Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 02 October 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Discover My Body

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

I found an in-depth review from an inconclusive source, and a four paragraph review from a different inconclusive source. GamingOnLinux is unreliable, so the other secondary source in the article can't be used. QuietCicada ( talk) 23:52, 3 October 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 merge‎ to Meat on the bone. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Boneless meat

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

As can be seen from the sparce content, this article does ot contribute anything new; some of the information is opinion or even so obvious that it does not require inclusion ("not require eating around or carving around the bone"). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 10:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, opinion backed up by low-quality sources, provides very little information. Don't see any justification for it having its own article. GraziePrego ( talk) 04:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Merge with meat on the bone. The article doesn't have enough significance on its own to warrant an article. GoldMiner24  Talk 00:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Still a DICDEF, same as it was almost a year ago. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with meat on the bone. It's only a small amount of information, but it could be useful for comparison within the 'meat on the bone' article. -- Primium ( talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Britannica has an entry on deboning at https://www.britannica.com/topic/deboning (although its more of a disambiguation page). If one looks in google books and searches for "deboning" there are large number of sources discussing this as a concept directly and in detail. I think it would be possible to cover the topic of "boneless meat" through an article on deboning because that concept would easily pass WP:SIGCOV. However, it's not something I am interested in tackling. Ideally this article should be moved to deboning and updated to reflect that change. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:37, 10 October 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 merge‎ to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Trendall Crag

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

A geographic feature that isn't protected or otherwise populated. Not seeing significant coverage in web sources either, everything is about Alex Trendall and not this crag. JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs) 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. Trendall Crag is mentioned in connection with the fjord in this publication (page 158). [2]. I'm concerned at losing Wikipedia's geographical features coverage but agree that a separate article is not warranted in this case and the material is better served placed within a more comprehensive article. Rupples ( talk) 02:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:22, 10 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Eniac Ventures

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

This company exists, but has not received enough significant coverage to merit a page on WP. All the coverage just mentions the company, but does not discuss it. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The company raises funds and invests in various start-ups is about all I gleaned from the article despite its multitude of sources. Don't see how the WP:CORPDEPTH part of WP:NCORP is satisfied from brief mentions based on company press releases and interviews with the owners. Lack of analysis of the business. The essay WP:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase comes to mind in that the sources merely cover routine business transactions. Rupples ( talk) 02:56, 9 October 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Athena Massey

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

Since the last AFD in 2020, she's had no new roles, apart from a minor appearance in a documentary made this year, We Kill for Love, for which she gets passing mentions in the four Google News hits for her name. This version is substantially longer, having been padded out with a lot of highly promotional fan language, and still using IMDB for about a third of its sources. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find SIGCOV of her in reliable sources, just a lot of mentions in film and TV credits for minor roles, as you can see in the cites here, and a few interviews on podcasts and YouTube. Article mentions that she was featured twice in Femme Fatales (magazine), but as the WP article notes, " It was unique in that it encouraged contributions from the actresses themselves...", and I can't see that as counting substantially toward meeting WP:NACTOR. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Video games, and California. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The "shusher" on Senfield is iconic, but it's not what we're looking for, notability-wise. Sources used are cast lists and press stories where she's listed as an actress in xyz production. Not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I wrote this article for the simple fact that I have been a fan of the subject for some time. I came to Wikipedia as the go-to platform for finding more information where she has been active and found a blank page. This was surprising to me because she was referenced several time on the platform on various films, shows, etc., along with other actors of her level that DID have active pages. So, I took it on myself to create one. I did see the previous deletion that said the citations were largely IMDB. So I went out of my way to use as many sources other than IMDB in my cites. If I was a fan looking for her on Wikipedia today, his is the exact type of page I would be looking for. To the comment that she hasn't been active is incorrect. As noted, she is active in the various interviews and appearances in connection to her various roles. For her fan base and others, this IS an informative article. Keith0603 ( talk) 14:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    While I have no opinion on whether or not this page it kept, I would like to point out that your argument for not deleting the article is WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a valid rationale for keeping it. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair point. I will try again and be more objective. The comment regarding the number of IMDB links is valid. My understanding was that I needed citations for everything in the article. In looking at other similar articles, I should have only had the citations back to a single page on IMDB (where applicable) and take off all the individual citations for each item in the lists. I would be more than happy to make those changes. That should address that concern and clean up the document. Keith0603 ( talk) 21:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems to have had a few rather significant roles in notable films ( Shadow of a Scream and her appearance in We Kill for Love does not seem really minor (or this , on that very film), for example, and some in TV shows. So all in all, she seems notable. Still, the page needs clean up (and is not a B-article in my view but I won't reassess it just now).- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't agree with the assertion of "just a lot of mentions in film and TV credits for minor roles". While she did have many guest starring roles in popular shows at the time, she had top billing in several films. Additionally, Femme Fatales may have encouraged contributions, the interview I quoted was done by a journalist and was not self-submitted. Keith0603 ( talk) 21:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I removed the redundant citations with regards to the comments on the page needing to be cleaned up. Keith0603 ( talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I removed all of the external references except for IMDB. As an actor, I still feel this is valid, but removed the rest. Additionally, I went though and edited to be more "encyclopedic". I have only written one other published article, so please bear with me as I learn. I do feel that it reads better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith0603 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I have made various edits to address the issues that have been raised here. I'll try to list them here. COI - As mentioned, I am a fan of the subject but have no other connection, personal, professional or otherwise. I am not, have not, and will not be compensated for this article. All the information I gathered was via interviews in magazines or podcasts. I did notice I inadvertently deleted a citation during one of my edits that I have since restored. Since the COI tag doesn't mention what area is uncited, I don't know how else to fix. Tone/Peacock tag. I did edit and/or remove several places where I saw this. If there is any other specific areas I would be happy to fix. Notability tag. I believe this has been addressed in the discussions on this page already. Reliability - again, I'm not sure which sources this refers to. If it's IMDB, then I would call out that other actors use this successfully as a citation on other pages in Wikipedia. Again, since I've only previously published once, I appreciate your patience with making this process work. Keith0603 ( talk) 00:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors about this article. As an aside, User:Keith0603, you've probably commented enough now for others to understand your point of view on this article and the subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree nothing has changed since the last nomination. BrigadierG ( talk) 22:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources (fails WP:GNG), lack of major roles in multiple notable productions (fails WP:NACTOR). -- Mika1h ( talk) 14:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete @ BrigadierG I agree with you.-- Correspondentman ( talk) 08:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I dispute the comment that she has had no notable roles in multiple productions. She has starred in 5 Roger Corman productions, which included 4 films and one film that became a TV series. She also had a lead role in 3 Westwood Studios video games. Keith0603 ( talk) 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • For reliable sources, would references to physical DVDs be better than IMDB? This seems to qualify as a secondary source and should be undeniable proof. The guidelines that I read here are a bit vague. I would be happy to provide if this is a more acceptable source. Keith0603 ( talk) 23:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unfortunately, the subject is still not notable enough for now. The above editor does not seem to have the usual signs of a paid editor (so I’m inclined to believe their claim that they are unrelated to the subject), so I would highly advise them to better familiarise themselves with the guidelines about reliable sources, and try to edit other articles first. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Guilty as charged. I am a newbie having only published one other article. That article was not challenged for deletion, so I am new to this process. I do appreciate your patience with me. I hope this means we can remove the COI tag then. As advised, I did additional research on both reliable sources and notability. First notability as this seems to be the biggest sticking point here. For film notability, one of the stated criteria WP:NFOE can be "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema". The recent documentary Massey appeared in, "We Kill For Love" satisfies this as 3 of her films that she had the lead role (Star Portal, Shadow of a Scream, and Undercover) and one series (Red Shoe Diaries) were covered. This documentary was featured in the 2023 Overlook Film Festival in 2023, which satisfies another criteria of "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release". With 3 of her films then satisfying the notable film criteria, it would follow that the notability of her as an actor is also satisfied with the following criteria "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (Satisfies WP:NACTOR). Because this documentary received significant publicity, I was able to find a review in the New York Times of the film, and review in Forbes that specifically called out Massey as one of the "major stars of the era". I will be adding these citations to the page. This should also at least be a good start to satisfying the issue about reliable sources. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that deletion be reconsidered as I believe the criteria has been met. Thanks again for your patience working with a newbie. Keith0603 ( talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith0603 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTRESS. There appears to be plenty of WP:SIGCOV of her work to pass our notability requirements for actresses. See [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. There are also a lot of snippet reviews of her films in books in google books. She clearly was a main cast member of multiple films and television shows. I'm concerned that the accusations of coi and the promotional tone of the article are distracting the voters above from viewing the topic through the lens of notability policy and actually following WP:BEFORE. She clearly passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the "significant coverage" links given above are clear passing mentions, none give any actual information about Massey, just list her as having played a role. Fram ( talk) 17:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found this article.
Which has significant coverage of her role in Shadow of a Scream. Silver seren C 21:23, 10 October 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 Draftify‎. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keegan Hartley

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 23:26, 3 October 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani

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

I just came across this article. I read WP:GNG and it says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I had also read the previous discussion and I think CharlieMehta is right. Here are some of my findings below which are almost similar to the previous nominator.

Citation 1-The portion of the book that discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani predominantly consists of his own quotes, with minimal input from the author. Does not help to meet GNG.

Citation:2 It is evident from the title itself that this printed article solely presents his perspective on the Indian economy. WP:INTERVIEWS.

Citation:3-There is only a minimal mention that briefly discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani's presence on a stage alongside his father. It lacks substantial coverage on him, but it indicates that his appointment as GCA president is a political decision. It is still not helping to meet GNG.

Citation 5- Same opinion as the previous nom. WP:CHURN.

Citation 6: Merely a profile of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani found on a generic media portal that does not meet the criteria of being considered a reliable source according to WP:RS.

Citation 7: announcement of his election as the head of the state football association. Does not count towards GNG.

Citation 8: brief mention of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani being appointed as a vice president of GCA. Does not count towards notability.

Citation 10: Interview. So does not count towards notability.

Holding two administrative positions is not a guaranteed notability factor. Citations that address the topic directly is and in detail is required which is clearly missing here. So this article must be removed. Irbasdude ( talk) 23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Irbasdude ( talk) 23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While you might have valid reasons for renominating, it's important for all of us to adhere to the WP:6MONTHS rule which states; if the discussion regarding last AfD resulted in a 'keep' decision, it's typically advisable to refrain from proposing the page for deletion again for a minimum of six months, unless there are fresh points to raise. Charlie ( talk) 04:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: absence of significant coverage to meet GNG. Some sources utilized in the article does seem to be mainly PR piece. Most of the sources are trivial, routine, re-written ones. The other option is a redirect to Reliance Industries Limited. 103.182.166.145 ( talk) 09:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Surprised to see this article renominated after only two months since the last AFD. Soft deletion is not an option so we'll need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and possibly salt. I don’t think this subject is notable yet, and I agree with ip above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Reliance Industries Limited. Worldiswide ( talk) 03:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Most of the sources are about him taking over the role of the president of GCA which is incidential and does not count towards notability. At first glance, the 6th citation from All Gujarat News seems to have given some coverage. But it is a sponsored content with no byline. The same applies to other sources as well. The offline sources appear to be interviews.l which is primary sources. So this article fails our notability criteria. Redirecting is not a good option as he is not holding a permanent position. It can change at anytime. 111.92.123.60 ( talk) 18:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage to warrant a standalone article. I'm also opposed to redirecting, as the subject is not even mentioned at the proposed target. CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:13, 11 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Natalie White

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

Okay, okay, I'll do this one. Previously AfDd because it was another Natalie White ( Natalie White (Survivor contestant) and PROD declined because it was previously AfDd (although procedurally the AfD was a different Natalie White), this particular Natalie White is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and therefore the article should be deleted. No evidence of enduring impact on the arts, major exhibitions, national critical review or anything else, in fact, that meets WP:ARTIST. Unrelated to this AfD, the article's history is unusually messy - probably the only notable thing here. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I am not finding reliable sources for the biographical information provided. The performance pieces are cited with brief mentions and interviews. The article as written in WP:PROMO. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 15:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I am not finding enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an encyclopedia entry, per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON at this time. Article was created by a WP:SPA whose only two edits were to create this article and add a photo. Later it was directly edited by the artist. While these are not necessarily reasons for deletion, they may explain some of the promotional tone and style. Netherzone ( talk) 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - In case that the artist page is deleted, I intend to move the Survivor contestant page back to the base name. Is that okay? -- George Ho ( talk) 15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Previous AfDs for THAT Natalie White have closed as delete and redirect, so I'd say FWIW that would be unwise and possibly result in a speedy delete. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't intend to restore the article, but... ah, well.... George Ho ( talk) 18:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I don't mean to waggle fingers... A result of this AfD could be a redirect to Survivor. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Promo piece edited by paid editors. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIS. Biographical info like "Born to Parents Robert White and Gina Bombardiere in Fairmont, West Virginia. White has one sister, Elizabeth Marie White. Her upbringing was frugal, familial and religious." is unsupported by reliable sources. Elspea756 ( talk) 12:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NARTIST isn't met. Her exhibitions are temporary. Which permanent collection is her piece part of? Graywalls ( talk) 23:13, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Alex Nelson

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

Non-notable musician without sufficient SIGCOV to justify an article. Both sources are minor-league local coverage, with nothing outside of his local Florida area and nothing since (at least that I found on a search). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 3 October 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. ✗ plicit 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wendy Maree Wilkins

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

PROD removed by article creator. PROD rationale was: "Non-notable performer/creator. Sources do not indicate independent SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited to her from her (non-notable) movie from its co-stars."

The best possible source in the article is an interview, which generally are not weighted very heavily for notability claims. Other than that, I was not able to locate any appropriate sigcov. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 22:33, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Euro XIII

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

Non-notable rugby league competition, most of the content is unreferenced. Cannot find any further news articles since the initial announcement, so presumably this idea never got off the ground. J Mo 101 ( talk) 22:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The entire content of this article is speculation, and the only reference is that of speculation aswell calling it a "planned competition". Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Mn1548 ( talk) 15:39, 4 October 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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ULPS ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Venice bus crash

2023 Venice bus crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, bus crashes are quite common so I'm not sure if this counts as notable. There is worldwide media attention, but I'm not sure how notable this is for a Wikipedia article. There is quite little to talk about -- it's a bus crash. — Panamitsu (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose - An event with 21 deaths should be more than enough for a wikipedia article Lukt64 ( talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, typically such bus crashes are not deemed important enough to go on the Front Page's WP:In The News, but I think they generally survive AfD. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This event is unlikely to become notable or ever be anything more than a news story. But as a general rule, we're supposed to wait a few days per WP:RAPID just to be sure. So let's give it a few days. In the meantime, there are dozens of other articles about bus crashes that need to be sorted through to determine which ones had lasting effects and which ones are just news stories. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I withdraw per comments about WP:RAPID, and with the death count of 21 it has a chance on being notable. — Panamitsu (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Panamitsu, note that there's no death count provision in our notability guidelines. It's not a factor that editors familiar with the guidelines take into consideration. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I understand, but due to the death count it may receive a lot of media coverage in the near future and have a chance on becoming notable. I personally don't believe it will become notable, but I withdraw on the basis on WP:RAPID. — Panamitsu (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose This is one of the deadliest road accidents in Italy's history. Obviously the article needs more work but it only happened a few hours ago. Johndavies837 ( talk) 22:57, 3 October 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 Scots Wikipedia#Controversy. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Scotched English

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

As stated in a prior (invalid, due to recreation) PROD, this unreferenced article is a thinly veiled attack against the perpetrator of the Scots Wikipedia incident. I can find no evidence that this is an actual term in use; the few matches for "Scotched English" or "In Scotched" in Google, Books, and Scholar are using the phrase in a context totally unrelated to language, English or Scots. This is borderline WP:G3 hoax or WP:G10 attack page territory, but given the numerous past contested attempts to remove the page via PROD, BLAR and RfD, AfD seemed more appropriate than unilaterally speedy deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Scotch, or rather cut back, to a DAB. A head note on Scots Wikipedia says 'Scotched English' redirects there, which it apparently did until recently, and which might be what some readers are looking for. User:Uanfala suggests in page history that the concept "is definitely a thing" but is not called 'Scotched English'; maybe they had something like Code-mixing, Pidgin, or Anglicisation (linguistics) in mind? None of these quite fit the term – which, as Rosguill's research suggests, doesn't have a single specific meaning – but all might be listed on a DAB. Cnilep ( talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_22#Scotched_English. signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ Rosguill: "this unreferenced article is a thinly veiled attack against the perpetrator of the Scots Wikipedia incident." This statement is false. The "perpetrator" only made their account in 2012, yet the "thinly veiled attack" was around in 2005. It may be that it's a neologism made by a scowiki editor (the enwiki page was previously deleted via PROD in 2009 after all) CiphriusKane ( talk) 00:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you, I've struck those portions of the rationale. I don't think it affects the other arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'd have deleted as nonsense, there is no sourcing and this appears to be OR. This is [12] the closest I can find. G1, maybe G3. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    G1 is reserved for totally incomprehensible gibberish, not stuff someone made up but which makes sense grammatically. signed, Rosguill talk 01:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Whilst the WP:NONSENSE guideline defines the term as gibberish, this page is English-common nonsense in every other sense of the word. In fact, I honestly thought it was a hoax on Scots English. For policy, I'd go with a hard 'no' for WP:GNG, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR (and, frankly, just about everything else starting with [[WP:. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Scots Wikipedia#Controversies: No sources, reads like an essay. The phononomeon is mentioned here, although not by name, so this is a {{ R to subtopic}}. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Personal essay with no sources provided. If sources can be found, I would also vote merge into Scots Wikipedia#Controversies. -- Primium ( talk) 02:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - totally unencyclopedic, exactly what should not be here. If I thought it was in addition a joke, I'd be calling for sanctions against its creator. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 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 keep. Consensus is clear at this point. BD2412 T 14:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Lynda Suzanne Robinson

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

Conducted BEFORE search and found no SIRS. Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 21:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Texas. Shellwood ( talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No book reviews that I can find, does not seem to pass AUTHOR or GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found three reviews on Publishers Weekly under the name Suzanne Robinson (See 1, 2, and 3) and 6 more under the name Lynda S. Robinson ( see search list here). Likewise, Kirkus lists 7 reviews under Lynda S. Robinson ( see search list here) while the New York Times lists 5 reviews plus an essay mentioning her. In addition, using the Wikipedia Library I found a ton of reviews in places like Magill's Book Reviews, Booklist, Wall Street Journal, and Library Journal along with biographies for this author in reference works such as Baker & Taylor Author Biographies and Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works. Per WP:Author, Lynda Suzanne Robinson easily meets our notability guidelines.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SouthernNights. St Anselm ( talk) 16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SouthernNights, and note there were clear references to multiple reviews already present in the article at the time of prod & AfD. It would be easy to stub the article to remove the promotion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 20:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but strip out or source the completely unsourced biographical content. Some seems based on / copied from her archived web page here. Pam D 07:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as per SouthernNights. Suonii180 ( talk) 11:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Changing to keep per SouthernNights. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have now cleaned up the article to remove the fluff and also added new citations.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:57, 8 October 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 Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Adult Contemporary (radio network)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a defunct radio format. Let'srun ( talk) 20:51, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Earthlings?

