, but I really don't want to dig them up; I can't find any sourcing we can use at present.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: What a strange concept for a list of two just in a city's neighborhood. There's
List of hospitals in Zimbabwe where these might fit, but these are just non-notable clinics.
Reywas92Talk 00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not seeing the utility of having a list pointing to two red-linked articles that only appear to be small local medical clinics.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm not seeing the point either — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Elinruby (
talk •
contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lacking indepth coverage with her as the subject. Fails
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 00:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - another non-notable ambassador. Fails
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I was not able to find any sufficient information online on this.
Nocturnal781 (
talk) 01:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 20:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.