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

As I noted in my PROD, there's an AllMusic bio and two reviews, but I found nothing else to support notability. However, said PROD has been removed because, as noted, this band has multiple notable members. I'll save the longer rant and just say that I think WP:NBAND#6 is silly for a standard of notability, especially when it's the only one a band has going for it. In this case, it pretty clearly is the only thing, and it alone should not be enough for this band page to be kept. Unless more coverage is located somewhere, then I see no reason for this to be kept as is. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Nothing found for this band, Eddie Vedder seems to have a similarly-named band [13], it's a delete for me. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if you're going for "multiple notable members" as a notability claim, the article still has to be reliably sourced to real media coverage — but literally the only footnote here is their own Bandcamp, which is not a notability-building source at all. Bearcat ( talk) 12:27, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Lidia Aviles

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

My intention was to put this for WP:A7 as I could not establish notability for an academic, but I thought to put it for discussion as being an EU Climate Pact Ambassador might be an indication of notability! Still I think this article should be deleted FuzzyMagma ( talk) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Lack of sourcing. When sources are in Danish, Spanish, Arabic and English, something's fishy. Sources appear mostly primary or non-RS. Innovation Expert is so broad as to be almost useless as an indicator of notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - doesn't seem to be notable, only passing mentions in the vast majority of sources. Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 20:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Generally pass GNG because being an EU Climate Pact Ambassador is an indication of notability. 102.91.48.185 ( talk) 23:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    no, it is not. the position itself is not notable, there is no significant coverage from reliable and independent sources for it. So please do not write an article about the position. In addition, as per their website, The following individuals can become Pact Ambassadors:
    1. Leaders of organisations or associations
    2. Community leaders, leaders of informal groups or movements
    3. Mayors, parliamentarians, policymakers or other public office holders
    4. Representatives of cultural, educational or research institutions
    5. Influencers, opinion leaders
    Except of part of no. 3, these are vague descriptions and there is a need of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources which for this individual are currently not their. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 08:30, 8 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Jack Claude Nezat

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

This page has previously been deleted for reasons of lack of notability and I have been unable to find anything that has made this person more notable than at the previous deletions. As the last deletion of the aricle was a WP:BLPPROD, it seems the article is ineligible for WP:G4, and as well it includes some newer content, so it wouldn't likely be eligible anyways. Regardless, I have not been able in my WP:BEFORE to find anything to indicate that this person meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Tartar Torte 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and France. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to be a long-standing article on fr, which presumably this is a translation of? I've not found any reviews in Ebsco or Proquest searches for various versions of the subject's name. The first 2011 deletion request by Whpq claimed works were self-published, which would explain the dearth of reviews. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:30, 4 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The Prince of Landis

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

Unfortunately I don't believe this game got a single significant mention in a reliable source. It fails notability criteria completely, and the sources it cites are all unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

What? This is a real game, on steam? https://store.steampowered.com/app/1708970/The_Prince_of_Landis/
Everything in the article is true, even the bad parts? 173.20.126.245 ( talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia requires that articles need to be notable. This means the information in the article can not only be verified by good secondary sources, but has had significant coverage to warrant encyclopedic merit, as the site is not a repository of any and all information. Sometimes these policies can be a source of frustration for people who are passionate about a subject that just hasn't received enough coverage to merit an article. I hope that helps explain things and I'm sorry that you may be disappointed to see this article nominated for deletion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 20:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
As an addendum, WP:BUTITSTRUE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources about the game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 20:52, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Colonization of Europa

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

First of all, to avoid misunderstandings, this is about Europa the moon of Jupiter, not Europe the continent. Having clarified that, let's go on.

This article is a great case of WP:SYNTH. The topic of the article is about the chances of building a human settlement on Europa, but the sources do not deal with that topic. Sources are almost always about something else, that this article repurposes into its topic. For example, reference 4: the article says that the low temperatures are a problem for colonization, but the source merely reports the temperatures. Sources 9-10 discuss the likelihood of microbes in the European subsurface ocean, but not the interaction of such microbes and human metabolism (it is also possible that our own microbes decimate the alien ones, or that both are simply unable to interact in any significant way). And many cases are that way.

Needless to say, out there in the real world there are zero actual projects to do any of this. Human colonization of space so far only aims to the Moon and Mars; further than that is only in the minds of science fiction authors (and we already have Jupiter in fiction for that) and merely speculative authors. Reference 3 is one of those. I can only see a preview, but it says "the polar regions of Mercury, for example, have been suggested because of the suspected presence of water ice and an abundance of natural resources", seems quite hard to take seriously with just a superficial knowledge of the actual conditions on the surface of Mercury.

For the record, there was a previous AFD here, but I understand that the article looked differently back then and that it no longer applies. Cambalachero ( talk) 18:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Cambalachero ( talk) 18:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: OR/SYNTH. Sources about space probes and Alzheimers, do not generally go together. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and in regards to the last comment in the last AfD from 2005: " In a few decades (would have been sooner if Nixon hadn't cut funding), we might conceivably need to split an article with a title such as RickK suggested (with most of the current content) from (Actual) Colonization of the outer solar system. In practice, I suspect the closest we'll come to "colonization" for centuries is the equivalent of workers on offshore oil-drilling rigs. I'm a science fiction fan, and realize that Interstellar colonization is a quite different and longer-term matter than Colonization of the outer solar system, so they probably shouldn't be combined into one "... of space" page"... Well, it's been 2 decades, nothing has happened, so, we still don't need a split. Can barely get people in orbit now, let alone other planets. Maybe we'll revisit in 2045 wikipedia! Oaktree b ( talk) 19:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm biased, but I really don't think any article that long is appropriate for merge-deletion, which I'm pretty sure is going to happen. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 23:39, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Chelgate

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

Unsourced, reads like an advert - Rich T| C| E-Mail 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A PR article about a PR firm (with the only sourcing to their website!). Very meta. No sources found, other than a few mentions of items they've handled for various governments. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, their name pops up in a book chapter on Crypto ponzi schemes (which are a thing now?) [14]. Still not seeing enough for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete blatant promo piece. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Searching online, there isn't much available outside of passing mentions of involvement in PR issues. Article is just an ad piece. -- Primium ( talk) 17:22, 10 October 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 XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Fungus (XM)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a former satellite radio station. A WP:BEFORE check only came up with this [ [15]]. A redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels seems sensible but I'm open to other opinions. Let'srun ( talk) 16:45, 3 October 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Stealth conservative

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Glorified dictionary definition. Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - There's nothing really to this concept that isn't already completely conveyed by the plain meaning of the two words in the phrase. It's like having an article for "conservatives over 50" or something. And more to the point, regarding GNG there's no sourcing here that demonstrates it's a unique concept, a regularly referenced strain of conservatism, well-defined jargon, or the name of a movement or well defined group of people. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 16:25, 3 October 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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 23:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Trimble County High School

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

I cannot see how this school is notable Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

found this & this PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into new section within Trimble County, Kentucky#Education for an ATD. Nate • ( chatter) 18:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Switch to Keep Well-expanded and sourced now. Nate • ( chatter) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. In a short time using google, I was able to find several sources and added some of them to the article. I see several more available and will add them to the article when possible. I've not tried any Wikipedia Library partners as yet - I suspect much more will be available once that is done, especially once newspapers.com is again available. This school was founded in 1876, so it is likely that more sources are available offline. Jacona ( talk) 18:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Great thanks in that case I withdraw my request to delete and you can decide yourselves if you want to merge or not Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with the nominator that this article should be kept. The article has been improved from 1 tangential reference to 13, so per Hey, and WP:SIGCOV from multiple WP:RS, there's no reason to delete it. There are also many more sources available to improve the article further. Jacona ( talk) 21:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: "I cannot see how this school is notable" is really not a sufficient argument for deletion of a typical American high school article in 2023. Sure there are some small schools and such that aren't notable, and there's no automatic notability, but some explanation of why the school isn't notable should be made in the nomination. Most American high schools of any size have been meeting GNG in the vast majority of AfD discussions for 20 years now.-- Milowent • has spoken 14:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep as it's all Keeps and the AfD has been withdrawn. Keep also because Jacona esp. has done a terrific job in beefing up the article. Meets notability guidelines per previous discussion. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • StefenTower, I think Nate's Merge vote prevents a WP:SNOW close, even though the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no votes for deletion. —  Jacona ( talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Switched to keep, we can go forward with SNOW now. Nate • ( chatter) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Excellent. I was going to say I must have known I was being too optimistic, but it turns out I wasn't (this time). :) Now, we can hope to clear this one off the boards as quickly as it deserves. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:18, 6 October 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

NewsClick

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:WEB criteria. No notability by merit. Created purely based on WP:RECENTISM controversies. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The article on NewsClick should be retained as it satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria and is in line with Wikipedia policies.
    1. Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources: The article is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, as evidenced by the references provided. These sources include reputable news outlets such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, and others, which have reported on NewsClick's activities and controversies over a period of time. This demonstrates that NewsClick has received substantial attention and coverage beyond just recent events.
    2. Multiple Independent Sources: The references used in the article come from multiple independent sources, indicating that NewsClick's activities and controversies have been widely reported and analyzed by various media organizations. This aligns with Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability and reliable sourcing.
    3. Long-Term Impact and Relevance: The controversies surrounding NewsClick have raised questions about press freedom, journalistic integrity, and the use of stringent laws. These issues have long-term implications and are of public interest, making them relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
    4. Notability by Merit: NewsClick's notability is not solely based on recent controversies but also on its role as an independent media organization with a focus on progressive movements and independent journalism. Its history, mission, and contributions to journalism make it notable by merit.
    5. Compliance with Wikipedia Policies: The article adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. It provides factual information without bias.
    In light of these points and in accordance with Wikipedia's notability policies including WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and others, I believe the article on NewsClick should be kept, as it meets the criteria for notability and provides valuable information to Wikipedia readers. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️) 15:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Obviously notable, more than passing mention in multiple top level sources with significant coverage, including the New York Times this morning. The appeal to RECENTISM doesn't do anything at all to diminish the notability of the subject, RECENTISM isn't a notability guideline. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 16:31, 3 October 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 keep‎. North America 1000 06:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Kim Yong-il (politician, born 1947)

Kim Yong-il (politician, born 1947) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, specifically the part stating that sources must be independent of the subject (two of the sources are official Web sites sanctioned by the respective governments of North & South Korea). No information can be found via a Google search (except an Indian government source), owing to the fact that multiple politicians share his name. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk) 14:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't deny this. A position as high as "deputy foreign minister" is most certainly a notable title. However, I could not find a single reliable secondary non-governmental source outside of one that the Government of India created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namethatisnotinuse ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The official sources confirm he held the post, so meets WP:POLITICIAN as I said. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Here's the key, though. 0nly a few sources that are independent of the subject can be found. All the sources I could reliably locate without the Wikipedia Library are not related to him. I consider this a permanent stub. Look at the sources. All of them talk about his passing. Notability is not temporary. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk) 19:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
As WP:POLITICIAN says: The following are presumed to be notable... -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Former North Korean party secretary in charge of international relations dies". Nihon Housou Kyokai. 2 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  • Keep. Passes WP:NPOL. While I can sympathize with the nominator, officially recognized WP:SNGs are there for a reason. They exist as an alternative path to determining notability. If a subject meets an SNG it doesn't have to meet GNG. While the sourcing isn't there to pass SIGCOV, it doesn't matter because the subject clearly passes NPOL. 4meter4 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Habiba Tazi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Very poorly written, moved into article space despite not being approved by WP:AFC. I looked at the articles on fr.wiki and simple. Interestingly both were created by IPs and then taken over by a named user. I looked at one of the sources (in French), and it was not in-depth coverage about Habiba. It was mainly about the animal problem in Rabat generally and spent a paragraph talking about Habiba's brother, not her. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Morocco. Shellwood ( talk) 14:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article was created by a sock (now blocked), and moved from draft to article space by another sock (also blocked). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SoufianeElBahri2. It was also created in 2022 by a sock (same farm) and deleted per WP:G5. Given the current article's history, I don't think it qualifies for G5, and as both the blocking admin and the nominator, I don't feel comfortable doing it anyway, so unless another administrator intervenes, the AfD will play itself out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per G5 or re-draftify. I redraftified one of these iterations and left a warning on the now-blocked sock's talk page, but apparently they chose to ignore it. Looking at the history since I draftified it, I don't see any significant contribution by non-sock editors, so I believe this is still a G5 candidate. We shouldn't be encouraging sock farms. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's a G5, but understand your retience Bbb23. Consensus might be helpful here for future creations, but I don't see the notability needed for an article so delete on those grounds. Star Mississippi 12:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete promo piece made by confirmed Sockpuppets . Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:58, 5 October 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keir Giles

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

Doesn't reach notability. Only claimed to have reach notability recently because of authoring a controversial article on a current event. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk) 13:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

This article has been present since 2014, indicating that Giles was notable even before the controversial article. 2603:7000:8000:FD9F:2576:AB52:137:2361 ( talk) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The longevity of the article doesn’t mean anything though? We don’t have a rule that if it’s been here for a long time it’s notable. If anything it increases the risk of citogenesis. NM 18:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The article says that he is a director of research at a major defence firm, he's a public figure, and that he publishes articles in some very popular newspapers. Explain how he doesn't meet the notability guidelines? The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 04:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Easy-peasy BLP1E. NM 17:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I see no reason to delete this. This page has existed for almost a decade, so I find it very ironic how it suddenly gets accused of lacking notability almost immediately after the subject of the page becomes notable for their published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk • contribs)

I'm not casting a vote at present, but I want to point out that this argument is bunk. There's no irony here, just currently heightened attention. As noted above, how long the article has been here doesn't suggest anything about the subject's actual notability. — swpb T •  beyond •  mutual 08:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:JOURNALIST/ WP:NAUTHOR because he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers (he is a commentator widely cited by journalists). For example, BBC describes him as "probably Britain's leading watcher of Russian military matters". His book "Russia's War on Everybody" has won some critical attention ( review 1, review 2).— Alalch E. 21:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Tentative Keep. Google Scholar [16] gives top hits 254,248,127,124,102 (all single authored). Ebsco search gives multiple book reviews of different books, probably sufficient to meet AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep for the reasons listed above. The article is well-sourced and its subject is certainly notable. - 2003:CA:8707:CA7:A80F:84D7:67CA:E63C ( talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per above. Clearly notable. Not BLP1E in the slightest. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 10 October 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 merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Life Foundation

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

Fictional organization from Marvel comics. Plot summary + information on which comics (plus one movie and game) mention it. No reception/analysis. This is WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG, I fear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 3 October 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. Honestly, no point in keeping this going further. DS ( talk) 13:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)‎ reply

Mehrdad Nikoonahad

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

Can't find a thing suggesting notability. E Eng 12:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No sourced evidence of meeting relevant notability criteria provided in the article, and a search turns up nothing of consequence either. The 'visiting professor' post mentioned is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and even if the unsourced claims regarding Nikoonahad's career, inventions etc were verified, they appear not to have attracted the necessary in-depth coverage in secondary sources to meet more general notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Constant314 ( talk) 13:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • a) Good lord, I did a terrible job when I made a two-sentence substub in 2006. I think I may have just been following something from Requested Articles. b) Is "Senior Member of the IEEE" not itself an indicator of notability? DS ( talk) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
No. [17] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Heck no. I'm a senior member and I'm not notable. The requirements are a certain number of years plus a recommendation from three other senior members. The chapters compete (friendly) on numbers of senior members, so my chapter has an annual senior member drive. You bring in your resume, a three SMs read it and endorses it, and voila, you are a senior member. Constant314 ( talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, I believe I may have been thinking of "Fellows", then. DS ( talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood ( talk) 14:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Might have a high enough citation factor, I can't find it though. Appears the prolific scientist/engineer, several patents found under his name. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    On Scopus, his h-index is only 8. [18] Netherzone ( talk) 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    And the US Patent Office grants over 380,000 patents a year. [19] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Far from passing WP:PROF#C1 or #C3, the New Scientist source does not have in-depth coverage of him, and there seems nothing else. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A WP:BEFORE search online reveals very little, mainly social media content. The subject of the article does not pass criteria for WP:PROF, nor WP:GNG. The entry appears to be either an autobiography or possible COI; while that is not in itself a reason for deletion, it may explain the large amount of unsourced content and overall promotional tone of the article (and why his personal website in the infobox is his personal LinkedIn profile. WP is not a social networking site per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Netherzone ( talk) 14:17, 4 October 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 Rogue One. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Bodhi Rook

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

Minor Star Wars character. Plot summary + tiny receptions section based on few mentions in passing in movie reviews; my BEFORE shows nothing better. Recommend redirecting to List of Star Wars characters per WP:ATD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Rogue One - Supporting character who only appeared in a single movie, whose role in the plot and casting information is already covered in the main article for that movie. As stated by the nom, the reception section is actually made up of reviews and coverage of Rogue One, in which small mentions of the character within that general coverage of the film is being cherry picked out. Additional searches do not turn up the kind of coverage in reliable sources that would warrant an independent article separate from the main article on the single film the character appeared in. I strongly support having Rogue One be the redirect target over the suggested List of Star Wars characters since, as the characters only notable appearance, it is very likely the page that would be the most use to users searching for the character. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Passing mentions that don't rise to level of WP:SIGCOV. Would accept a redirect, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:03, 7 October 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. There is actually a consensus to delete here anyway, but regardless, as a number of editors have pointed out, there is also a requirement for us to Do The Right Thing. Jess is a reliable source for the fact that the subject doesn't want an article, and if we consider the minimal extra value to an encyclopedia that has 7 million articles versus that request, then given the borderline notability the latter should win every time. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Indira Raman

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

Fixing improperly created AFD. User's reason: Please can we draftify/ delete this page? The subject of the page does not want a page, she isn't happy being on wikipedia, and it seems unnecessary to keep it up. Jesswade88 (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't link it, I would just appreciate if we could move it to the draft space. The article is apparently causing unnecessary distress, which was obviously never the intention. Jesswade88 ( talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh well. We'll see what happens, the closer may consider what weight to give WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/ WP:BLPKIND in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Why draftify and not delete? - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps because draftify is quick and anyone can do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, if she didn’t want an article, she shouldn’t have gone and gotten herself elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Hyperbolick ( talk) 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
That's harsh - and I don't believe being one of the c. 5,700 members is regarded as a strong claim to notability per se, per previous discussions I can't exactly remember. She seems rather marginal for WP:NPROF to me. We are getting more selective on named chairs, nowc there are so many. Johnbod ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Johnbod: Harsh? Not like the page is a hit piece making bad accusations. Literally just what you could find out about this person on the web, put together in one place. Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Courtesy deletion, per WP:BIODELETE. Subject is notable, but not so notable that not having an article about her is a gaping hole in our encyclopedia. Jess Wade has noticeable contacts in the scientific community, if she says subject wants the page deleted, I believe her. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences has 6385 living members, do we really have articles on all of them? I doubt it. The article is being nominated by the person who originally created the article, only a few months ago. Let us not torture the people we write articles about ... unless they truly deserve it, like politicians . -- GRuban ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Torture? Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, you got me, that was ... hyperbolic. Let's say torment.-- GRuban ( talk) 19:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Not having articles for all 6385 living members sounds a bit like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't think this really falls within the scope of BIODELETE or BLPREQUESTDELETE, and I'm not seeing anything on the page that is offensive. If the page subject would like anything removed from the page (perhaps things from her early life, or about her interests in mental health), we should accommodate that, but this doesn't extend to page deletion. If this were a case of someone who was marginally notable for something that happened in passing and was dodgy (cf WP:PERP), or if it were poorly sourced, then BIODELETE would apply, but here, we have a very distinguished scientist with a named chair at a major institution, who easily passes WP:PROF. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I'm leaning towards keep for similar reasoning, but I would support trimming parts of the article if that would help. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • As a follow-up to what I said, this isn't some trivial "named chair" at some low-tier institution, but a significant named chair, and chairpersonship of a department, at a major US research university. And I've looked over her publications, and they are high-profile publications in major journals with high rates of citation by other authors. This is an easy pass of WP:PROF, not by any means a borderline case. I think the only reason we are here at AfD is because an editor received some sort of personal communication from the page subject. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • For whatever it may be worth, I made this edit to the page: [20]. It's an EL to an extended interview she gave, and consented to have online. I recognize that it's not as prominent as a Wikipedia bio, but it is evidence against the idea that she wants to remain private online. I really do wish that we had more information about what she may or may not have said to an editor, because this AfD seems to rest entirely on what that editor has indicated about it. We don't even have an OTRS request, and I'm very uncomfortable with Wikipedia making content decisions about what a page subject maybe said. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Fish, I see where you're swimming from. If this was a nomination by some newbie editor I too would be saying, "are you sure"? But this isn't just the article author, who one would think would be the person who would most want her work kept. This is Jess Wade. We have a non-trivial article about her, because some of the biggest reliable sources in the world, from the BBC to the Washington Post to El Pais have written about her work writing hundreds of articles about women and minority scientists just like this one. I think we can take her word for this. -- GRuban ( talk) 23:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      I've been trying very hard not to ABF about that editor, but I'm genuinely uncomfortable. It wouldn't be that hard for her to simply respond to the multiple requests and pings that have been sent her way. I could say a lot more, but I won't. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete including per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which includes, Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Based on the article and its sources, and my search, Raman appears to be a non-public figure who is relatively unknown. She was interviewed in 2016 about an essay she wrote and also presented a version of at a 2016 research conference. The one source available at the GNews link is not actually about her, it is about a report described as highlighting "cases of discrimination, bullying and harassment - alongside a systemic failure across the sector to deal with these issues effectively" - the interview about her discussing her experience as a woman in science is linked in the "Related Content" section. While the specific objections are unclear, I think it would be better for us to not try to guess or use subjective judgments about what may be objectionable, and to instead honor the wishes of this subject. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • If I understand correctly, the only information that we have about "the wishes of this subject" is in this edit summary: [21], and subsequent comments about that in this AfD discussion. Also, your comment made me take a closer look at the wording about "there is no rough consensus". That's what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says, in quotation marks attributed to WP:BIODELETE. But BIODELETE doesn't say that, and the page history doesn't show any recent changes about it. Instead, it says "and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete". (And in the absence of a page subject request, it says "where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed.") It seems to me that we should want to have more than that edit summary, for us to get from the AfD discussion so far, from may delete, to must delete. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      We have the primary author's, Jess Wade's, comments right on this discussion, actually. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Yes, we edit conflicted with me correcting that in my comment before I saw your reply. It's awfully hard for me to reconcile that with what the page actually says. This case is very different from the situations that BIODELETE and BLPREQUESTDELETE were written to address. It's true that the page subject is a non-public figure, as we define the term. But this is very far from a page about a marginally notable person that presents uncomfortable information about that person. The page, as it currently appears, presents her in a pretty laudatory way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      And yet she doesn't want it. I don't think we should use our judgment about whether or not she should like a page. If she doesn't, she doesn't. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      I hear you on that. But I think we are using our judgment to conclude that "she doesn't want it". I'm going by what the deletion and BLP policies say about this, and it just doesn't seem to me to add up to a "must delete" kind of situation. Maybe a little more information about what the page subject has communicated about not wanting the page would make me change my mind. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      WP:BIODELETE previously said "rough consensus" until it was changed with the edit summary "tweak" on 18:27 20 January 2021 [22], and there was some discussion on the policy Talk page. But I don't think the "tweak" changes or seems intended to change the basic policy framework - we appear to have a nonpublic figure who is relatively unknown, who has credibly requested deletion of an article written about them, and as noted in the AfD nom and this discussion, we have more than an edit summary to support the wishes of the subject. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Where do we have that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      There is the AfD nomination, which includes the statement from article creator Jesswade88 [23], and then another comment from Jesswade88 [24] in this discussion; WP:BLPKINDNESS notes, Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative, so from my view, this appears to be a credible request. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Obviously, everyone here wishes to avoid BLP-UNKINDNESS. At the same time, it would be very helpful to know whether this is truly a case of the page subject saying "this is causing me distress, because the article says xyz, and that's something that I don't want publicized online", or whether it's "you know, being the subject of a Wikipedia page isn't all that it's made out to be". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      I am not suggesting that anyone is intentionally attempting to be unkind; I cited BLPKINDNESS to support the credibility of the request made on behalf of the subject. And to add to my previous comments, there appears to be no policy-based requirement for a relatively unknown, nonpublic figure article subject to do more than request deletion. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Understood. But both policies say "may be deleted"; neither says "must be deleted". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, and from my view, the relatively small size of the article and general reliance on primary and nonindependent sources supports the exercise of discretion to delete. My opinion might be different if WP:PROF#C7, WP:GNG, or an SNG (such as WP:NAUTHOR) were supported because the subject would probably not be relatively unknown. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think we should have articles on all female American Academy members. Deleting the article on her would leave a hole in our coverage. She has a very easy pass of WP:PROF#C3. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just to add that she also has a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5, through the named professorship, at least. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per subject's request.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While we should honor a request from the subject in a case where notability is marginal, I see a completely solid pass of WP:NPROF here. If there are specific aspects of the article that are causing distress, then likely we could trim those. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 04:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per subject and creating editor's request, as per Beccaynr's rationale. Zeromonk ( talk) 07:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We need to give special attention to the wishes of living people. This person has apparently made it quite clear that she does not want her biography on Wikipedia. Her entry on Wikidata will of course remain.-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It's difficult to see why the subject doesn't want the article, but I'm prepared to WP:AGF and say that if Jess Wade, famous for her work increasing the coverage of women scientists in Wikipedia, who created the article, wants it deleted because of concerns exxpressed by the subject, then it should go. Pam D 07:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE really applies here. The subject is very clearly a notable scientist and public figure (holds a named chair at a major university, member of a national learned society, prolific and widely-cited author, does interviews and press about her research, etc). She's not "relatively unknown" by any stretch of the imagination. But if the subject and the creator and only significant contributor to the article wants it deleted, it's a bit churlish for us to say no. So WP:IAR, delete. –  Joe ( talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article subject legitimately passes our notability criteria—and in spades—to the extent to which I BLPRQUESTDELETE cannot apply: 'well-known' does not necessarily mean to the general public but 'in their field', as in the case of NPROF, it's already assumed they won't be popularly notable. But holders of academic chairs and repeatedly published authors are experts in that field and de facto notable in it for our purposes. I also don't think IAR applies: this is too good an example of the kind of subjects we should be covering to merely throw it out on a whim. Now, if there were a suggestion that the page attracted endangerment or unnecessarily bad publicity, then it should be TNT'd immediately. But there's been no suggestion that that is the case—it would have been mentioned from the start, I assume extremely vocally!—so this really comes down to personal opinion.
    I think that if a subject is only on the verge or passing our notability guidelines, then BLPRD applies. If an article endangers the subject in any way, then BLPRD applies. But if the subject is well-sourced and notable, and the article adheres to the usual requirements of BLP, then BLPRD is outweighed by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N. Three core content policies which dictate what material we hold except in certain limited circumstances; I do not see such circumstances here. Serial 14:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but we need to convene an on and off-wiki social and ethical conversation about this recurring situation. Even if we delete this, that deletion is going to draw more attention to this person because this is the kind of person for whom Wikipedia generates biographies, and if this article were deleted, our other processes recruit editors to re-create the article about them.
This is a fairly standard biography of a prominent scientist who is highly visible for publishing research, accepting positions of leadership, receiving awards, being named in government documents as the recipient and investigator for grants, and otherwise having a public life in professional research. They meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability criteria, and they do not meet any criteria for deletion. We have had discussions for 20 years about whether we will delete biographies by request for no reason, and have consensus that as an editorial practice we do not offer this.
As I look at this biography, it looks orderly, respectable, and to Wikipedia community standards. I see nothing shameful here. I want to share my own observation that with regularity I encounter cases where a professional woman requests deletion of their nice biography. I cannot recall ever encountering a case of a man doing this. If I had to guess based on seeing women's cases but not men's cases, I would guess that women request deletion of their flattering biographies 100 times more than men. If we wanted accurate numbers, it would be easy to design an undergraduate data science project to go over all of Wikipedia and estimate how often this has happened. I am not saying that this request from this person has anything to do with their gender, but I am detecting a pattern here and if we need a deletion policy to take into account something gender related then we should discuss that explicitly and we probably need more information.
Here are some patterns of similar cases that I have observed:
  1. This case, professional woman accepts professional recognition in their field along with its accompanying media records. They have an readily accessible online presence by their name, but definitely Wikipedia makes them more accessible. They have no identified scandals. Sometimes they report stalking, harassment, or desire for privacy. I have only observed professional women doing this and never professional men.
  2. Protestor in the streets does attention seeking behavior, which definitely includes their visibility as a participant. They may give interviews, be photographed, or document themselves in media as an advocate for some cause. Somehow they meet WP:N. When it comes to their Wikimedia presence, they want privacy. The person may be from any background, but women and minorities request deletion more often than majority demographic men.
  3. Online celebrity, such as a YouTuber, streamer or cam performer, erotic performer, or Internet personality is seeking attention online from a particular audience. They post lots of personal information in several platforms. Somehow they meet WP:N. Although they are public on the Internet, they make choices to be public in some places and not others, and see "public places on the Internet" as distinct places which should not overlap. When it comes to their Wikimedia presence, they want privacy, and again, women do this more often.
We Wikipedians in the United States have hosted events at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and like so many organizations, that one has requested that we produce biographies of their members. If they want a public or private conversation then the communication channel is open to discuss social and ethical best practices. I am more comfortable making an example and case study out of this person because they are relatively privileged and well connected, and I expect that if they gave a word to the Academy of Sciences, then that academy would readily convene a meeting with Wikipedia editors to discuss best practices. The subject of this biography is also a public speaker on the topic of women in science as in The truth is in the distribution. (Q37351551). I would like to make this case not about them personally as soon as possible, and instead about re-examining our general rules, but here we are and it is common knowledge that Wikipedia deletion requests trigger Streisand effect. We will continue to find ourselves in this recurring situation until we get consensus on a standard response. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It is presumptuous of us to say "it's a nice biography, she shouldn't want it deleted". She knows her situation, she has her reasons, whatever they may be. "The subject wants it deleted" is a perfectly fine reason for deletion. "The primary author wants it deleted" is another. "We know better than they do" is ... well ... -- GRuban ( talk) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ GRuban: to quote the proverbial comic, "what am I chopped liver?" I was first to create this title, as a redirect to the family section of her admittedly more famous and more public father Varadaraja V. Raman. I started putting together a page on the daughter before anybody else, entered the scene, and everything that is there I would have eventually written myself. The fate of the page ought not depend on the happenstance of my original edit getting obliterated by a page move somewhere in the history. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The fate of the page depends on our arguments here. "The primary author wants it deleted" is not the governing argument, but it is, hopefully, an influential one. "I originally made this page as a redirect, even though you can't see it in the history, and I would have eventually written all this content", ... is also an argument, but, with all due respect, not quite as strong. Had I but world enough and time, I would have written all the Wikipedia:Featured articles. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I think Bluerasberry explains fairly well the potential disparate impacts of denying requested deletion of the attack surface anyone can edit, but I am surprised to see do not think this small, thinly-sourced biography referred to as is "nice", or in a comment above, that this subject referred to as is a " public figure."
Where are the interviews? Where is the press? She is an excellent scientist, and has apparently given an interview to a blog. The article is disproportionately built around coverage once in a newspaper for co-presenting a paper at a conference, and a college news report. A faculty website would likely be more balanced and complete, without the security risks, as noted by Bluerasberry, that seem to be largely perceived by women and minorities. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC) - adjust comment Beccaynr ( talk) 09:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I also think this discussion highlights good-faith disagreements about how to interpret the "relatively unknown" portion of the policy, and as applied here, whether this subject has achieved a level of prominence and notability according to our guidelines to support keeping the article despite the objection. I also recall a previous AfD that seemed to raise a question about whether the various protections Wikipedia can provide are as obvious to article subjects as they may be to regular editors. It may be that more effective outreach to article subjects about how to cope with this website becoming a top result in an internet search could help address various concerns about privacy and security; for now, our case-by-case approach may be obscuring a systemic deficiency in how we communicate available protections for BLP subjects. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for that last comment. I appreciate the recognition of good-faith disagreements. But I want to say more broadly that I think it's important to conduct this AfD discussion based on policies and guidelines, without skewing the discussion with emotional appeals. Attributing opinions such as "it's a nice biography, she shouldn't want it deleted" or "We know better than they do" to editors who have commented in favor of keeping, is to distort what editors have actually said, to the point of caricature. So is implying that editors, who have said that the page does not contain anything in the way of an attack, do not understand sourcing requirements, because the page is "thinly-sourced". (In fact, no one has made a credible argument that the page should be deleted for lack of adequate sourcing, and the sourcing is not unusual for BLPs about similar academic scholars.) And it's not clear to me how much the "primary author" of the page really wants it deleted, because she has also asked for it to be kept and moved into draft space. There is nothing in policy that says that a page that is encyclopedic and notable can be deleted because the editor who started the page requests it, after other editors have edited it. This isn't in user space. Those of us who are making the case for keeping should be able to do so, without being made to sound like we are insensitive or worse. I urge editors to focus on the merits, and not stoop to emotional appeals. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
While some of your comment seems directed more broadly to the discussion generally, and not directly to what I have written, to clarify my reference to 'thinly-sourced,' this is an attempt to refer back to my previous mention of the article sourcing as generally primary and nonindependent, in my analysis of the "relatively unknown" part of the policy. It is not a comment on other editors, and certainly not their understanding of sourcing requirements, and is instead my view on how to assess a request for deletion based on available sources. I can think of many article subjects who might request deletion but have robust biographies based on substantial in-depth secondary coverage in independent and reliable sources, and therefore would most likely not obtain consensus for deletion.
And I would disagree that discussions about privacy and security are 'emotional appeals,' if that is what is being referred to in your comment - there may be a need for broader community discussions about how Wikipedia can more effectively address issues that may impact certain groups more adversely than others, but this is not intended to cast any editor advocating keep as 'insensitive or worse' - that is why I followed up to emphasize my recognition of the good faith participation in this discussion. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as clearly notable, someone we surely should have a page on. But gut the article of all the trivia (how many languages her father spoke – what does that have to with the price of fish?), the gratuitous quotes, etc., reduce it to a bare-bones summary of her (considerable) professional achievements. And remove all the poor/inappropriate sourcing, including her own papers and Facebook (yes, really, Facebook!). Jesswade88, if you have some special insight into which aspects of the article have offended the subject you might go ahead and deal with those as a first step – but honestly, I too would be offended if someone had written an article like this about me (which won't be necessary, I have none of those considerable achievements). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • There's nothing wrong with citing her own scholarly science papers, but I agree with the rest. And I think these edits by you and by me largely take care of that: [25], [26], [27], [28]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I decided to look back at the history of the deletion and BLP policies, to get a sense of what the community has thought, over time, about the issue of a BLP subject requesting deletion. I found these two, relatively old, discussions: [29], [30]. (There may be other discussions that I missed, of course.) I think it's clear that there has never been a consensus that, once a BLP subject has indicated a desire to have their page deleted, we must default to deleting the page as was requested. The subject's wishes should be considered, but are not determining. Editors are expected to balance the subject's wishes against notability and the value of the information to the encyclopedia, and administrators are expected to treat these situations as "may delete", but not as "must". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Certainly I would expect discussion participants to comment on whether the subject is notable, not on whether the subject has requested deletion (we already know that). Our BLP policy suggests deletion when there is no consensus on whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. But a comment saying only that the subject has requested deletion and pointing to this policy does not provide any input on whether the subject meets our notability guidelines and cannot be used to determine whether there is consensus on that point. I would hope that the closing administrator would discount all such comments from the determination of whether a consensus exists, and consider them only in the case that (after discounting these comments) the remaining comments fail to reach a consensus. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously. Overriding a subject's wishes not to have an article is one thing, though in this case I consider it a Very Bad one-thing -- BLPREQUESTDELETE exemptions are not/should not be "people we should have a page on in some worthiness sense", but people who are actually famous. Overriding both that subject and the article's creator is just a perverse outcome. Hell, I'd call this a valid G7. Vaticidal prophet 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:OWN is a thing though, perverse or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There seems to be a clear pass of WP:PROF here on named chair, on citation record, and on fellowship of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The subject is not a publicity-avoidant scientist with no coverage, and has for example given a relatively recent (open-access) interview with photograph to Neuron [31], an earlier one to the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre blog [32], and to The Naked Scientists [33], among others. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
ETA I would not be opposed to protecting this article at extended confirmed level if that would be a reassurance to the subject. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
We have no indication whether the subject is concerned about potential changes to the article (so could be reassured), or about its very existence (as suggested by the original deletion proposal). Pam D 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if the subject (who otherwise is a clear pass of WP:Prof) does not want a BLP. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Questions @ Jesswade88: Can you confirm that you are 100% sure the request to remove the article is from herself? And can you give us any indication why she wants it removed, without causing further distress to her? (I realise the answer to q2 is probably "No", but it seems very strange.) Pam D 04:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
These requests happen on a regular basis from people who wish to retain their privacy. I support them unless there is good reason not to, which I don't see here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete: Let’s do the right thing here, shall we? Innisfree987 ( talk) 07:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Since some editors seem to think still not enough has been said here (hrm), I will add that my view was influenced by this subject’s qualification for a biography under an SNG rather than having, as far as I can tell, the WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. If there were widespread secondary coverage of this biography, I would find it hard to justify removing a summary of that coverage. But in the case of a low-profile person with a strong preference not to have a WP presence, I continue to think inflicting one on them is the wrong thing to do. Happily policy has a provision for accommodating this. Innisfree987 ( talk) 23:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete is the decent thing to do. Interviews in niche professional outlets do not one a public figure make. WP:BLP and WP:DEL are policies, and a careful reading of both shows that they don't apply only to non-notable subjects; obviously, otherwise they wouldn't need to exist, because non-notable subjects get deleted anyway. Also, if notability overrode these policies, it would unfairly disadvantage academics, because WP:NPROF is by design a low notability standard. DFlhb ( talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I said earlier that this discussion should not be derailed by emotional appeals. And as an editor who advocates for keep, I feel personally affronted by the two comments above. Apparently, I want to do the wrong thing, as well as an indecent thing. Yes, BLP and deletion are policies, but a careful reading of each shows that they both indicate not that there must be deletion, but that there may be deletion. But let's not get distracted by what the policies actually say, because I'm just someone who wants indecency. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Tryptofish, I respect you a lot as an editor but I don’t see what this comment adds to the discussion. If you want to avoid emotion, then personalizing it doesn’t help. And talking about what the rules allow versus require isn’t responsive to the issue of what is the right thing to do. Innisfree987 ( talk) 17:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you for saying that about me. Criticizing what you said, however, wasn't personalizing the discussion. Your original comment was, in its entirety, "Let's do the right thing here, shall we?" I'm sure you meant that in good faith, but there was nothing in your comment that was based upon policy, or even responsive to earlier "keep" comments. You may sincerely believe that deletion is the "right" thing, but there's no getting around the fact that those of us who have given policy-based arguments for keeping sincerely believe that keeping is the right thing. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
          • "I'm just someone who wants indecency" was certainly personalizing the discussion. And BLP and delete are policies that have already been spelled out in this discussion. Your comment added nothing to explain why failing to use them to avoid harm to a low-profile figure is the right thing to do. Innisfree987 ( talk) 19:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
            • Another editor said that deletion was "the decent thing to do". Doesn't that make keeping indecent? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer that.) Surely, a better argument for deletion would have been to cite those policies accurately, instead of claiming "decency" for one "side" of the discussion. I've already done more than most editors to examine how those policies apply here, and I've already explained in some detail why I think those policies point to keeping. Asserting that deletion is the decent thing to do, or the right thing to do, is what adds nothing to the argument based on policies. It just makes an unjustified claim of the moral high ground, which indeed is personalizing the discussion needlessly. I'm just saying that it's not a good argument to claim that one has the moral high ground and other editors do not. If it hurts to have that pointed out, then don't make that kind of argument. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
              • I’m not hurt. You said you were "personally affronted". I find that needlessly inflammatory, and ironic since you said you objected to emotion. Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this person is only "clearly notable" by the dubious application of NPROF. There's not actually significant secondary sourcing to demonstrate notability per the GNG, so I absolutely don't see an issue deleting per subject request. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/ WP:BLPKIND. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just a remark after two years of reading a lot of AFDs but a sure fire way to get editors arguing to Keep an article is for the article subject to request deletion. For some reason, some editors see that request for deletion as a challenge to Keep an article. I've probably seen a dozen cases of article subjects requesting article deletion and there is never a unanimous response to honor the request and Delete the page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Some editors do, but I don't think it's most, [34] [35] (one unanimous and one almost). Perhaps some editors react the other way too. And perhaps the "subject has opinion" thing sometimes just interests more editors. Or the "afd-notice at User talk:Jesswade88" thing. IMO, it's not unreasonable to want to keep an ok-looking article of this kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is the first time that I've ever participated in such an AfD, as far as I can remember. I certainly don't feel like my reasons can be reduced to feeling like I'm responding to a challenge, and once again, I really wish that this discussion could be held without looking for ulterior motives among those editors who argue for keeping. The implication that, if only this were a more rational situation, there would be a unanimous agreement to delete, is a disservice to what an AfD discussion should be. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was just making a general observation based on my experience reviewing and closing quite a few AFDs, I haven't looked closely at this discussion to see what position individual editors were arguing for or what their reasons were so I would not take my comments personally. All I saw was the deletion nomination and the fact that the discussion is very divided right now. I'm not invested in what happens to this article and if I'm the discussion closer, I'll follow what result I see the consensus of editors says to carry out. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I hope you're not really considering being the closer after commenting like that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I actually have no opinion on what should happen with this article. But since you have an objection to me taking action, Tryptofish, I'll let another admin handle this discussion. There aren't many of us patrolling AFD these days so it might take a while until this one gets closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Liz, I hope you don't feel that keep comments like mine are intended to treat the BLPREQUESTDELETE as illegitimate in any way. On the contrary, my position is that BLPREQUESTDELETE demands a proper evaluation of whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. If they clearly do, the article should be kept. If the case is borderline or little harm would be done by the deletion, we can and should respect the request. But respecting the request means performing that evaluation of notability, honestly and by the same standards we would apply in any other case, and only after that evaluation has been performed using its outcome to determine what to do, not merely rubber-stamping the request.
    You write that the discussion seems very divided right now. To my mind, there are two sets of comments: those that perform an evaluation of notability, and those that point to the fact that there is a BLPREQUESTDELETE and we should treat it as a valid request. I do not see a contradiction between those two sets; they are discussing different things, both of which need to be combined in the closer's decision. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's clear that this subject meets WP:PROF in multiple ways -- they are notable both because of their research contributions, and the recognition they have received for such in academic circles. However, as Beccaynr has carefully noted, this subject is not well known beyond that. BLPREQUESTDELETE, in such situations, acts as something of a catch-all solution to inaccurate information, misrepresentation, and privacy concerns. I don't like that we have to use it, it would be nice if our BLP articles could appropriately "thread the needle" in each of the cases, but it's clear we do need it from time to time. — siro χ o 10:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but lock. They are neither a public figure or a private one. Google certainly knows a lot about them, and will happily serve it to anyone who knows her name. All the non-Wikipedia results seem to be reliable, relevant and accurate, which is hardly surprising for a person in this position and field. The only way to mitigate the likely cause of their distress therefore, is to ensure Wikipedia behaves more like those other Google results. Accept only edits that on review appear to be relevant and accurate, before thrusting them into the full glare of Google. Edson Makatar ( talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:PROTECT, there are several levels of potential "locking". But for any of them to be considered, there actually have to be a certain degree of disruptive edits in the article's edit-history. Articles aren't protected because stuff might happen. If you know of such disruptive edits, you can ask for protection at WP:RFPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly articles are already locked down based on what is going to happen, rather than what has happened. It would not therefore be too much of a change to say Wikipedia can and should lock articles when they know their existence is going to cause distress. It is inevitable due to Wikipedia's open editing model that one day the subject's fears will come true, compounding the distress they already feel from knowing it is merely a possibility. This is surely why they object to being on Wikipedia, since it cannot be said they object to being known to Google more generally. Edson Makatar ( talk) 06:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    A couple of examples of articles that were locked based on what was going to happen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Edson Makatar, while I don't think locking the article would be within policy in the absence of disruptive edits, I expect that many of the participants in this discussion (at least myself) will leave the article in their watchlists, and that any problematic edits would be quickly reverted. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 08:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's commendable Russ, but I seriously doubt that lessens the distress to any great degree. I imagine the subject is smart enough to realize that they aren't famous enough that they can be reasonably sure their Wikipedia biography will be monitored twenty four seven for the rest of their natural life. You certainly resumably need to sleep, work and play, and you will eventually lose interest in Wikipedia. This platform is a live publisher. Any potentially harmful change made to this page is immediately visible to Google, and if it is left here for any significant amount of time, it will also persist in mirrors and scrapes, even if you eventually spot it and remove it. There is very little cost to Wikipedia in giving this person the reassurance that this cannot happen, while retaining the benefit of having this biography remain to ensure the almanac of Academy members is complete. I appreciate this isn't current policy, but until someone suggested it, neither was allowing relatively unknown people an effective opt out from Wikipedia. Edson Makatar ( talk) 09:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, author and subject request. While the subject passes WP:PROF, there is no convincing secondary sourcing in the article. — Kusma ( talk) 09:52, 9 October 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 keep‎. Consensus is that this is sufficiently notable, though perhaps not at the best title, which will be decided at Talk:Auckland children bodies found in suitcases#Requested move 2 October 2023. Complex/ Rational 12:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Auckland children bodies found in suitcases

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

It's a horrible thing, but is it really notable? If it is, isn't it news WP:NOTNEWS? If the consensus is that it isn't covered by NOTNEWS, isn't the detail WP:TOO SOON before an upcoming criminal trial? JMWt ( talk) 09:25, 3 October 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 keep‎. Stifle ( talk) 07:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wayne B. Hales

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

Notability seems lacking. Ironically, the page was created by one Johnpacklambert. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Utah. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Why is it "ironic" that the page was created by JPL? Curbon7 ( talk) 18:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Presumably because, before being topic-banned, JPL was known for placing drive-by "delete, not notable" comments on many AfDs. But he tended not to do that for LDS figures, such as the subject of this AfD. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment leaning Delete. Presumably Johnpacklambert felt that presidency of Snow College was the determining factor for notability, given its prominence, but it does not seem a sufficiently prestigious institution to me to pass WP:PROF alone. I'm not sure what weight to put on Brigham Young University history materials, presumably they are fairly indiscriminate? Not finding anything in GS to speak of. (Is Johnpacklambert permitted to participate in deletion proposals on his own articles? It seems a little unfair otherwise.) Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Poked around in the WL some more after A. B.'s finding below, and found another short obituary JSTOR  26222396 (that the Ebsco search somehow missed). Think there's enough now to go with Keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 05:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
— A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was briefly confused by A.B.'s link because it combines a listing of fellows of some other society (not including Hales) with an obituary of Hales. But the obituary states the AAAS Fellow claim and I verified his listing at https://www.aaas.org/fellows/historic, I think good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C3. The existence of two independent published obituaries (not paid death notices) in professional journals also makes a case for WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:28, 9 October 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 keep‎. Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Lugz

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and New York. AllyD ( talk) 07:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep: The WSJ piece is RS and not a passing mention. Reference 10 might be as well, I don't know about that publisher. So the brand has attracted some attention and coverage that isn't purely promotional. However, most of the sources cited are either non-RS (Wordpress) or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - For those who are old enough to remember the 90's these things were a household-name-ubiquitous part of hip-hop and pop culture ( at least Eminem thought so as does Complex which calls them an "iconic" brand), and there really shouldn't be a question about notability.
Personal testimony aside, the WSJ story and multiple others combine to meet SIRS. A quick Google News search (supposedly a prerequisite for this deletion discussion) shows that they're still an active and high visibility brand today with regular media coverage and shouldn't have been nominated. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 16:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There is a pretty comprehensive chapter in International Directory of Company Histories about the parent company, Jack Schwartz Shoes, Inc., [37] which also owns British Knights. Perhaps the two brands can redirect to a new article about the parent. 70.163.208.142 ( talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable with its high-profile collaborations with famous figures in music, sports, and entertainment. kind of cultural phenomenon. -- Assirian cat ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Aaron Spiro

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

Does not meet WP:BAND under any criterion. WP:BEFORE does not turn up independent reliable sources showing any significant coverage. Not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He has very brief bio at AllMusic ( [38]), which says little more than what this WP article says, on how he released a lone album in 2002. I can find no pro reviews of that album or anything more about the singer and his career. He is listed at a few Christian music directories (e.g. [39]) but those also provide no further information either. There is simply nothing with which to write an encyclopedic article that informs the reader of anything. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm getting a lot of false positives when I search on Google Scholar. I'm used to doing this for fictional characters. Does anyone know how to refine the search? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Aaron and Spiro give many false positives but enclosing in quotes [40] will only show hits for exactly Aaron Spiro. This is a musician. If he is known at all, it should be the full name (c.f. Ed Sheeran for instance), so that should be an acceptable search. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:36, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Ace duraflo

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

Not notable product. GraziePrego ( talk) 05:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It also reads like an advertisement. Moonreach ( talk) 18:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 3 October 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. ✗ plicit 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

List of places named Khan

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

Most of the entries are partial matches only, and the few legitimate entries are already listed in Khan. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I really don't see this fulfilling WP:LISTPURP across the encyclopedia. A list of places named after one person, or even of one title held by many probably would, but I fear this list is more confusing than helpful to readers. I'd be willing to userfy if the main contributor desires it for some sort of developmental use. — siro χ o 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unnecessary directory. Raymond3023 ( talk) 07:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST, is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:12, 10 October 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Kerry Ketter

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

stub on an unnotable sportsperson. ltb dl ( talk) 05:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ canuck85: erm, no. ltb dl ( talk) 10:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It is true that merely playing in the NHL no longer meets our notability guidelines. But with this much NHL experience who played this recently almost certainly has enough coverage to meet our notability guidelines. So in the absence of some particular reason why this particular player wouldn't have coverage, there was no good reason to make this waste-of-editor-time nomination. A better use of time would have been to use a few of the easily found sources below and add them to the article. Rlendog ( talk) 13:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • You know, I can guarantee Ketter is notable - players with that much NHL experience just will receive significant coverage - but the main website that contains the notability-giving sources, Newspapers.com, is unavailable for all users through the Wikipedia Library currently... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, Newspapers.com is not inaccessible, some users have just had problems making clippings. Bearcat ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: Its inaccessible for me at least - clicking on this url gives me a notice of "www.newspapers.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding" which never changes. I can get to the normal website but of course whenever click on a page I get the usual subscription-required message. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I had the same issue. Rlendog ( talk) 13:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Player easily passes notability guidelines. Searching newspapers.com returns 1,742 hits for "Kerry Ketter" + hockey from 1960 to 2019. There are several larger articles on him, including this example. Plenty of potential for expansion here. Flibirigit ( talk) 15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: While participation standards have been deprecated, it'd be astonishing on the face of it for a player with two top-flight seasons (and who was the first player chosen by a new franchise) under his skates to lack significant coverage, as Flibirigit has already proved. I can only think the nom glanced at a poorly sourced stub, blithely ignored any obligations under WP:BEFORE to research the issue, and charged ahead. Ravenswing 15:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I will try to find some SIGCOV. Here is one example for starters. This. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
A smaller piece here. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Another one here. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Cbl62's sources, as a former NHL player. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 10:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - an article being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale, and the subject is clearly notable. Rlendog ( talk) 14:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep — siro χ o 08:19, 7 October 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 keep‎. after substantial work was done on this article to address problems. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Melanie Murray

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

Lack of established notability and orphaned- both concerns for nearly a decade. GraziePrego ( talk) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Deorphaned, added a second published work, added reviews as sources for notability. Pam D 08:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Canada. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added a short section about another North American contemporary writer called Melanie Murray (probably not notable), as this seems useful information to help the reader to distinguish which of the two MMs they are looking for. It may be slightly WP:IAR but I reckon it helps the reader. Pam D 15:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, leaning keep. (I wish AfD nominators would not mention orphaned as a reason for deletion.) Ebsco is finding second review for the Burns book: Quill & Quire, Mar2017, Vol. 83 Issue 2, p31. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 3 October 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 merge‎ to YRF Spy Universe. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Rubina (fictional character)

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

No out-of-universe notability for this character. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoya (fictional character). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:57, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Youth Conference (Christian)

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

This event is not notable; I'm hardly able to find any sources on this event at all, let alone secondary sources (about the most I can find is this random blogpost on YC Alberta and this other random church webpage, both of which are primary sources). There are also plenty of other style issues with the article on this event as well, resulting in a huge {{ multiple issues}} template; in fact, the very reason I noticed this article was because it was listed on WP:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates, which bodes quite poorly for the article's future. I recommend deletion. Duckmather ( talk) 02:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, Africa, Slovakia, Ukraine, Canada, and Belize. Duckmather ( talk) 02:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wow is this PROMO for the event. Youth conferences pop up all over for just about anything and everything. I can't whittle down enough to find some about this religious event/organization. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Delete I'm unable to find sourcing for this religious group/conference. Seems notable, but the sourcing isn't there. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I very much disagree with the idea of deleting this page. This is one of the biggest youth conferences in Canada. The reason why there is no information on it anymore is because the conference was cancelled in 2019. YC next was the last conference that they did in 2019. But I think that's article is very important because it is one of the only references of one of the biggest youth conferences in canada. Sharpshootinsam ( talk) 22:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. If it really were one of the biggest youth conferences in Canada, there would be more references about it? Jdcooper ( talk) 01:42, 7 October 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 merge‎ to YRF Spy Universe. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Zoya (fictional character)

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

No out-of-universe notability. Was deprodded by creator with minimal improvement. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:52, 3 October 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. ✗ plicit 00:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Trey Turner

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

Baseball player who fails to meet GNG guidelines. He has never played in the top level of professional baseball. Fbdave ( talk) 01:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Soft Delete Hits on a search bring up Trea Turner. Aside from the MLB draft and a brief article of his time at Missouri State, there really isn't anything to bring here. Conyo14 ( talk) 21:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A Google search for "Trey Turner" -Trea brings up very little. Two of the sources in this article are about the Nationals drafting Luzardo and Giolito, having nothing to do with Turner, and another is just about the 2020 season cancellation. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Outside some coverage from when he was drafted, there's not a ton in terms of coverage. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 23:10, 9 October 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. ✗ plicit 00:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Defining equation (physics)

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

This articles fails WP:TONE, especially WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I believe the least painful solution would be simply moving it to Wikibooks. Otherwise, I'm afraid the alternative would be to star over. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks, per nom. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's no evidence that "defining equation" is actually notable as a concept. This entire pile of words seems to boil down to the concept that "equations are used in physics to define things." Followed by a whole bunch of examples of equations used to define things. This strikes me as borderline tautological, and definitely not worth the effort of transwikiing. PianoDan ( talk) 04:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Article is largely inspired by the textbook Whelan & Hodgson (1989) Essential Principles of Physics, which uses the concept of "Defining equation" heavily. I do not see that it would be used as a formal concept in many other sources. The page itself is messy, and would not benefit any project in its current state. -- Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 14:40, 9 October 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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Christian. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Spirit (Sirius)

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

Already PROD'ed, this subject lacks the coverage from secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 3 October 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 draftify‎. ✗ plicit 00:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Yuima Nakazato

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

Seems to be questionable with meeting WP:GNG criteria. Reads like an advertisement. Most sources are a mere trivial mention of the subject of the article and some are just selling things or are promoting him. Seawolf35 ( talk) 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete. Passes G11 of speedy deletion criteria, but there are sources out there. If found to be reliable, I might change my vote. Brachy08 (Talk) 03:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Japan. Shellwood ( talk) 09:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Coverage here in French [41], here in a HK newspaper [42] and this also in French, but not a strong a source [43]. Also was featured in an NHK item [44]. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify and revert to this old version. Current version is WP:PROMO for a brand. The article is primarily focused mostly around a brand named after the subject, and would need to meet CORP even if it was not promotional.
Looking at the article history, it looks like it was created by an account as an imperfect draft stub, still slightly promotional but not as bad [45] and submitted to AFC. It was declined for notability reasons. As a BIO, Oaktree's sources may help with that (but not as CORP).
At a later time a different editor (possible SPA) turned it into this promotional piece [46] and moved it out of draft. — siro χ o 19:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
A local website listing rather indiscriminately local people, as it does here with our subject; a state organ promoting "Japanese talent", in general, as in here; some article about a group of designers among whom our subject is mentioned; this report on "Juniors Fashion Week", in which, again, our subject's name surfaces once; the commercial listing of our subject's photography book posted upon its publication; another commercial listing, this one by a "textile & sewing producer"; Fédération de la Haute Couture et de la Mode is a prestigious institution but its use as a source has no merit, being a simple listing of our subject; more brochures - this one's about a dance event, which does not even mention our subject, and neither does this about an opera; at least, this report about a ballet mentions Nakazato once, as many times as the Japan Times yearly round-up; another prestigiuous institution's website, the Barbican's, is scared up, yet it's only one more exhibition catalog; and so on, and so forth. Then we descend to the level of primary sources such as the brochure for "Fashion Frontier Program" written by Nakazato who's also the creator and owner of FFP.
I'd sincerely wish a possible future entry in Wikipedia, but, for the moment, we have very little for that. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and as such the article as written is not suitable for main space. Draftify is also an acceptable outcome. The sources found by OaktreeB do indicate that an article on the person could pass GNG; although an article on the company would not. This article could be re-tooled into a biography page that passes W:GNG. However, we should require that the draft pass an WP:AFC review to make sure it has been suitably modified. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete As nom, it fails WP:NCORP as of the moment and kind of needs a WP:TNT to have a future entry.(If this is considered vote stacking please discount this opinion and strike this vote) Seawolf35 ( talk) 14:14, 5 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_3&oldid=1179604024"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 02 October 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Discover My Body

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

I found an in-depth review from an inconclusive source, and a four paragraph review from a different inconclusive source. GamingOnLinux is unreliable, so the other secondary source in the article can't be used. QuietCicada ( talk) 23:52, 3 October 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 merge‎ to Meat on the bone. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Boneless meat

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

As can be seen from the sparce content, this article does ot contribute anything new; some of the information is opinion or even so obvious that it does not require inclusion ("not require eating around or carving around the bone"). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 10:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, opinion backed up by low-quality sources, provides very little information. Don't see any justification for it having its own article. GraziePrego ( talk) 04:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Merge with meat on the bone. The article doesn't have enough significance on its own to warrant an article. GoldMiner24  Talk 00:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Still a DICDEF, same as it was almost a year ago. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with meat on the bone. It's only a small amount of information, but it could be useful for comparison within the 'meat on the bone' article. -- Primium ( talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Britannica has an entry on deboning at https://www.britannica.com/topic/deboning (although its more of a disambiguation page). If one looks in google books and searches for "deboning" there are large number of sources discussing this as a concept directly and in detail. I think it would be possible to cover the topic of "boneless meat" through an article on deboning because that concept would easily pass WP:SIGCOV. However, it's not something I am interested in tackling. Ideally this article should be moved to deboning and updated to reflect that change. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:37, 10 October 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 merge‎ to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Trendall Crag

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

A geographic feature that isn't protected or otherwise populated. Not seeing significant coverage in web sources either, everything is about Alex Trendall and not this crag. JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs) 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. Trendall Crag is mentioned in connection with the fjord in this publication (page 158). [2]. I'm concerned at losing Wikipedia's geographical features coverage but agree that a separate article is not warranted in this case and the material is better served placed within a more comprehensive article. Rupples ( talk) 02:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:22, 10 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Eniac Ventures

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

This company exists, but has not received enough significant coverage to merit a page on WP. All the coverage just mentions the company, but does not discuss it. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The company raises funds and invests in various start-ups is about all I gleaned from the article despite its multitude of sources. Don't see how the WP:CORPDEPTH part of WP:NCORP is satisfied from brief mentions based on company press releases and interviews with the owners. Lack of analysis of the business. The essay WP:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase comes to mind in that the sources merely cover routine business transactions. Rupples ( talk) 02:56, 9 October 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Athena Massey

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

Since the last AFD in 2020, she's had no new roles, apart from a minor appearance in a documentary made this year, We Kill for Love, for which she gets passing mentions in the four Google News hits for her name. This version is substantially longer, having been padded out with a lot of highly promotional fan language, and still using IMDB for about a third of its sources. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find SIGCOV of her in reliable sources, just a lot of mentions in film and TV credits for minor roles, as you can see in the cites here, and a few interviews on podcasts and YouTube. Article mentions that she was featured twice in Femme Fatales (magazine), but as the WP article notes, " It was unique in that it encouraged contributions from the actresses themselves...", and I can't see that as counting substantially toward meeting WP:NACTOR. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Video games, and California. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The "shusher" on Senfield is iconic, but it's not what we're looking for, notability-wise. Sources used are cast lists and press stories where she's listed as an actress in xyz production. Not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I wrote this article for the simple fact that I have been a fan of the subject for some time. I came to Wikipedia as the go-to platform for finding more information where she has been active and found a blank page. This was surprising to me because she was referenced several time on the platform on various films, shows, etc., along with other actors of her level that DID have active pages. So, I took it on myself to create one. I did see the previous deletion that said the citations were largely IMDB. So I went out of my way to use as many sources other than IMDB in my cites. If I was a fan looking for her on Wikipedia today, his is the exact type of page I would be looking for. To the comment that she hasn't been active is incorrect. As noted, she is active in the various interviews and appearances in connection to her various roles. For her fan base and others, this IS an informative article. Keith0603 ( talk) 14:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    While I have no opinion on whether or not this page it kept, I would like to point out that your argument for not deleting the article is WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a valid rationale for keeping it. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair point. I will try again and be more objective. The comment regarding the number of IMDB links is valid. My understanding was that I needed citations for everything in the article. In looking at other similar articles, I should have only had the citations back to a single page on IMDB (where applicable) and take off all the individual citations for each item in the lists. I would be more than happy to make those changes. That should address that concern and clean up the document. Keith0603 ( talk) 21:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems to have had a few rather significant roles in notable films ( Shadow of a Scream and her appearance in We Kill for Love does not seem really minor (or this , on that very film), for example, and some in TV shows. So all in all, she seems notable. Still, the page needs clean up (and is not a B-article in my view but I won't reassess it just now).- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't agree with the assertion of "just a lot of mentions in film and TV credits for minor roles". While she did have many guest starring roles in popular shows at the time, she had top billing in several films. Additionally, Femme Fatales may have encouraged contributions, the interview I quoted was done by a journalist and was not self-submitted. Keith0603 ( talk) 21:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I removed the redundant citations with regards to the comments on the page needing to be cleaned up. Keith0603 ( talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I removed all of the external references except for IMDB. As an actor, I still feel this is valid, but removed the rest. Additionally, I went though and edited to be more "encyclopedic". I have only written one other published article, so please bear with me as I learn. I do feel that it reads better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith0603 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I have made various edits to address the issues that have been raised here. I'll try to list them here. COI - As mentioned, I am a fan of the subject but have no other connection, personal, professional or otherwise. I am not, have not, and will not be compensated for this article. All the information I gathered was via interviews in magazines or podcasts. I did notice I inadvertently deleted a citation during one of my edits that I have since restored. Since the COI tag doesn't mention what area is uncited, I don't know how else to fix. Tone/Peacock tag. I did edit and/or remove several places where I saw this. If there is any other specific areas I would be happy to fix. Notability tag. I believe this has been addressed in the discussions on this page already. Reliability - again, I'm not sure which sources this refers to. If it's IMDB, then I would call out that other actors use this successfully as a citation on other pages in Wikipedia. Again, since I've only previously published once, I appreciate your patience with making this process work. Keith0603 ( talk) 00:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors about this article. As an aside, User:Keith0603, you've probably commented enough now for others to understand your point of view on this article and the subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree nothing has changed since the last nomination. BrigadierG ( talk) 22:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources (fails WP:GNG), lack of major roles in multiple notable productions (fails WP:NACTOR). -- Mika1h ( talk) 14:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete @ BrigadierG I agree with you.-- Correspondentman ( talk) 08:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I dispute the comment that she has had no notable roles in multiple productions. She has starred in 5 Roger Corman productions, which included 4 films and one film that became a TV series. She also had a lead role in 3 Westwood Studios video games. Keith0603 ( talk) 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • For reliable sources, would references to physical DVDs be better than IMDB? This seems to qualify as a secondary source and should be undeniable proof. The guidelines that I read here are a bit vague. I would be happy to provide if this is a more acceptable source. Keith0603 ( talk) 23:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unfortunately, the subject is still not notable enough for now. The above editor does not seem to have the usual signs of a paid editor (so I’m inclined to believe their claim that they are unrelated to the subject), so I would highly advise them to better familiarise themselves with the guidelines about reliable sources, and try to edit other articles first. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Guilty as charged. I am a newbie having only published one other article. That article was not challenged for deletion, so I am new to this process. I do appreciate your patience with me. I hope this means we can remove the COI tag then. As advised, I did additional research on both reliable sources and notability. First notability as this seems to be the biggest sticking point here. For film notability, one of the stated criteria WP:NFOE can be "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema". The recent documentary Massey appeared in, "We Kill For Love" satisfies this as 3 of her films that she had the lead role (Star Portal, Shadow of a Scream, and Undercover) and one series (Red Shoe Diaries) were covered. This documentary was featured in the 2023 Overlook Film Festival in 2023, which satisfies another criteria of "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release". With 3 of her films then satisfying the notable film criteria, it would follow that the notability of her as an actor is also satisfied with the following criteria "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (Satisfies WP:NACTOR). Because this documentary received significant publicity, I was able to find a review in the New York Times of the film, and review in Forbes that specifically called out Massey as one of the "major stars of the era". I will be adding these citations to the page. This should also at least be a good start to satisfying the issue about reliable sources. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that deletion be reconsidered as I believe the criteria has been met. Thanks again for your patience working with a newbie. Keith0603 ( talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith0603 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTRESS. There appears to be plenty of WP:SIGCOV of her work to pass our notability requirements for actresses. See [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. There are also a lot of snippet reviews of her films in books in google books. She clearly was a main cast member of multiple films and television shows. I'm concerned that the accusations of coi and the promotional tone of the article are distracting the voters above from viewing the topic through the lens of notability policy and actually following WP:BEFORE. She clearly passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the "significant coverage" links given above are clear passing mentions, none give any actual information about Massey, just list her as having played a role. Fram ( talk) 17:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found this article.
Which has significant coverage of her role in Shadow of a Scream. Silver seren C 21:23, 10 October 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 Draftify‎. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keegan Hartley

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 23:26, 3 October 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani

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

I just came across this article. I read WP:GNG and it says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I had also read the previous discussion and I think CharlieMehta is right. Here are some of my findings below which are almost similar to the previous nominator.

Citation 1-The portion of the book that discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani predominantly consists of his own quotes, with minimal input from the author. Does not help to meet GNG.

Citation:2 It is evident from the title itself that this printed article solely presents his perspective on the Indian economy. WP:INTERVIEWS.

Citation:3-There is only a minimal mention that briefly discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani's presence on a stage alongside his father. It lacks substantial coverage on him, but it indicates that his appointment as GCA president is a political decision. It is still not helping to meet GNG.

Citation 5- Same opinion as the previous nom. WP:CHURN.

Citation 6: Merely a profile of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani found on a generic media portal that does not meet the criteria of being considered a reliable source according to WP:RS.

Citation 7: announcement of his election as the head of the state football association. Does not count towards GNG.

Citation 8: brief mention of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani being appointed as a vice president of GCA. Does not count towards notability.

Citation 10: Interview. So does not count towards notability.

Holding two administrative positions is not a guaranteed notability factor. Citations that address the topic directly is and in detail is required which is clearly missing here. So this article must be removed. Irbasdude ( talk) 23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Irbasdude ( talk) 23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While you might have valid reasons for renominating, it's important for all of us to adhere to the WP:6MONTHS rule which states; if the discussion regarding last AfD resulted in a 'keep' decision, it's typically advisable to refrain from proposing the page for deletion again for a minimum of six months, unless there are fresh points to raise. Charlie ( talk) 04:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: absence of significant coverage to meet GNG. Some sources utilized in the article does seem to be mainly PR piece. Most of the sources are trivial, routine, re-written ones. The other option is a redirect to Reliance Industries Limited. 103.182.166.145 ( talk) 09:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Surprised to see this article renominated after only two months since the last AFD. Soft deletion is not an option so we'll need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and possibly salt. I don’t think this subject is notable yet, and I agree with ip above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Reliance Industries Limited. Worldiswide ( talk) 03:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Most of the sources are about him taking over the role of the president of GCA which is incidential and does not count towards notability. At first glance, the 6th citation from All Gujarat News seems to have given some coverage. But it is a sponsored content with no byline. The same applies to other sources as well. The offline sources appear to be interviews.l which is primary sources. So this article fails our notability criteria. Redirecting is not a good option as he is not holding a permanent position. It can change at anytime. 111.92.123.60 ( talk) 18:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage to warrant a standalone article. I'm also opposed to redirecting, as the subject is not even mentioned at the proposed target. CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:13, 11 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Natalie White

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

Okay, okay, I'll do this one. Previously AfDd because it was another Natalie White ( Natalie White (Survivor contestant) and PROD declined because it was previously AfDd (although procedurally the AfD was a different Natalie White), this particular Natalie White is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and therefore the article should be deleted. No evidence of enduring impact on the arts, major exhibitions, national critical review or anything else, in fact, that meets WP:ARTIST. Unrelated to this AfD, the article's history is unusually messy - probably the only notable thing here. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I am not finding reliable sources for the biographical information provided. The performance pieces are cited with brief mentions and interviews. The article as written in WP:PROMO. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 15:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I am not finding enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to justify an encyclopedia entry, per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON at this time. Article was created by a WP:SPA whose only two edits were to create this article and add a photo. Later it was directly edited by the artist. While these are not necessarily reasons for deletion, they may explain some of the promotional tone and style. Netherzone ( talk) 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - In case that the artist page is deleted, I intend to move the Survivor contestant page back to the base name. Is that okay? -- George Ho ( talk) 15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Previous AfDs for THAT Natalie White have closed as delete and redirect, so I'd say FWIW that would be unwise and possibly result in a speedy delete. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't intend to restore the article, but... ah, well.... George Ho ( talk) 18:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I don't mean to waggle fingers... A result of this AfD could be a redirect to Survivor. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Promo piece edited by paid editors. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIS. Biographical info like "Born to Parents Robert White and Gina Bombardiere in Fairmont, West Virginia. White has one sister, Elizabeth Marie White. Her upbringing was frugal, familial and religious." is unsupported by reliable sources. Elspea756 ( talk) 12:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NARTIST isn't met. Her exhibitions are temporary. Which permanent collection is her piece part of? Graywalls ( talk) 23:13, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Alex Nelson

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

Non-notable musician without sufficient SIGCOV to justify an article. Both sources are minor-league local coverage, with nothing outside of his local Florida area and nothing since (at least that I found on a search). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 3 October 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. ✗ plicit 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wendy Maree Wilkins

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

PROD removed by article creator. PROD rationale was: "Non-notable performer/creator. Sources do not indicate independent SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited to her from her (non-notable) movie from its co-stars."

The best possible source in the article is an interview, which generally are not weighted very heavily for notability claims. Other than that, I was not able to locate any appropriate sigcov. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 22:33, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Euro XIII

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

Non-notable rugby league competition, most of the content is unreferenced. Cannot find any further news articles since the initial announcement, so presumably this idea never got off the ground. J Mo 101 ( talk) 22:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete The entire content of this article is speculation, and the only reference is that of speculation aswell calling it a "planned competition". Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Mn1548 ( talk) 15:39, 4 October 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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ULPS ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Venice bus crash

2023 Venice bus crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, bus crashes are quite common so I'm not sure if this counts as notable. There is worldwide media attention, but I'm not sure how notable this is for a Wikipedia article. There is quite little to talk about -- it's a bus crash. — Panamitsu (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose - An event with 21 deaths should be more than enough for a wikipedia article Lukt64 ( talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, typically such bus crashes are not deemed important enough to go on the Front Page's WP:In The News, but I think they generally survive AfD. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This event is unlikely to become notable or ever be anything more than a news story. But as a general rule, we're supposed to wait a few days per WP:RAPID just to be sure. So let's give it a few days. In the meantime, there are dozens of other articles about bus crashes that need to be sorted through to determine which ones had lasting effects and which ones are just news stories. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I withdraw per comments about WP:RAPID, and with the death count of 21 it has a chance on being notable. — Panamitsu (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Panamitsu, note that there's no death count provision in our notability guidelines. It's not a factor that editors familiar with the guidelines take into consideration. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I understand, but due to the death count it may receive a lot of media coverage in the near future and have a chance on becoming notable. I personally don't believe it will become notable, but I withdraw on the basis on WP:RAPID. — Panamitsu (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose This is one of the deadliest road accidents in Italy's history. Obviously the article needs more work but it only happened a few hours ago. Johndavies837 ( talk) 22:57, 3 October 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 Scots Wikipedia#Controversy. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Scotched English

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

As stated in a prior (invalid, due to recreation) PROD, this unreferenced article is a thinly veiled attack against the perpetrator of the Scots Wikipedia incident. I can find no evidence that this is an actual term in use; the few matches for "Scotched English" or "In Scotched" in Google, Books, and Scholar are using the phrase in a context totally unrelated to language, English or Scots. This is borderline WP:G3 hoax or WP:G10 attack page territory, but given the numerous past contested attempts to remove the page via PROD, BLAR and RfD, AfD seemed more appropriate than unilaterally speedy deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Scotch, or rather cut back, to a DAB. A head note on Scots Wikipedia says 'Scotched English' redirects there, which it apparently did until recently, and which might be what some readers are looking for. User:Uanfala suggests in page history that the concept "is definitely a thing" but is not called 'Scotched English'; maybe they had something like Code-mixing, Pidgin, or Anglicisation (linguistics) in mind? None of these quite fit the term – which, as Rosguill's research suggests, doesn't have a single specific meaning – but all might be listed on a DAB. Cnilep ( talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_22#Scotched_English. signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ Rosguill: "this unreferenced article is a thinly veiled attack against the perpetrator of the Scots Wikipedia incident." This statement is false. The "perpetrator" only made their account in 2012, yet the "thinly veiled attack" was around in 2005. It may be that it's a neologism made by a scowiki editor (the enwiki page was previously deleted via PROD in 2009 after all) CiphriusKane ( talk) 00:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you, I've struck those portions of the rationale. I don't think it affects the other arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'd have deleted as nonsense, there is no sourcing and this appears to be OR. This is [12] the closest I can find. G1, maybe G3. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    G1 is reserved for totally incomprehensible gibberish, not stuff someone made up but which makes sense grammatically. signed, Rosguill talk 01:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Whilst the WP:NONSENSE guideline defines the term as gibberish, this page is English-common nonsense in every other sense of the word. In fact, I honestly thought it was a hoax on Scots English. For policy, I'd go with a hard 'no' for WP:GNG, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR (and, frankly, just about everything else starting with [[WP:. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Scots Wikipedia#Controversies: No sources, reads like an essay. The phononomeon is mentioned here, although not by name, so this is a {{ R to subtopic}}. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Personal essay with no sources provided. If sources can be found, I would also vote merge into Scots Wikipedia#Controversies. -- Primium ( talk) 02:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - totally unencyclopedic, exactly what should not be here. If I thought it was in addition a joke, I'd be calling for sanctions against its creator. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 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 keep. Consensus is clear at this point. BD2412 T 14:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Lynda Suzanne Robinson

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

Conducted BEFORE search and found no SIRS. Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 21:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Texas. Shellwood ( talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No book reviews that I can find, does not seem to pass AUTHOR or GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found three reviews on Publishers Weekly under the name Suzanne Robinson (See 1, 2, and 3) and 6 more under the name Lynda S. Robinson ( see search list here). Likewise, Kirkus lists 7 reviews under Lynda S. Robinson ( see search list here) while the New York Times lists 5 reviews plus an essay mentioning her. In addition, using the Wikipedia Library I found a ton of reviews in places like Magill's Book Reviews, Booklist, Wall Street Journal, and Library Journal along with biographies for this author in reference works such as Baker & Taylor Author Biographies and Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works. Per WP:Author, Lynda Suzanne Robinson easily meets our notability guidelines.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SouthernNights. St Anselm ( talk) 16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SouthernNights, and note there were clear references to multiple reviews already present in the article at the time of prod & AfD. It would be easy to stub the article to remove the promotion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 20:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but strip out or source the completely unsourced biographical content. Some seems based on / copied from her archived web page here. Pam D 07:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as per SouthernNights. Suonii180 ( talk) 11:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Changing to keep per SouthernNights. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have now cleaned up the article to remove the fluff and also added new citations.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:57, 8 October 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 Jones Radio Networks#Satellite formats. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Adult Contemporary (radio network)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a defunct radio format. Let'srun ( talk) 20:51, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Earthlings?

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

As I noted in my PROD, there's an AllMusic bio and two reviews, but I found nothing else to support notability. However, said PROD has been removed because, as noted, this band has multiple notable members. I'll save the longer rant and just say that I think WP:NBAND#6 is silly for a standard of notability, especially when it's the only one a band has going for it. In this case, it pretty clearly is the only thing, and it alone should not be enough for this band page to be kept. Unless more coverage is located somewhere, then I see no reason for this to be kept as is. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Nothing found for this band, Eddie Vedder seems to have a similarly-named band [13], it's a delete for me. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if you're going for "multiple notable members" as a notability claim, the article still has to be reliably sourced to real media coverage — but literally the only footnote here is their own Bandcamp, which is not a notability-building source at all. Bearcat ( talk) 12:27, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Lidia Aviles

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

My intention was to put this for WP:A7 as I could not establish notability for an academic, but I thought to put it for discussion as being an EU Climate Pact Ambassador might be an indication of notability! Still I think this article should be deleted FuzzyMagma ( talk) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Lack of sourcing. When sources are in Danish, Spanish, Arabic and English, something's fishy. Sources appear mostly primary or non-RS. Innovation Expert is so broad as to be almost useless as an indicator of notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - doesn't seem to be notable, only passing mentions in the vast majority of sources. Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 20:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Generally pass GNG because being an EU Climate Pact Ambassador is an indication of notability. 102.91.48.185 ( talk) 23:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    no, it is not. the position itself is not notable, there is no significant coverage from reliable and independent sources for it. So please do not write an article about the position. In addition, as per their website, The following individuals can become Pact Ambassadors:
    1. Leaders of organisations or associations
    2. Community leaders, leaders of informal groups or movements
    3. Mayors, parliamentarians, policymakers or other public office holders
    4. Representatives of cultural, educational or research institutions
    5. Influencers, opinion leaders
    Except of part of no. 3, these are vague descriptions and there is a need of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources which for this individual are currently not their. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 08:30, 8 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Jack Claude Nezat

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

This page has previously been deleted for reasons of lack of notability and I have been unable to find anything that has made this person more notable than at the previous deletions. As the last deletion of the aricle was a WP:BLPPROD, it seems the article is ineligible for WP:G4, and as well it includes some newer content, so it wouldn't likely be eligible anyways. Regardless, I have not been able in my WP:BEFORE to find anything to indicate that this person meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Tartar Torte 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and France. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to be a long-standing article on fr, which presumably this is a translation of? I've not found any reviews in Ebsco or Proquest searches for various versions of the subject's name. The first 2011 deletion request by Whpq claimed works were self-published, which would explain the dearth of reviews. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:30, 4 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The Prince of Landis

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

Unfortunately I don't believe this game got a single significant mention in a reliable source. It fails notability criteria completely, and the sources it cites are all unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

What? This is a real game, on steam? https://store.steampowered.com/app/1708970/The_Prince_of_Landis/
Everything in the article is true, even the bad parts? 173.20.126.245 ( talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia requires that articles need to be notable. This means the information in the article can not only be verified by good secondary sources, but has had significant coverage to warrant encyclopedic merit, as the site is not a repository of any and all information. Sometimes these policies can be a source of frustration for people who are passionate about a subject that just hasn't received enough coverage to merit an article. I hope that helps explain things and I'm sorry that you may be disappointed to see this article nominated for deletion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 20:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
As an addendum, WP:BUTITSTRUE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources about the game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 20:52, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Colonization of Europa

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

First of all, to avoid misunderstandings, this is about Europa the moon of Jupiter, not Europe the continent. Having clarified that, let's go on.

This article is a great case of WP:SYNTH. The topic of the article is about the chances of building a human settlement on Europa, but the sources do not deal with that topic. Sources are almost always about something else, that this article repurposes into its topic. For example, reference 4: the article says that the low temperatures are a problem for colonization, but the source merely reports the temperatures. Sources 9-10 discuss the likelihood of microbes in the European subsurface ocean, but not the interaction of such microbes and human metabolism (it is also possible that our own microbes decimate the alien ones, or that both are simply unable to interact in any significant way). And many cases are that way.

Needless to say, out there in the real world there are zero actual projects to do any of this. Human colonization of space so far only aims to the Moon and Mars; further than that is only in the minds of science fiction authors (and we already have Jupiter in fiction for that) and merely speculative authors. Reference 3 is one of those. I can only see a preview, but it says "the polar regions of Mercury, for example, have been suggested because of the suspected presence of water ice and an abundance of natural resources", seems quite hard to take seriously with just a superficial knowledge of the actual conditions on the surface of Mercury.

For the record, there was a previous AFD here, but I understand that the article looked differently back then and that it no longer applies. Cambalachero ( talk) 18:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Cambalachero ( talk) 18:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: OR/SYNTH. Sources about space probes and Alzheimers, do not generally go together. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and in regards to the last comment in the last AfD from 2005: " In a few decades (would have been sooner if Nixon hadn't cut funding), we might conceivably need to split an article with a title such as RickK suggested (with most of the current content) from (Actual) Colonization of the outer solar system. In practice, I suspect the closest we'll come to "colonization" for centuries is the equivalent of workers on offshore oil-drilling rigs. I'm a science fiction fan, and realize that Interstellar colonization is a quite different and longer-term matter than Colonization of the outer solar system, so they probably shouldn't be combined into one "... of space" page"... Well, it's been 2 decades, nothing has happened, so, we still don't need a split. Can barely get people in orbit now, let alone other planets. Maybe we'll revisit in 2045 wikipedia! Oaktree b ( talk) 19:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm biased, but I really don't think any article that long is appropriate for merge-deletion, which I'm pretty sure is going to happen. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 23:39, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Chelgate

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

Unsourced, reads like an advert - Rich T| C| E-Mail 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A PR article about a PR firm (with the only sourcing to their website!). Very meta. No sources found, other than a few mentions of items they've handled for various governments. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, their name pops up in a book chapter on Crypto ponzi schemes (which are a thing now?) [14]. Still not seeing enough for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete blatant promo piece. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Searching online, there isn't much available outside of passing mentions of involvement in PR issues. Article is just an ad piece. -- Primium ( talk) 17:22, 10 October 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 XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Fungus (XM)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a former satellite radio station. A WP:BEFORE check only came up with this [ [15]]. A redirect to XM Satellite Radio channel history#Defunct channels seems sensible but I'm open to other opinions. Let'srun ( talk) 16:45, 3 October 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Stealth conservative

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Glorified dictionary definition. Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - There's nothing really to this concept that isn't already completely conveyed by the plain meaning of the two words in the phrase. It's like having an article for "conservatives over 50" or something. And more to the point, regarding GNG there's no sourcing here that demonstrates it's a unique concept, a regularly referenced strain of conservatism, well-defined jargon, or the name of a movement or well defined group of people. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 16:25, 3 October 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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 23:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Trimble County High School

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

I cannot see how this school is notable Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

found this & this PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into new section within Trimble County, Kentucky#Education for an ATD. Nate • ( chatter) 18:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Switch to Keep Well-expanded and sourced now. Nate • ( chatter) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. In a short time using google, I was able to find several sources and added some of them to the article. I see several more available and will add them to the article when possible. I've not tried any Wikipedia Library partners as yet - I suspect much more will be available once that is done, especially once newspapers.com is again available. This school was founded in 1876, so it is likely that more sources are available offline. Jacona ( talk) 18:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Great thanks in that case I withdraw my request to delete and you can decide yourselves if you want to merge or not Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with the nominator that this article should be kept. The article has been improved from 1 tangential reference to 13, so per Hey, and WP:SIGCOV from multiple WP:RS, there's no reason to delete it. There are also many more sources available to improve the article further. Jacona ( talk) 21:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: "I cannot see how this school is notable" is really not a sufficient argument for deletion of a typical American high school article in 2023. Sure there are some small schools and such that aren't notable, and there's no automatic notability, but some explanation of why the school isn't notable should be made in the nomination. Most American high schools of any size have been meeting GNG in the vast majority of AfD discussions for 20 years now.-- Milowent • has spoken 14:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep as it's all Keeps and the AfD has been withdrawn. Keep also because Jacona esp. has done a terrific job in beefing up the article. Meets notability guidelines per previous discussion. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • StefenTower, I think Nate's Merge vote prevents a WP:SNOW close, even though the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no votes for deletion. —  Jacona ( talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Switched to keep, we can go forward with SNOW now. Nate • ( chatter) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Excellent. I was going to say I must have known I was being too optimistic, but it turns out I wasn't (this time). :) Now, we can hope to clear this one off the boards as quickly as it deserves. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:18, 6 October 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

NewsClick

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:WEB criteria. No notability by merit. Created purely based on WP:RECENTISM controversies. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The article on NewsClick should be retained as it satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria and is in line with Wikipedia policies.
    1. Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources: The article is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, as evidenced by the references provided. These sources include reputable news outlets such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, and others, which have reported on NewsClick's activities and controversies over a period of time. This demonstrates that NewsClick has received substantial attention and coverage beyond just recent events.
    2. Multiple Independent Sources: The references used in the article come from multiple independent sources, indicating that NewsClick's activities and controversies have been widely reported and analyzed by various media organizations. This aligns with Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability and reliable sourcing.
    3. Long-Term Impact and Relevance: The controversies surrounding NewsClick have raised questions about press freedom, journalistic integrity, and the use of stringent laws. These issues have long-term implications and are of public interest, making them relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
    4. Notability by Merit: NewsClick's notability is not solely based on recent controversies but also on its role as an independent media organization with a focus on progressive movements and independent journalism. Its history, mission, and contributions to journalism make it notable by merit.
    5. Compliance with Wikipedia Policies: The article adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. It provides factual information without bias.
    In light of these points and in accordance with Wikipedia's notability policies including WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and others, I believe the article on NewsClick should be kept, as it meets the criteria for notability and provides valuable information to Wikipedia readers. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️) 15:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Obviously notable, more than passing mention in multiple top level sources with significant coverage, including the New York Times this morning. The appeal to RECENTISM doesn't do anything at all to diminish the notability of the subject, RECENTISM isn't a notability guideline. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 16:31, 3 October 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 keep‎. North America 1000 06:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Kim Yong-il (politician, born 1947)

Kim Yong-il (politician, born 1947) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, specifically the part stating that sources must be independent of the subject (two of the sources are official Web sites sanctioned by the respective governments of North & South Korea). No information can be found via a Google search (except an Indian government source), owing to the fact that multiple politicians share his name. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk) 14:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't deny this. A position as high as "deputy foreign minister" is most certainly a notable title. However, I could not find a single reliable secondary non-governmental source outside of one that the Government of India created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namethatisnotinuse ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The official sources confirm he held the post, so meets WP:POLITICIAN as I said. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Here's the key, though. 0nly a few sources that are independent of the subject can be found. All the sources I could reliably locate without the Wikipedia Library are not related to him. I consider this a permanent stub. Look at the sources. All of them talk about his passing. Notability is not temporary. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk) 19:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
As WP:POLITICIAN says: The following are presumed to be notable... -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Former North Korean party secretary in charge of international relations dies". Nihon Housou Kyokai. 2 October 2023. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  • Keep. Passes WP:NPOL. While I can sympathize with the nominator, officially recognized WP:SNGs are there for a reason. They exist as an alternative path to determining notability. If a subject meets an SNG it doesn't have to meet GNG. While the sourcing isn't there to pass SIGCOV, it doesn't matter because the subject clearly passes NPOL. 4meter4 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Habiba Tazi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Very poorly written, moved into article space despite not being approved by WP:AFC. I looked at the articles on fr.wiki and simple. Interestingly both were created by IPs and then taken over by a named user. I looked at one of the sources (in French), and it was not in-depth coverage about Habiba. It was mainly about the animal problem in Rabat generally and spent a paragraph talking about Habiba's brother, not her. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Morocco. Shellwood ( talk) 14:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article was created by a sock (now blocked), and moved from draft to article space by another sock (also blocked). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SoufianeElBahri2. It was also created in 2022 by a sock (same farm) and deleted per WP:G5. Given the current article's history, I don't think it qualifies for G5, and as both the blocking admin and the nominator, I don't feel comfortable doing it anyway, so unless another administrator intervenes, the AfD will play itself out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per G5 or re-draftify. I redraftified one of these iterations and left a warning on the now-blocked sock's talk page, but apparently they chose to ignore it. Looking at the history since I draftified it, I don't see any significant contribution by non-sock editors, so I believe this is still a G5 candidate. We shouldn't be encouraging sock farms. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's a G5, but understand your retience Bbb23. Consensus might be helpful here for future creations, but I don't see the notability needed for an article so delete on those grounds. Star Mississippi 12:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete promo piece made by confirmed Sockpuppets . Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 12:58, 5 October 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keir Giles

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

Doesn't reach notability. Only claimed to have reach notability recently because of authoring a controversial article on a current event. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk) 13:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

This article has been present since 2014, indicating that Giles was notable even before the controversial article. 2603:7000:8000:FD9F:2576:AB52:137:2361 ( talk) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The longevity of the article doesn’t mean anything though? We don’t have a rule that if it’s been here for a long time it’s notable. If anything it increases the risk of citogenesis. NM 18:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The article says that he is a director of research at a major defence firm, he's a public figure, and that he publishes articles in some very popular newspapers. Explain how he doesn't meet the notability guidelines? The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 04:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Easy-peasy BLP1E. NM 17:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep I see no reason to delete this. This page has existed for almost a decade, so I find it very ironic how it suddenly gets accused of lacking notability almost immediately after the subject of the page becomes notable for their published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk • contribs)

I'm not casting a vote at present, but I want to point out that this argument is bunk. There's no irony here, just currently heightened attention. As noted above, how long the article has been here doesn't suggest anything about the subject's actual notability. — swpb T •  beyond •  mutual 08:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:JOURNALIST/ WP:NAUTHOR because he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers (he is a commentator widely cited by journalists). For example, BBC describes him as "probably Britain's leading watcher of Russian military matters". His book "Russia's War on Everybody" has won some critical attention ( review 1, review 2).— Alalch E. 21:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Tentative Keep. Google Scholar [16] gives top hits 254,248,127,124,102 (all single authored). Ebsco search gives multiple book reviews of different books, probably sufficient to meet AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep for the reasons listed above. The article is well-sourced and its subject is certainly notable. - 2003:CA:8707:CA7:A80F:84D7:67CA:E63C ( talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per above. Clearly notable. Not BLP1E in the slightest. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 10 October 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 merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Life Foundation

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

Fictional organization from Marvel comics. Plot summary + information on which comics (plus one movie and game) mention it. No reception/analysis. This is WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG, I fear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 3 October 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. Honestly, no point in keeping this going further. DS ( talk) 13:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)‎ reply

Mehrdad Nikoonahad

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

Can't find a thing suggesting notability. E Eng 12:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No sourced evidence of meeting relevant notability criteria provided in the article, and a search turns up nothing of consequence either. The 'visiting professor' post mentioned is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and even if the unsourced claims regarding Nikoonahad's career, inventions etc were verified, they appear not to have attracted the necessary in-depth coverage in secondary sources to meet more general notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Constant314 ( talk) 13:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • a) Good lord, I did a terrible job when I made a two-sentence substub in 2006. I think I may have just been following something from Requested Articles. b) Is "Senior Member of the IEEE" not itself an indicator of notability? DS ( talk) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
No. [17] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Heck no. I'm a senior member and I'm not notable. The requirements are a certain number of years plus a recommendation from three other senior members. The chapters compete (friendly) on numbers of senior members, so my chapter has an annual senior member drive. You bring in your resume, a three SMs read it and endorses it, and voila, you are a senior member. Constant314 ( talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, I believe I may have been thinking of "Fellows", then. DS ( talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood ( talk) 14:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Might have a high enough citation factor, I can't find it though. Appears the prolific scientist/engineer, several patents found under his name. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    On Scopus, his h-index is only 8. [18] Netherzone ( talk) 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    And the US Patent Office grants over 380,000 patents a year. [19] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Far from passing WP:PROF#C1 or #C3, the New Scientist source does not have in-depth coverage of him, and there seems nothing else. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A WP:BEFORE search online reveals very little, mainly social media content. The subject of the article does not pass criteria for WP:PROF, nor WP:GNG. The entry appears to be either an autobiography or possible COI; while that is not in itself a reason for deletion, it may explain the large amount of unsourced content and overall promotional tone of the article (and why his personal website in the infobox is his personal LinkedIn profile. WP is not a social networking site per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Netherzone ( talk) 14:17, 4 October 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 Rogue One. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Bodhi Rook

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

Minor Star Wars character. Plot summary + tiny receptions section based on few mentions in passing in movie reviews; my BEFORE shows nothing better. Recommend redirecting to List of Star Wars characters per WP:ATD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Rogue One - Supporting character who only appeared in a single movie, whose role in the plot and casting information is already covered in the main article for that movie. As stated by the nom, the reception section is actually made up of reviews and coverage of Rogue One, in which small mentions of the character within that general coverage of the film is being cherry picked out. Additional searches do not turn up the kind of coverage in reliable sources that would warrant an independent article separate from the main article on the single film the character appeared in. I strongly support having Rogue One be the redirect target over the suggested List of Star Wars characters since, as the characters only notable appearance, it is very likely the page that would be the most use to users searching for the character. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Passing mentions that don't rise to level of WP:SIGCOV. Would accept a redirect, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:03, 7 October 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. There is actually a consensus to delete here anyway, but regardless, as a number of editors have pointed out, there is also a requirement for us to Do The Right Thing. Jess is a reliable source for the fact that the subject doesn't want an article, and if we consider the minimal extra value to an encyclopedia that has 7 million articles versus that request, then given the borderline notability the latter should win every time. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Indira Raman

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

Fixing improperly created AFD. User's reason: Please can we draftify/ delete this page? The subject of the page does not want a page, she isn't happy being on wikipedia, and it seems unnecessary to keep it up. Jesswade88 (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I can't link it, I would just appreciate if we could move it to the draft space. The article is apparently causing unnecessary distress, which was obviously never the intention. Jesswade88 ( talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh well. We'll see what happens, the closer may consider what weight to give WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/ WP:BLPKIND in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Why draftify and not delete? - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps because draftify is quick and anyone can do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, if she didn’t want an article, she shouldn’t have gone and gotten herself elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Hyperbolick ( talk) 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
That's harsh - and I don't believe being one of the c. 5,700 members is regarded as a strong claim to notability per se, per previous discussions I can't exactly remember. She seems rather marginal for WP:NPROF to me. We are getting more selective on named chairs, nowc there are so many. Johnbod ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Johnbod: Harsh? Not like the page is a hit piece making bad accusations. Literally just what you could find out about this person on the web, put together in one place. Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Courtesy deletion, per WP:BIODELETE. Subject is notable, but not so notable that not having an article about her is a gaping hole in our encyclopedia. Jess Wade has noticeable contacts in the scientific community, if she says subject wants the page deleted, I believe her. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences has 6385 living members, do we really have articles on all of them? I doubt it. The article is being nominated by the person who originally created the article, only a few months ago. Let us not torture the people we write articles about ... unless they truly deserve it, like politicians . -- GRuban ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Torture? Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, you got me, that was ... hyperbolic. Let's say torment.-- GRuban ( talk) 19:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Not having articles for all 6385 living members sounds a bit like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't think this really falls within the scope of BIODELETE or BLPREQUESTDELETE, and I'm not seeing anything on the page that is offensive. If the page subject would like anything removed from the page (perhaps things from her early life, or about her interests in mental health), we should accommodate that, but this doesn't extend to page deletion. If this were a case of someone who was marginally notable for something that happened in passing and was dodgy (cf WP:PERP), or if it were poorly sourced, then BIODELETE would apply, but here, we have a very distinguished scientist with a named chair at a major institution, who easily passes WP:PROF. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I'm leaning towards keep for similar reasoning, but I would support trimming parts of the article if that would help. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • As a follow-up to what I said, this isn't some trivial "named chair" at some low-tier institution, but a significant named chair, and chairpersonship of a department, at a major US research university. And I've looked over her publications, and they are high-profile publications in major journals with high rates of citation by other authors. This is an easy pass of WP:PROF, not by any means a borderline case. I think the only reason we are here at AfD is because an editor received some sort of personal communication from the page subject. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • For whatever it may be worth, I made this edit to the page: [20]. It's an EL to an extended interview she gave, and consented to have online. I recognize that it's not as prominent as a Wikipedia bio, but it is evidence against the idea that she wants to remain private online. I really do wish that we had more information about what she may or may not have said to an editor, because this AfD seems to rest entirely on what that editor has indicated about it. We don't even have an OTRS request, and I'm very uncomfortable with Wikipedia making content decisions about what a page subject maybe said. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Fish, I see where you're swimming from. If this was a nomination by some newbie editor I too would be saying, "are you sure"? But this isn't just the article author, who one would think would be the person who would most want her work kept. This is Jess Wade. We have a non-trivial article about her, because some of the biggest reliable sources in the world, from the BBC to the Washington Post to El Pais have written about her work writing hundreds of articles about women and minority scientists just like this one. I think we can take her word for this. -- GRuban ( talk) 23:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      I've been trying very hard not to ABF about that editor, but I'm genuinely uncomfortable. It wouldn't be that hard for her to simply respond to the multiple requests and pings that have been sent her way. I could say a lot more, but I won't. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete including per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which includes, Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Based on the article and its sources, and my search, Raman appears to be a non-public figure who is relatively unknown. She was interviewed in 2016 about an essay she wrote and also presented a version of at a 2016 research conference. The one source available at the GNews link is not actually about her, it is about a report described as highlighting "cases of discrimination, bullying and harassment - alongside a systemic failure across the sector to deal with these issues effectively" - the interview about her discussing her experience as a woman in science is linked in the "Related Content" section. While the specific objections are unclear, I think it would be better for us to not try to guess or use subjective judgments about what may be objectionable, and to instead honor the wishes of this subject. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • If I understand correctly, the only information that we have about "the wishes of this subject" is in this edit summary: [21], and subsequent comments about that in this AfD discussion. Also, your comment made me take a closer look at the wording about "there is no rough consensus". That's what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says, in quotation marks attributed to WP:BIODELETE. But BIODELETE doesn't say that, and the page history doesn't show any recent changes about it. Instead, it says "and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete". (And in the absence of a page subject request, it says "where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed.") It seems to me that we should want to have more than that edit summary, for us to get from the AfD discussion so far, from may delete, to must delete. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      We have the primary author's, Jess Wade's, comments right on this discussion, actually. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Yes, we edit conflicted with me correcting that in my comment before I saw your reply. It's awfully hard for me to reconcile that with what the page actually says. This case is very different from the situations that BIODELETE and BLPREQUESTDELETE were written to address. It's true that the page subject is a non-public figure, as we define the term. But this is very far from a page about a marginally notable person that presents uncomfortable information about that person. The page, as it currently appears, presents her in a pretty laudatory way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      And yet she doesn't want it. I don't think we should use our judgment about whether or not she should like a page. If she doesn't, she doesn't. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      I hear you on that. But I think we are using our judgment to conclude that "she doesn't want it". I'm going by what the deletion and BLP policies say about this, and it just doesn't seem to me to add up to a "must delete" kind of situation. Maybe a little more information about what the page subject has communicated about not wanting the page would make me change my mind. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      WP:BIODELETE previously said "rough consensus" until it was changed with the edit summary "tweak" on 18:27 20 January 2021 [22], and there was some discussion on the policy Talk page. But I don't think the "tweak" changes or seems intended to change the basic policy framework - we appear to have a nonpublic figure who is relatively unknown, who has credibly requested deletion of an article written about them, and as noted in the AfD nom and this discussion, we have more than an edit summary to support the wishes of the subject. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Where do we have that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      There is the AfD nomination, which includes the statement from article creator Jesswade88 [23], and then another comment from Jesswade88 [24] in this discussion; WP:BLPKINDNESS notes, Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative, so from my view, this appears to be a credible request. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      Obviously, everyone here wishes to avoid BLP-UNKINDNESS. At the same time, it would be very helpful to know whether this is truly a case of the page subject saying "this is causing me distress, because the article says xyz, and that's something that I don't want publicized online", or whether it's "you know, being the subject of a Wikipedia page isn't all that it's made out to be". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      I am not suggesting that anyone is intentionally attempting to be unkind; I cited BLPKINDNESS to support the credibility of the request made on behalf of the subject. And to add to my previous comments, there appears to be no policy-based requirement for a relatively unknown, nonpublic figure article subject to do more than request deletion. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Understood. But both policies say "may be deleted"; neither says "must be deleted". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Indeed, and from my view, the relatively small size of the article and general reliance on primary and nonindependent sources supports the exercise of discretion to delete. My opinion might be different if WP:PROF#C7, WP:GNG, or an SNG (such as WP:NAUTHOR) were supported because the subject would probably not be relatively unknown. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think we should have articles on all female American Academy members. Deleting the article on her would leave a hole in our coverage. She has a very easy pass of WP:PROF#C3. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just to add that she also has a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5, through the named professorship, at least. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per subject's request.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While we should honor a request from the subject in a case where notability is marginal, I see a completely solid pass of WP:NPROF here. If there are specific aspects of the article that are causing distress, then likely we could trim those. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 04:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per subject and creating editor's request, as per Beccaynr's rationale. Zeromonk ( talk) 07:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We need to give special attention to the wishes of living people. This person has apparently made it quite clear that she does not want her biography on Wikipedia. Her entry on Wikidata will of course remain.-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It's difficult to see why the subject doesn't want the article, but I'm prepared to WP:AGF and say that if Jess Wade, famous for her work increasing the coverage of women scientists in Wikipedia, who created the article, wants it deleted because of concerns exxpressed by the subject, then it should go. Pam D 07:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE really applies here. The subject is very clearly a notable scientist and public figure (holds a named chair at a major university, member of a national learned society, prolific and widely-cited author, does interviews and press about her research, etc). She's not "relatively unknown" by any stretch of the imagination. But if the subject and the creator and only significant contributor to the article wants it deleted, it's a bit churlish for us to say no. So WP:IAR, delete. –  Joe ( talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article subject legitimately passes our notability criteria—and in spades—to the extent to which I BLPRQUESTDELETE cannot apply: 'well-known' does not necessarily mean to the general public but 'in their field', as in the case of NPROF, it's already assumed they won't be popularly notable. But holders of academic chairs and repeatedly published authors are experts in that field and de facto notable in it for our purposes. I also don't think IAR applies: this is too good an example of the kind of subjects we should be covering to merely throw it out on a whim. Now, if there were a suggestion that the page attracted endangerment or unnecessarily bad publicity, then it should be TNT'd immediately. But there's been no suggestion that that is the case—it would have been mentioned from the start, I assume extremely vocally!—so this really comes down to personal opinion.
    I think that if a subject is only on the verge or passing our notability guidelines, then BLPRD applies. If an article endangers the subject in any way, then BLPRD applies. But if the subject is well-sourced and notable, and the article adheres to the usual requirements of BLP, then BLPRD is outweighed by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N. Three core content policies which dictate what material we hold except in certain limited circumstances; I do not see such circumstances here. Serial 14:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but we need to convene an on and off-wiki social and ethical conversation about this recurring situation. Even if we delete this, that deletion is going to draw more attention to this person because this is the kind of person for whom Wikipedia generates biographies, and if this article were deleted, our other processes recruit editors to re-create the article about them.
This is a fairly standard biography of a prominent scientist who is highly visible for publishing research, accepting positions of leadership, receiving awards, being named in government documents as the recipient and investigator for grants, and otherwise having a public life in professional research. They meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability criteria, and they do not meet any criteria for deletion. We have had discussions for 20 years about whether we will delete biographies by request for no reason, and have consensus that as an editorial practice we do not offer this.
As I look at this biography, it looks orderly, respectable, and to Wikipedia community standards. I see nothing shameful here. I want to share my own observation that with regularity I encounter cases where a professional woman requests deletion of their nice biography. I cannot recall ever encountering a case of a man doing this. If I had to guess based on seeing women's cases but not men's cases, I would guess that women request deletion of their flattering biographies 100 times more than men. If we wanted accurate numbers, it would be easy to design an undergraduate data science project to go over all of Wikipedia and estimate how often this has happened. I am not saying that this request from this person has anything to do with their gender, but I am detecting a pattern here and if we need a deletion policy to take into account something gender related then we should discuss that explicitly and we probably need more information.
Here are some patterns of similar cases that I have observed:
  1. This case, professional woman accepts professional recognition in their field along with its accompanying media records. They have an readily accessible online presence by their name, but definitely Wikipedia makes them more accessible. They have no identified scandals. Sometimes they report stalking, harassment, or desire for privacy. I have only observed professional women doing this and never professional men.
  2. Protestor in the streets does attention seeking behavior, which definitely includes their visibility as a participant. They may give interviews, be photographed, or document themselves in media as an advocate for some cause. Somehow they meet WP:N. When it comes to their Wikimedia presence, they want privacy. The person may be from any background, but women and minorities request deletion more often than majority demographic men.
  3. Online celebrity, such as a YouTuber, streamer or cam performer, erotic performer, or Internet personality is seeking attention online from a particular audience. They post lots of personal information in several platforms. Somehow they meet WP:N. Although they are public on the Internet, they make choices to be public in some places and not others, and see "public places on the Internet" as distinct places which should not overlap. When it comes to their Wikimedia presence, they want privacy, and again, women do this more often.
We Wikipedians in the United States have hosted events at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and like so many organizations, that one has requested that we produce biographies of their members. If they want a public or private conversation then the communication channel is open to discuss social and ethical best practices. I am more comfortable making an example and case study out of this person because they are relatively privileged and well connected, and I expect that if they gave a word to the Academy of Sciences, then that academy would readily convene a meeting with Wikipedia editors to discuss best practices. The subject of this biography is also a public speaker on the topic of women in science as in The truth is in the distribution. (Q37351551). I would like to make this case not about them personally as soon as possible, and instead about re-examining our general rules, but here we are and it is common knowledge that Wikipedia deletion requests trigger Streisand effect. We will continue to find ourselves in this recurring situation until we get consensus on a standard response. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It is presumptuous of us to say "it's a nice biography, she shouldn't want it deleted". She knows her situation, she has her reasons, whatever they may be. "The subject wants it deleted" is a perfectly fine reason for deletion. "The primary author wants it deleted" is another. "We know better than they do" is ... well ... -- GRuban ( talk) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ GRuban: to quote the proverbial comic, "what am I chopped liver?" I was first to create this title, as a redirect to the family section of her admittedly more famous and more public father Varadaraja V. Raman. I started putting together a page on the daughter before anybody else, entered the scene, and everything that is there I would have eventually written myself. The fate of the page ought not depend on the happenstance of my original edit getting obliterated by a page move somewhere in the history. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The fate of the page depends on our arguments here. "The primary author wants it deleted" is not the governing argument, but it is, hopefully, an influential one. "I originally made this page as a redirect, even though you can't see it in the history, and I would have eventually written all this content", ... is also an argument, but, with all due respect, not quite as strong. Had I but world enough and time, I would have written all the Wikipedia:Featured articles. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I think Bluerasberry explains fairly well the potential disparate impacts of denying requested deletion of the attack surface anyone can edit, but I am surprised to see do not think this small, thinly-sourced biography referred to as is "nice", or in a comment above, that this subject referred to as is a " public figure."
Where are the interviews? Where is the press? She is an excellent scientist, and has apparently given an interview to a blog. The article is disproportionately built around coverage once in a newspaper for co-presenting a paper at a conference, and a college news report. A faculty website would likely be more balanced and complete, without the security risks, as noted by Bluerasberry, that seem to be largely perceived by women and minorities. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC) - adjust comment Beccaynr ( talk) 09:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I also think this discussion highlights good-faith disagreements about how to interpret the "relatively unknown" portion of the policy, and as applied here, whether this subject has achieved a level of prominence and notability according to our guidelines to support keeping the article despite the objection. I also recall a previous AfD that seemed to raise a question about whether the various protections Wikipedia can provide are as obvious to article subjects as they may be to regular editors. It may be that more effective outreach to article subjects about how to cope with this website becoming a top result in an internet search could help address various concerns about privacy and security; for now, our case-by-case approach may be obscuring a systemic deficiency in how we communicate available protections for BLP subjects. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for that last comment. I appreciate the recognition of good-faith disagreements. But I want to say more broadly that I think it's important to conduct this AfD discussion based on policies and guidelines, without skewing the discussion with emotional appeals. Attributing opinions such as "it's a nice biography, she shouldn't want it deleted" or "We know better than they do" to editors who have commented in favor of keeping, is to distort what editors have actually said, to the point of caricature. So is implying that editors, who have said that the page does not contain anything in the way of an attack, do not understand sourcing requirements, because the page is "thinly-sourced". (In fact, no one has made a credible argument that the page should be deleted for lack of adequate sourcing, and the sourcing is not unusual for BLPs about similar academic scholars.) And it's not clear to me how much the "primary author" of the page really wants it deleted, because she has also asked for it to be kept and moved into draft space. There is nothing in policy that says that a page that is encyclopedic and notable can be deleted because the editor who started the page requests it, after other editors have edited it. This isn't in user space. Those of us who are making the case for keeping should be able to do so, without being made to sound like we are insensitive or worse. I urge editors to focus on the merits, and not stoop to emotional appeals. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
While some of your comment seems directed more broadly to the discussion generally, and not directly to what I have written, to clarify my reference to 'thinly-sourced,' this is an attempt to refer back to my previous mention of the article sourcing as generally primary and nonindependent, in my analysis of the "relatively unknown" part of the policy. It is not a comment on other editors, and certainly not their understanding of sourcing requirements, and is instead my view on how to assess a request for deletion based on available sources. I can think of many article subjects who might request deletion but have robust biographies based on substantial in-depth secondary coverage in independent and reliable sources, and therefore would most likely not obtain consensus for deletion.
And I would disagree that discussions about privacy and security are 'emotional appeals,' if that is what is being referred to in your comment - there may be a need for broader community discussions about how Wikipedia can more effectively address issues that may impact certain groups more adversely than others, but this is not intended to cast any editor advocating keep as 'insensitive or worse' - that is why I followed up to emphasize my recognition of the good faith participation in this discussion. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as clearly notable, someone we surely should have a page on. But gut the article of all the trivia (how many languages her father spoke – what does that have to with the price of fish?), the gratuitous quotes, etc., reduce it to a bare-bones summary of her (considerable) professional achievements. And remove all the poor/inappropriate sourcing, including her own papers and Facebook (yes, really, Facebook!). Jesswade88, if you have some special insight into which aspects of the article have offended the subject you might go ahead and deal with those as a first step – but honestly, I too would be offended if someone had written an article like this about me (which won't be necessary, I have none of those considerable achievements). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • There's nothing wrong with citing her own scholarly science papers, but I agree with the rest. And I think these edits by you and by me largely take care of that: [25], [26], [27], [28]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I decided to look back at the history of the deletion and BLP policies, to get a sense of what the community has thought, over time, about the issue of a BLP subject requesting deletion. I found these two, relatively old, discussions: [29], [30]. (There may be other discussions that I missed, of course.) I think it's clear that there has never been a consensus that, once a BLP subject has indicated a desire to have their page deleted, we must default to deleting the page as was requested. The subject's wishes should be considered, but are not determining. Editors are expected to balance the subject's wishes against notability and the value of the information to the encyclopedia, and administrators are expected to treat these situations as "may delete", but not as "must". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Certainly I would expect discussion participants to comment on whether the subject is notable, not on whether the subject has requested deletion (we already know that). Our BLP policy suggests deletion when there is no consensus on whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. But a comment saying only that the subject has requested deletion and pointing to this policy does not provide any input on whether the subject meets our notability guidelines and cannot be used to determine whether there is consensus on that point. I would hope that the closing administrator would discount all such comments from the determination of whether a consensus exists, and consider them only in the case that (after discounting these comments) the remaining comments fail to reach a consensus. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously. Overriding a subject's wishes not to have an article is one thing, though in this case I consider it a Very Bad one-thing -- BLPREQUESTDELETE exemptions are not/should not be "people we should have a page on in some worthiness sense", but people who are actually famous. Overriding both that subject and the article's creator is just a perverse outcome. Hell, I'd call this a valid G7. Vaticidal prophet 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:OWN is a thing though, perverse or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There seems to be a clear pass of WP:PROF here on named chair, on citation record, and on fellowship of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The subject is not a publicity-avoidant scientist with no coverage, and has for example given a relatively recent (open-access) interview with photograph to Neuron [31], an earlier one to the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre blog [32], and to The Naked Scientists [33], among others. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
ETA I would not be opposed to protecting this article at extended confirmed level if that would be a reassurance to the subject. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
We have no indication whether the subject is concerned about potential changes to the article (so could be reassured), or about its very existence (as suggested by the original deletion proposal). Pam D 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if the subject (who otherwise is a clear pass of WP:Prof) does not want a BLP. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Questions @ Jesswade88: Can you confirm that you are 100% sure the request to remove the article is from herself? And can you give us any indication why she wants it removed, without causing further distress to her? (I realise the answer to q2 is probably "No", but it seems very strange.) Pam D 04:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
These requests happen on a regular basis from people who wish to retain their privacy. I support them unless there is good reason not to, which I don't see here. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete: Let’s do the right thing here, shall we? Innisfree987 ( talk) 07:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Since some editors seem to think still not enough has been said here (hrm), I will add that my view was influenced by this subject’s qualification for a biography under an SNG rather than having, as far as I can tell, the WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. If there were widespread secondary coverage of this biography, I would find it hard to justify removing a summary of that coverage. But in the case of a low-profile person with a strong preference not to have a WP presence, I continue to think inflicting one on them is the wrong thing to do. Happily policy has a provision for accommodating this. Innisfree987 ( talk) 23:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete is the decent thing to do. Interviews in niche professional outlets do not one a public figure make. WP:BLP and WP:DEL are policies, and a careful reading of both shows that they don't apply only to non-notable subjects; obviously, otherwise they wouldn't need to exist, because non-notable subjects get deleted anyway. Also, if notability overrode these policies, it would unfairly disadvantage academics, because WP:NPROF is by design a low notability standard. DFlhb ( talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I said earlier that this discussion should not be derailed by emotional appeals. And as an editor who advocates for keep, I feel personally affronted by the two comments above. Apparently, I want to do the wrong thing, as well as an indecent thing. Yes, BLP and deletion are policies, but a careful reading of each shows that they both indicate not that there must be deletion, but that there may be deletion. But let's not get distracted by what the policies actually say, because I'm just someone who wants indecency. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Tryptofish, I respect you a lot as an editor but I don’t see what this comment adds to the discussion. If you want to avoid emotion, then personalizing it doesn’t help. And talking about what the rules allow versus require isn’t responsive to the issue of what is the right thing to do. Innisfree987 ( talk) 17:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you for saying that about me. Criticizing what you said, however, wasn't personalizing the discussion. Your original comment was, in its entirety, "Let's do the right thing here, shall we?" I'm sure you meant that in good faith, but there was nothing in your comment that was based upon policy, or even responsive to earlier "keep" comments. You may sincerely believe that deletion is the "right" thing, but there's no getting around the fact that those of us who have given policy-based arguments for keeping sincerely believe that keeping is the right thing. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
          • "I'm just someone who wants indecency" was certainly personalizing the discussion. And BLP and delete are policies that have already been spelled out in this discussion. Your comment added nothing to explain why failing to use them to avoid harm to a low-profile figure is the right thing to do. Innisfree987 ( talk) 19:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
            • Another editor said that deletion was "the decent thing to do". Doesn't that make keeping indecent? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer that.) Surely, a better argument for deletion would have been to cite those policies accurately, instead of claiming "decency" for one "side" of the discussion. I've already done more than most editors to examine how those policies apply here, and I've already explained in some detail why I think those policies point to keeping. Asserting that deletion is the decent thing to do, or the right thing to do, is what adds nothing to the argument based on policies. It just makes an unjustified claim of the moral high ground, which indeed is personalizing the discussion needlessly. I'm just saying that it's not a good argument to claim that one has the moral high ground and other editors do not. If it hurts to have that pointed out, then don't make that kind of argument. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
              • I’m not hurt. You said you were "personally affronted". I find that needlessly inflammatory, and ironic since you said you objected to emotion. Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this person is only "clearly notable" by the dubious application of NPROF. There's not actually significant secondary sourcing to demonstrate notability per the GNG, so I absolutely don't see an issue deleting per subject request. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/ WP:BLPKIND. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just a remark after two years of reading a lot of AFDs but a sure fire way to get editors arguing to Keep an article is for the article subject to request deletion. For some reason, some editors see that request for deletion as a challenge to Keep an article. I've probably seen a dozen cases of article subjects requesting article deletion and there is never a unanimous response to honor the request and Delete the page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Some editors do, but I don't think it's most, [34] [35] (one unanimous and one almost). Perhaps some editors react the other way too. And perhaps the "subject has opinion" thing sometimes just interests more editors. Or the "afd-notice at User talk:Jesswade88" thing. IMO, it's not unreasonable to want to keep an ok-looking article of this kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is the first time that I've ever participated in such an AfD, as far as I can remember. I certainly don't feel like my reasons can be reduced to feeling like I'm responding to a challenge, and once again, I really wish that this discussion could be held without looking for ulterior motives among those editors who argue for keeping. The implication that, if only this were a more rational situation, there would be a unanimous agreement to delete, is a disservice to what an AfD discussion should be. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was just making a general observation based on my experience reviewing and closing quite a few AFDs, I haven't looked closely at this discussion to see what position individual editors were arguing for or what their reasons were so I would not take my comments personally. All I saw was the deletion nomination and the fact that the discussion is very divided right now. I'm not invested in what happens to this article and if I'm the discussion closer, I'll follow what result I see the consensus of editors says to carry out. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I hope you're not really considering being the closer after commenting like that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I actually have no opinion on what should happen with this article. But since you have an objection to me taking action, Tryptofish, I'll let another admin handle this discussion. There aren't many of us patrolling AFD these days so it might take a while until this one gets closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Liz, I hope you don't feel that keep comments like mine are intended to treat the BLPREQUESTDELETE as illegitimate in any way. On the contrary, my position is that BLPREQUESTDELETE demands a proper evaluation of whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. If they clearly do, the article should be kept. If the case is borderline or little harm would be done by the deletion, we can and should respect the request. But respecting the request means performing that evaluation of notability, honestly and by the same standards we would apply in any other case, and only after that evaluation has been performed using its outcome to determine what to do, not merely rubber-stamping the request.
    You write that the discussion seems very divided right now. To my mind, there are two sets of comments: those that perform an evaluation of notability, and those that point to the fact that there is a BLPREQUESTDELETE and we should treat it as a valid request. I do not see a contradiction between those two sets; they are discussing different things, both of which need to be combined in the closer's decision. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's clear that this subject meets WP:PROF in multiple ways -- they are notable both because of their research contributions, and the recognition they have received for such in academic circles. However, as Beccaynr has carefully noted, this subject is not well known beyond that. BLPREQUESTDELETE, in such situations, acts as something of a catch-all solution to inaccurate information, misrepresentation, and privacy concerns. I don't like that we have to use it, it would be nice if our BLP articles could appropriately "thread the needle" in each of the cases, but it's clear we do need it from time to time. — siro χ o 10:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but lock. They are neither a public figure or a private one. Google certainly knows a lot about them, and will happily serve it to anyone who knows her name. All the non-Wikipedia results seem to be reliable, relevant and accurate, which is hardly surprising for a person in this position and field. The only way to mitigate the likely cause of their distress therefore, is to ensure Wikipedia behaves more like those other Google results. Accept only edits that on review appear to be relevant and accurate, before thrusting them into the full glare of Google. Edson Makatar ( talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:PROTECT, there are several levels of potential "locking". But for any of them to be considered, there actually have to be a certain degree of disruptive edits in the article's edit-history. Articles aren't protected because stuff might happen. If you know of such disruptive edits, you can ask for protection at WP:RFPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly articles are already locked down based on what is going to happen, rather than what has happened. It would not therefore be too much of a change to say Wikipedia can and should lock articles when they know their existence is going to cause distress. It is inevitable due to Wikipedia's open editing model that one day the subject's fears will come true, compounding the distress they already feel from knowing it is merely a possibility. This is surely why they object to being on Wikipedia, since it cannot be said they object to being known to Google more generally. Edson Makatar ( talk) 06:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    A couple of examples of articles that were locked based on what was going to happen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Edson Makatar, while I don't think locking the article would be within policy in the absence of disruptive edits, I expect that many of the participants in this discussion (at least myself) will leave the article in their watchlists, and that any problematic edits would be quickly reverted. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 08:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's commendable Russ, but I seriously doubt that lessens the distress to any great degree. I imagine the subject is smart enough to realize that they aren't famous enough that they can be reasonably sure their Wikipedia biography will be monitored twenty four seven for the rest of their natural life. You certainly resumably need to sleep, work and play, and you will eventually lose interest in Wikipedia. This platform is a live publisher. Any potentially harmful change made to this page is immediately visible to Google, and if it is left here for any significant amount of time, it will also persist in mirrors and scrapes, even if you eventually spot it and remove it. There is very little cost to Wikipedia in giving this person the reassurance that this cannot happen, while retaining the benefit of having this biography remain to ensure the almanac of Academy members is complete. I appreciate this isn't current policy, but until someone suggested it, neither was allowing relatively unknown people an effective opt out from Wikipedia. Edson Makatar ( talk) 09:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, author and subject request. While the subject passes WP:PROF, there is no convincing secondary sourcing in the article. — Kusma ( talk) 09:52, 9 October 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 keep‎. Consensus is that this is sufficiently notable, though perhaps not at the best title, which will be decided at Talk:Auckland children bodies found in suitcases#Requested move 2 October 2023. Complex/ Rational 12:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Auckland children bodies found in suitcases

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

It's a horrible thing, but is it really notable? If it is, isn't it news WP:NOTNEWS? If the consensus is that it isn't covered by NOTNEWS, isn't the detail WP:TOO SOON before an upcoming criminal trial? JMWt ( talk) 09:25, 3 October 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 keep‎. Stifle ( talk) 07:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wayne B. Hales

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

Notability seems lacking. Ironically, the page was created by one Johnpacklambert. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Utah. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Why is it "ironic" that the page was created by JPL? Curbon7 ( talk) 18:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Presumably because, before being topic-banned, JPL was known for placing drive-by "delete, not notable" comments on many AfDs. But he tended not to do that for LDS figures, such as the subject of this AfD. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment leaning Delete. Presumably Johnpacklambert felt that presidency of Snow College was the determining factor for notability, given its prominence, but it does not seem a sufficiently prestigious institution to me to pass WP:PROF alone. I'm not sure what weight to put on Brigham Young University history materials, presumably they are fairly indiscriminate? Not finding anything in GS to speak of. (Is Johnpacklambert permitted to participate in deletion proposals on his own articles? It seems a little unfair otherwise.) Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Poked around in the WL some more after A. B.'s finding below, and found another short obituary JSTOR  26222396 (that the Ebsco search somehow missed). Think there's enough now to go with Keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 05:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
— A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was briefly confused by A.B.'s link because it combines a listing of fellows of some other society (not including Hales) with an obituary of Hales. But the obituary states the AAAS Fellow claim and I verified his listing at https://www.aaas.org/fellows/historic, I think good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C3. The existence of two independent published obituaries (not paid death notices) in professional journals also makes a case for WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:28, 9 October 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 keep‎. Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Lugz

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and New York. AllyD ( talk) 07:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep: The WSJ piece is RS and not a passing mention. Reference 10 might be as well, I don't know about that publisher. So the brand has attracted some attention and coverage that isn't purely promotional. However, most of the sources cited are either non-RS (Wordpress) or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - For those who are old enough to remember the 90's these things were a household-name-ubiquitous part of hip-hop and pop culture ( at least Eminem thought so as does Complex which calls them an "iconic" brand), and there really shouldn't be a question about notability.
Personal testimony aside, the WSJ story and multiple others combine to meet SIRS. A quick Google News search (supposedly a prerequisite for this deletion discussion) shows that they're still an active and high visibility brand today with regular media coverage and shouldn't have been nominated. WilsonP NYC ( talk) 16:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There is a pretty comprehensive chapter in International Directory of Company Histories about the parent company, Jack Schwartz Shoes, Inc., [37] which also owns British Knights. Perhaps the two brands can redirect to a new article about the parent. 70.163.208.142 ( talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable with its high-profile collaborations with famous figures in music, sports, and entertainment. kind of cultural phenomenon. -- Assirian cat ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Aaron Spiro

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

Does not meet WP:BAND under any criterion. WP:BEFORE does not turn up independent reliable sources showing any significant coverage. Not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He has very brief bio at AllMusic ( [38]), which says little more than what this WP article says, on how he released a lone album in 2002. I can find no pro reviews of that album or anything more about the singer and his career. He is listed at a few Christian music directories (e.g. [39]) but those also provide no further information either. There is simply nothing with which to write an encyclopedic article that informs the reader of anything. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm getting a lot of false positives when I search on Google Scholar. I'm used to doing this for fictional characters. Does anyone know how to refine the search? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Aaron and Spiro give many false positives but enclosing in quotes [40] will only show hits for exactly Aaron Spiro. This is a musician. If he is known at all, it should be the full name (c.f. Ed Sheeran for instance), so that should be an acceptable search. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:36, 5 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Ace duraflo

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

Not notable product. GraziePrego ( talk) 05:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It also reads like an advertisement. Moonreach ( talk) 18:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 3 October 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. ✗ plicit 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

List of places named Khan

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

Most of the entries are partial matches only, and the few legitimate entries are already listed in Khan. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I really don't see this fulfilling WP:LISTPURP across the encyclopedia. A list of places named after one person, or even of one title held by many probably would, but I fear this list is more confusing than helpful to readers. I'd be willing to userfy if the main contributor desires it for some sort of developmental use. — siro χ o 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unnecessary directory. Raymond3023 ( talk) 07:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST, is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:12, 10 October 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Kerry Ketter

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

stub on an unnotable sportsperson. ltb dl ( talk) 05:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ canuck85: erm, no. ltb dl ( talk) 10:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
It is true that merely playing in the NHL no longer meets our notability guidelines. But with this much NHL experience who played this recently almost certainly has enough coverage to meet our notability guidelines. So in the absence of some particular reason why this particular player wouldn't have coverage, there was no good reason to make this waste-of-editor-time nomination. A better use of time would have been to use a few of the easily found sources below and add them to the article. Rlendog ( talk) 13:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • You know, I can guarantee Ketter is notable - players with that much NHL experience just will receive significant coverage - but the main website that contains the notability-giving sources, Newspapers.com, is unavailable for all users through the Wikipedia Library currently... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, Newspapers.com is not inaccessible, some users have just had problems making clippings. Bearcat ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: Its inaccessible for me at least - clicking on this url gives me a notice of "www.newspapers.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding" which never changes. I can get to the normal website but of course whenever click on a page I get the usual subscription-required message. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I had the same issue. Rlendog ( talk) 13:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Player easily passes notability guidelines. Searching newspapers.com returns 1,742 hits for "Kerry Ketter" + hockey from 1960 to 2019. There are several larger articles on him, including this example. Plenty of potential for expansion here. Flibirigit ( talk) 15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: While participation standards have been deprecated, it'd be astonishing on the face of it for a player with two top-flight seasons (and who was the first player chosen by a new franchise) under his skates to lack significant coverage, as Flibirigit has already proved. I can only think the nom glanced at a poorly sourced stub, blithely ignored any obligations under WP:BEFORE to research the issue, and charged ahead. Ravenswing 15:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I will try to find some SIGCOV. Here is one example for starters. This. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
A smaller piece here. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Another one here. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Cbl62's sources, as a former NHL player. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 10:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - an article being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale, and the subject is clearly notable. Rlendog ( talk) 14:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep — siro χ o 08:19, 7 October 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 keep‎. after substantial work was done on this article to address problems. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Melanie Murray

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

Lack of established notability and orphaned- both concerns for nearly a decade. GraziePrego ( talk) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Deorphaned, added a second published work, added reviews as sources for notability. Pam D 08:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Canada. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added a short section about another North American contemporary writer called Melanie Murray (probably not notable), as this seems useful information to help the reader to distinguish which of the two MMs they are looking for. It may be slightly WP:IAR but I reckon it helps the reader. Pam D 15:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, leaning keep. (I wish AfD nominators would not mention orphaned as a reason for deletion.) Ebsco is finding second review for the Burns book: Quill & Quire, Mar2017, Vol. 83 Issue 2, p31. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 3 October 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 merge‎ to YRF Spy Universe. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Rubina (fictional character)

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

No out-of-universe notability for this character. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoya (fictional character). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:57, 3 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Youth Conference (Christian)

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

This event is not notable; I'm hardly able to find any sources on this event at all, let alone secondary sources (about the most I can find is this random blogpost on YC Alberta and this other random church webpage, both of which are primary sources). There are also plenty of other style issues with the article on this event as well, resulting in a huge {{ multiple issues}} template; in fact, the very reason I noticed this article was because it was listed on WP:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates, which bodes quite poorly for the article's future. I recommend deletion. Duckmather ( talk) 02:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, Africa, Slovakia, Ukraine, Canada, and Belize. Duckmather ( talk) 02:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wow is this PROMO for the event. Youth conferences pop up all over for just about anything and everything. I can't whittle down enough to find some about this religious event/organization. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Delete I'm unable to find sourcing for this religious group/conference. Seems notable, but the sourcing isn't there. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I very much disagree with the idea of deleting this page. This is one of the biggest youth conferences in Canada. The reason why there is no information on it anymore is because the conference was cancelled in 2019. YC next was the last conference that they did in 2019. But I think that's article is very important because it is one of the only references of one of the biggest youth conferences in canada. Sharpshootinsam ( talk) 22:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. If it really were one of the biggest youth conferences in Canada, there would be more references about it? Jdcooper ( talk) 01:42, 7 October 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 merge‎ to YRF Spy Universe. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Zoya (fictional character)

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

No out-of-universe notability. Was deprodded by creator with minimal improvement. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:52, 3 October 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. ✗ plicit 00:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Trey Turner

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

Baseball player who fails to meet GNG guidelines. He has never played in the top level of professional baseball. Fbdave ( talk) 01:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Soft Delete Hits on a search bring up Trea Turner. Aside from the MLB draft and a brief article of his time at Missouri State, there really isn't anything to bring here. Conyo14 ( talk) 21:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A Google search for "Trey Turner" -Trea brings up very little. Two of the sources in this article are about the Nationals drafting Luzardo and Giolito, having nothing to do with Turner, and another is just about the 2020 season cancellation. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Outside some coverage from when he was drafted, there's not a ton in terms of coverage. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 23:10, 9 October 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. ✗ plicit 00:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Defining equation (physics)

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

This articles fails WP:TONE, especially WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I believe the least painful solution would be simply moving it to Wikibooks. Otherwise, I'm afraid the alternative would be to star over. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks, per nom. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma ( talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's no evidence that "defining equation" is actually notable as a concept. This entire pile of words seems to boil down to the concept that "equations are used in physics to define things." Followed by a whole bunch of examples of equations used to define things. This strikes me as borderline tautological, and definitely not worth the effort of transwikiing. PianoDan ( talk) 04:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Article is largely inspired by the textbook Whelan & Hodgson (1989) Essential Principles of Physics, which uses the concept of "Defining equation" heavily. I do not see that it would be used as a formal concept in many other sources. The page itself is messy, and would not benefit any project in its current state. -- Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 14:40, 9 October 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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Christian. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Spirit (Sirius)

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

Already PROD'ed, this subject lacks the coverage from secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 3 October 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 draftify‎. ✗ plicit 00:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Yuima Nakazato

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

Seems to be questionable with meeting WP:GNG criteria. Reads like an advertisement. Most sources are a mere trivial mention of the subject of the article and some are just selling things or are promoting him. Seawolf35 ( talk) 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete. Passes G11 of speedy deletion criteria, but there are sources out there. If found to be reliable, I might change my vote. Brachy08 (Talk) 03:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Japan. Shellwood ( talk) 09:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Coverage here in French [41], here in a HK newspaper [42] and this also in French, but not a strong a source [43]. Also was featured in an NHK item [44]. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify and revert to this old version. Current version is WP:PROMO for a brand. The article is primarily focused mostly around a brand named after the subject, and would need to meet CORP even if it was not promotional.
Looking at the article history, it looks like it was created by an account as an imperfect draft stub, still slightly promotional but not as bad [45] and submitted to AFC. It was declined for notability reasons. As a BIO, Oaktree's sources may help with that (but not as CORP).
At a later time a different editor (possible SPA) turned it into this promotional piece [46] and moved it out of draft. — siro χ o 19:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply
A local website listing rather indiscriminately local people, as it does here with our subject; a state organ promoting "Japanese talent", in general, as in here; some article about a group of designers among whom our subject is mentioned; this report on "Juniors Fashion Week", in which, again, our subject's name surfaces once; the commercial listing of our subject's photography book posted upon its publication; another commercial listing, this one by a "textile & sewing producer"; Fédération de la Haute Couture et de la Mode is a prestigious institution but its use as a source has no merit, being a simple listing of our subject; more brochures - this one's about a dance event, which does not even mention our subject, and neither does this about an opera; at least, this report about a ballet mentions Nakazato once, as many times as the Japan Times yearly round-up; another prestigiuous institution's website, the Barbican's, is scared up, yet it's only one more exhibition catalog; and so on, and so forth. Then we descend to the level of primary sources such as the brochure for "Fashion Frontier Program" written by Nakazato who's also the creator and owner of FFP.
I'd sincerely wish a possible future entry in Wikipedia, but, for the moment, we have very little for that. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and as such the article as written is not suitable for main space. Draftify is also an acceptable outcome. The sources found by OaktreeB do indicate that an article on the person could pass GNG; although an article on the company would not. This article could be re-tooled into a biography page that passes W:GNG. However, we should require that the draft pass an WP:AFC review to make sure it has been suitably modified. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete As nom, it fails WP:NCORP as of the moment and kind of needs a WP:TNT to have a future entry.(If this is considered vote stacking please discount this opinion and strike this vote) Seawolf35 ( talk) 14:14, 5 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_3&oldid=1179604024"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE