From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 09 February 11 >
Guide to deletion

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. Star Mississippi 17:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Matt White (paraclimber)

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

While he is on the British para-climbing team, there is little SIGCOV in any of the main climbing RS on him (neither British, nor international, per WP:NCLIMB), and zero SIGCOV in any national British quality non-climbing RS either. All his refs are passing mentions on results in competitions. As yet, no real GNG I can see, unfortunately. Aszx5000 ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete guy seems super cool but also relatively unknown, hopefully British press covers him in the future but until then not notable enough. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 01:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Being on the British paraclimbing team is no more inherently notable than being on the British tiddlywinks team. The bottom line is whether the subject meets the GNG or not. He doesn't. Ravenswing 16:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subject doesn't quite reach NATHLETE yet as he has no record of international medals. However, being a member of the British national team probably signals that international competition is in his future, so TOOSOON applies. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above and WP:HOLE. NYC Guru ( talk) 11:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above: the article does not currently pass WP:GNG and WP:NCLIMB. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:59, 16 February 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. In terms of numerically, there are six editors arguing to keep (one of whom qualified as "weak"), and twelve to delete (two of whom qualified as "weak"). Of course, AfD is not a simple vote or head count, but the numeric result is also not entirely irrelevant or meaningless.

Editors on both sides made reasonable, policy-based arguments for their positions; there was not one side or the other making entirely indefensible or unreasonable arguments. Those arguing to keep argued that there is sufficient reference material available to sustain an article on the topic, while those arguing against tended to argue that the topic is both overly speculative and may constitute needless content forking of material already covered in a parent article. With all this considered, the consensus, while not unanimous, is that this is not a suitable topic for a separate article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page seems to be nothing but predictions, extrapolation, speculation, and "possible future history". This seems to run afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I do not see how the article could be re-written or edited to change that. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions, All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. The claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL backs deletion is not true. Super Ψ Dro 23:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
This article is of the type CRYSTAL warns us against, not of which it says are permissible. It is true that we have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. But that passage continues... An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. Are you suggesting that this article is about a notable artistic work (like Star Trek, or Brave New World)? Or an essay or academic or non-fiction work like The Population Bomb or Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow? Those are appropriate topics because they are about a specific notable artistic or academic work that happens to be about a fictional future, or a specific prediction (that itself is notable). This article is more like "Weapons to be used in World War III", than the other examples. Compiling sources into some sort of WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH prediction is not appropriate. If there are specific notable predictions about the Russo-Ukrainian War, in art, academia etc. they can be addressed in an article about that specific work, not the current article which is more in line with "Weapons to be used in World War III". Alternatively, if the relevant predictions are not notable enough for their own article it might be appropriate to mention them in the main article about the Russo-Ukrainian War or one of its many sub-articles. That is not a reason to keep this article though. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
This article is not a compilation of sources to make some kind of prediction, it is an article compiling sources making predictions. There is no WP:OR here, it is all verifiable and sourced. Point 3 of WP:CRYSTALBALL states Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it., which I believe is a warning against WP:OR, not against any articles on predictions. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
This is not an article about a specific notable prediction. As Marcelus seems to be saying below, it is an article that attempts to aggregate various non-notable predictions. Each of these predictions, on their own, are not notable enough for their own article. Perhaps not even notable enough for inclusion in Russo-Ukrainian War, but that is a question for the editors there. Just because you can find academics, news agencies, and other normally reliable sources prepared to say that nuclear weapons are likely to be a weapon used in WW3, doesn't make a Weapons to be used in World War III article appropriate. It might be a great essay, but as a Wikipedia article it is offside of both WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOT, as Levivich has noted below.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL applies and there is nuance to what it states. Articles on future events should be scheduled and almost certain to take place. War is inherently unpredictable. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. To the first part of this, the guidance would generally refer to the sciences or theories established within other academic contexts. To the last part, the article has an inherent POV issue. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. However (per WP:ONUS), verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Another key issue is the quality of sources. Most of the sources relied upon are news sources. These news sources may be written by experts but they are neither expert sources nor of particularly good quality that would be associated with peer reviewed academic journals. Sorry but this seems much too long a bow to draw. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
In the same point in which it is stated that articles should be almost certain to take place, it is said that As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic. Notability plays a big role in here, and this topic does receive a wide coverage in sources which even though are not of the highest quality, are reliable. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
My OP pretty much addresses this though not specifically. The Ultimate fate of the universe is a topic of academic discussion arising from established scientific theory. These discussions are scientific extrapolations. Sources cited in Ultimate fate of the universe are from academic journals and prima facie peer reviewed. The Ultimate fate of the universe is therefore presented as an exception for scheduled or expected future events because it is exceptional. The Future of Earth has similar merits to the Ultimate fate of the universe with respect to theory and sourcing. On the other hand, I have already identified the inherent unpredictability of war, the POV inherent in the title, the strength of assertions compared with scientific theory (extrapolations) and the comparative weakness wrt news sources v peer reviewed sources. Articles subject to CRYSTAL have a much higher threshold of notability. It is not just a matter that sources exist but the depth of sources and several other considerations per CRYSTAL. There is absolutely no comparison between the AfD and the Ultimate fate of the universe. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
There is no such a thing as a higher threshold of notability for articles. An article is either notable or not. This topic, being discussed by numerous experts in think tanks and major newspapers, governmental institutions (USIP for instance) and officials and even heads of state, is notable. This topic meets the condition where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. I also see no NPOV violation in the title. Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Respectfully, a "hypothetical victory" is a very strange topic for an article. This isn't a thing that exists. Even if you consider that the subject matter is the speculation by various parties of a potential Ukrainian victory, it still doesn't merit a separate article. If possible, the content should be rescued and merged into Russo-Ukrainian War, but under no circumstances should this be a standalone article, per the above rationale laid out by both Cinderella157 and Darryl Kerrigan. AlexEng( TALK) 03:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
a thing that exists is definitively not a threshold for having an article in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 08:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep  There’s nothing wrong with an article about extrapolations. We do have a good article on Future of Earth.
Of course it could be improved, but this one is a decent start (title could be more neutral, though). This article is not a prediction of what will happen: it is a roundup of academic and other discussion on what needs to happen, what is likely to happen, how to achieve certain ends, the possible repercussions, and so on. There is a body of study on ending wars or war termination. [21] [22] [23] [24] Another whole aspect that’s written about and might belong in this article are the signs that a historical change may be taking place: the possible end of the post-Cold War period, or the “end of the end of history” or whatever. [25] [26]  — Michael  Z. 03:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a great argument. Second, even if we accept that this is a notable subject matter, you haven't explained why it merits a standalone article. AlexEng( TALK) 03:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I believe that @ Mzajac wasn't attempting to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the situation, they were giving Future of Earth as an example of how a article of this type could be done in a manner that is that complies with WP:Notability and WP:NPOV.
While 'Otherstuffism' isn't a great argument, I think there's definitely merit to looking at how other articles about predictions can be accepted and even recognised as Good Articles by the Wikicommunity. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 07:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Right, I’m not saying that article exists so this one must, specifically. I’m saying that article’s existence starkly disproves the supposed general principle that there can be no article about the future. But really, it should be self-evident because so much of science and the humanities are about “predictions”: snow will melt when the temperature rises above freezing, children will be healthier if they grow up without violence, risk of WW3 will be lower if nuclear weapons don’t proliferate, and so on.
That this is a notable subject suitable for a standalone article is attested by the twenty links on the subject provided in the proposal above. IMO, they only cover an aspect of the subject, which includes potential Ukrainian loss or Russian victory too.  — Michael  Z. 15:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "Keep" - It seems perfectly reasonable to me to have an article about notable predictions about the Russo-Ukrainian war (and indeed I would prefer that as a title). Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
And why can't that be done in the main article or any of its many sub-articles?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 08:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
One could for example say that the main article is way too long (215,499 bytes), above the recommendation of splitting after the article reaches 100,000 bytes. What subpages could be appropriate? Super Ψ Dro 08:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Depends on the specific content/prediction we are talking about. Much of what is in this article likely is not notable or important enough for any other article (main or sub). The fact that some politician said that Ukraine will win (probably isn't). But perhaps some content here is. This is a fork article. If this content isn't appropriate in the main article, it shouldn't be here. Sure sometimes articles get too long and forks are necessary. Here the main issue is the value and quality of most if not all of the content. But also the way it is being used to be an OR speculative article about a possible future event contrary to CRYSTAL. Some of the content here might be worth saving. I am not sure any of it is though, because at this point this article is nothing but a flagrant violation of CRYSTAL.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk)
The apparent assumptions you've decided to stick to regarding this article such as that it is a WP:OR fabrication, that this article is a flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL or simplifications like some politician said that Ukraine will win are not productive to the discussion. If this article does violate Wikipedia politics will be decided by the outcome of this AfD. I do not believe discussion based on these personal assumptions which as evidenced here are not shared by all other editors is appropriate.
As for a merge. I do not see any reason why some information here would not be appropriate for Russo-Ukrainian War. Again though there is a wide coverage of sources on this article's subject and the main article is way too long. One may also think on the potential length this article can reach. There are many other aspects that can still be included in this article, backed by reliable sources. That would only make a potential merge harder. Super Ψ Dro 09:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for opinion pieces, nor should aggregate them. Marcelus ( talk) 10:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep - a clearly notable topic with extensive coverage. Articles like Dissolution of Russia and Partition of Belgium exist, which are both obviously hypothetical, so this article should be allowed to keep existing according to established practice on Wikipedia.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 12:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay topic, not an encyclopedia topic. Levivich ( talk) 16:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep - Notable topic with plenty of reliable sources as other editors have mentioned. Perhaps having it focused more generally on potential outcomes of the war/predictions rather than just a Ukrainian victory would help alleviate some concerns. BogLogs ( talk) 23:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an unnecessary fork of Russo-Ukrainian War since while a war is ongoing winning is a hypothetical, and political discussion about the war of course includes that possibility. This article is a compendium of discussions by allies, and this is covered adequately in Russo-Ukrainian_War#International_reactions. Anything that isn't already in that section could be added, but I see no reason to emphasize this as a hypothetical. Lamona ( talk) 04:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Mellk ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly there have been many reliable sources discussing the probable course of, and scenarios regarding the end of, the war in Ukraine. However, I agree that a title such as Predictions Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War would be an improvement. -- Shimbo ( talk) 23:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Per [[WP:NOT] and WP:CRYSTAL. One might as well write an article about a hypothetical Russian victory.
I say "weak" because the topic itself might be suitable, but the article itself, as it currently stands, absolutely isn't.

Draft space exists for a reason.

RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 23:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete as I don't think this page would be more than an aggregation of opinion pieces. This is different from articles like future of Earth where scientific conclusions can be drawn from empirical data, and confident extrapolations can be created. BeŻet ( talk) 10:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT. I like more information on wikipedia. This isn't informative. DarmaniLink ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL, they may win, they may lose they may cease to exist in a nuclear fireball. We do not know and such predictions are the province of blogs and sears, not an encyclopedia. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
They're clearly not the province of blogs and sears when we have think tanks and major newspapers discussing them. Super Ψ Dro 16:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Major newspapers also contain horoscopes and other non-encyclopedic predictions and speculation. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because something appears in a newspaper does not make it worthy of an article.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Rename to Hypothetical ending of the Russo-Ukrainian war or other more appropriate name, as suggested in talk Talk:Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War#c-Mzajac-20230210214300-Darryl_Kerrigan-20230210212300 . Manyareasexpert ( talk) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Highly speculative, and I echo the comment that this reads as an aggregation of opinion pieces. Some of this can be selectively included in the main article, but this isn't really encyclopedia material. Reywas92 Talk 21:40, 17 February 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! 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Global Education Monitoring Report

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

Don't see any evidence this report meets WP:GNG. Found a few passing references to it as a source, but that's about it. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 23:19, 10 February 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.

If some sources surface in the future, this article can be restored and improved. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Battle of Kadino Selo

Battle of Kadino Selo (  | talk | history | 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 importance, no sources. Jingiby ( talk) 07:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, North Macedonia, and Turkey. Shellwood ( talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see something about the mayor in 1902 in snippet view here but clicking the link doesn't give me enough to verify let alone get a quote. This does tell me that the confrontation probably happened however and that there is probably more in specialized journal or databases. Elinruby ( talk) 18:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes the battle really happened, Metodi Patchev died in March, not April as his biography shows in Wikipedia. The Turkish Ottoman Mayor of Kadino Selo betrayed the rebels. Just i am not sure what date in March, 1902 ? Can you please change the wording in the article. The article should be included but changed to correspond to Wikipedias policies. From Kajmakcalan. Thanks. 58.179.181.212 ( talk) 21:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ 58.179.181.212: the part of Wikipedia's policies that the article doesn't meet is references. Since you seem familiar with this event, perhaps you can help us out there? Elinruby ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC) @ Kajmakcalan: Elinruby ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The bio for Patchev has the following references for the battle:<ref>[http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/hs/hs_a_26.html Писма и изповеди на един четник,XXVI,Хр.Силянов,1902 г.]</ref><ref>Николов, Борис. "Вътрешна македоно-одринска революционна организация. Войводи и ръководители (1893–1934). Биографично-библиографски справочник". София, 2001, стр. 125.</ref> Elinruby ( talk) 00:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment -- This seems to be a minor engagement in one of the Balkan wars, but it is written without context, and lacks a lead or any categories. If improved to a normal WP structure, I would be prepared to judge its merits, but at present I cannot. I expected this to be another vehicle for deploying the battlebox template, but it is not. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 17:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Could not find anything online to support notability. CT55555( talk) 01:35, 11 February 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 no consensus. No analysis of the sources presented has occurred. A fourth re-list is inadvisable. Therefore give it a bit of time for those who argue the topic is notable to improve the article. If the article is not improved with in-depth, independent, reliable sources then it should be brought back here again. And hopefully with not as many WP:VAGUEWAVES. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Laalkuthi

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

Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non- WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Reads like advertising. The first six sources are announcements, not in-depth sources. The rest are the ratings that add nothing to the content of the article. The Banner  talk 10:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:07, 27 January 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! 21:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Only TRP stuff is there, doesn't seems notable. 49.33.233.14 ( talk) 03:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete more then 75% of the page is cast lists, and as far as i can see 50% of the sources are from the same place - Bad At This, The Kneecap Destroyer ( yell at me) 18:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This page contains enough reliable sources that pass WP:GNG. Nilpriyo ( talk) 06:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per WP:GNG, needs more English sources to even consider it. 1AmNobody24 ( talk) 12:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • 1AmNobody24, There is no requirement that sources be in English to satisfy WP:N. (I'm not saying these sources do the job.) —  Jacona ( talk) 19:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      @ Jacona I know that per WP:N "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." But it can be an indication that it might not be notable for the English Wikipedia if there are no or only little english sources. 1AmNobody24 ( talk) 09:42, 18 February 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 Stack (abstract data type). 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Stack (C++)

Stack (C++) (  | talk | history | 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:CFORK of Stack (abstract data type) Vozul ( talk) 21:13, 10 February 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Nurshafiq Zaini

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

Former footballer, no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only coverage that's even close to decent that I can find is his retirement announcement on the Singapore FA's website. Straits Times has a passing mention and Bola has a match report which mentions him thrice. No significant coverage located. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 10 February 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. Star Mississippi 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Chinenye Nnebe

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

I think that this fails WP:NACTOR due to the lack of "significant roles in multiple, notable ... productions". Draftification undone by the article creator. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 20:14, 10 February 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 and redirect to Redemption Paws. This is complicated. There is definitely some nonsense happening, which is why I will protect the redirect. However the consensus appears clear that Redemption Paws is notable, and there has been no case made why a redirect should not exist since Simone is tied to the organization. Star Mississippi 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicole Simone

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

Previously deleted back in 2021, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone. Archive of that version can be found here. I think this version differs substantially enough from the previous that it is ineligible for a speedy deletion. As per the previous 2021 deletion, I don't think she's notable as a musician. As noted in Willondon's table in the last AfD: Most of the sources are either A: Only tangentially about the subject, B: in self published blogs, or C: Appear to be pay-for-play publications. Redemption Paws (the animal charity she runs), which seems to have had a number of controversies may be notable, but that coverage isn't really about her specifically. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Per the creation of the Redemption Paws article by CT, I also support a redirect to Redemption Paws.-- Excutient Talk 13:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Excutient. Medarduss ( talk) 20:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is significant coverage ( WP:GNG) Her musical career isn't very notable, but she is making news:
  1. https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2022/03/02/this-is-not-right-behind-the-bitter-fight-for-one-of-torontos-most-high-profile-rescue-dogs.html (7 mentiones)
  2. https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2022/04/29/redemption-paws-shipped-difficult-rescue-dogs-to-newfoundland.html (15 mentions) CT55555( talk) 22:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Surely given that other aspects of her career are not notable, the notable topic here is in fact Redemption Paws and not Simone herself? Would you agree to retooling this article into one about the organisation instead? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I think founding a notable organisation and having a mildly notable musical career justify my keep vote, so I don't plan to change it (but I have an open mind, I could be persuaded). But of course I find redirecting better than deleting. I do think the article needs a rewrite to include more about Redemption Paws, but to say more about that would be to stray outside the scope of AFD discussions, I think. CT55555( talk) 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I didn't remember the name, but the photo, I did. She's more notable as a dog rescue person, the music career didn't pan out. She's mentioned here [31], here [32] and the like. I'd agree that the charity is likely more notable. There isn't an article for the charity. Can we Redirect to a non-existant article? Oaktree b ( talk) 22:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I can find mentions of the charity dog rescue from 2017, 2020 and 2022. There seems to be continued coverage about it, some a bit unflattering, but it's likely at GNG. She's mentioned in every article about the charity since 2017, she's clearly deeply involved with it. Not sure if that makes her notable. And based on what I've read in the last AfD and some of these articles, she tends to sue people that don't paint a flattering picture of the organization. Not sure I'm wanting to venture down that rabbit hole by creating the article, but a redirect is probably the best. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hope this helps: Redemption Paws CT55555( talk) 23:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:BASIC and WP:PROMO, and a redirect to Redemption Paws could be created after deletion of this WP:BROCHURE. There are a few reputable sources, e.g. CBC Toronto, CBS News, CTV Toronto) but these reproduce promotional statements by Simone about Redemption Paws with minimal secondary context to support WP:BASIC notability. The Toronto Star has done some in-depth reporting on the organization but one of the March 2022 reports is not about her, it includes her statements and denials of the allegations about the organization; another report in March 2022 includes allegations about her and by her, and her denials of wrongdoing; and in April 2022, there is some brief context about a prior legal case but otherwise denials of allegations. I think this kind of in-depth coverage of the organization can help support its notability, but for this article, seems insufficient to support WP:BIO, particularly with the unsupported notability per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. Beccaynr ( talk) 05:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Redemption Paws. This is a tough case and I sure hope it doesn't end up in hopeless "no consensus" territory. Anyway, the problem is trying to cram too many careers into one article. There could possibly be a brief musician's article with the title Late July, focusing on that musical act in particular and simply mentioning her other names as historical info. That act got a few reviews, but her later music as Nicole Simone is unnoticed and non-notable. So she does not qualify for a full biography article as a musician. Meanwhile, Redemption Paws is notable (maybe not for good reasons) and Nicole Simone is usually mentioned as their CEO, but those articles are about the organization with no support for individual notability for Simone. So redirect her name to the organization in case anyone searches for it. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I am changing my vote to Delete per the ensuing discussion below, due to evidence of conflicts of interest and coatracking strategies. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She has over 30 citations, mostly about her music. She meets WP:MUSICBIO. Criterion 1 states: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"...There are numerous articles about her music and reviews of her songs. In addition, she meets WP:BASIC which states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Redrosally ( talk) 21:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I already voted above, but for anyone who insists that this woman should have an article because her music got some reviews, the article should be focused on the act called Late July, with that title at the top, because that is what got reviewed. Her activities outside of that act are already covered at the Redemption Paws article and there is no need for repeats in multiple articles. Otherwise my own vote stands as-is. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:MUSICBIO says Musicians [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria and the creator of the article Redrosally suggests Criterion 1 applies. However, while there is one brief review in Earmilk, [33], the other sources in the article about Late July, i.e. v13.net, which operates a promotional business; Rival Online, which has an aspiring writer and writer on staff and reproduces what Simone says about her music, as well as the same superficial marketing copy reproduced on many low-quality sites; Elicit Magazine, which promotes itself as "Every Music Artist Has A Story, We Tell Yours" and "We work to give musicians the opportunity to be heard by the people they’ve always dreamed would vibe to their music" and is not a review - it is reproduced marketing copy announcing the release of a single; Influence Insider, another SEO clickbait website (check out its sidebar) that posts an interview and overview of songs without a byline; the Shipwreck'd! blog that "services the fashion and entertainment industry with press releases, bios, publicity and other communications"; Canadian Beats Media blog "Check out the video below and find out more about Late July via our Five Questions With segment"; Grimy Goods blog reproducing marketing copy and what Simone says; Too Much Love media company announcement based on what Simone says; Music Talkers announcement based on what Simone says about no longer working as Late July, posted by "a regular contributor for established press release distribution website Release-News.com"; and a basic All Music entry, do not support notability per this guideline, because these are not independent and reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
If that was directed at me then it is completely unnecessary because I agree with you everywhere else in this debate. I did not say that Late July is definitely notable, and only mentioned it as a possibility. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
A source analysis seems generally helpful for this discussion, e.g. there is mention above of 'numerous articles about her music and reviews of her songs' as support for notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - She meets the notability guidelines and has significant coverage. I have found these additional articles about her:
- theconfidencemag.com - Article about her
- inspirationfeed.com - Article about her
- lingermagazine.com - Article about her
- artvoice.com - Article about her
- essentiallypop.com - interview, but it has a paragraph of info on her
- fiercefabulousrevolution.com - Music review
- wefoundnewmusic.com - music review
- twostorymelody.com - Interview, but also has 3 paragraphs of intro on her
- musictalkers.com - Music review
- ocnjdaily.com - About Redemption Paws, her organization, but mentions her many times
- ladygunn.com - Interview, but has 4 paragraphs of intro on her
- hollywooddynamics.com - Interview, but has a very long intro on her

I think that all editors above should reevaluate their votes based on these sources.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepers215 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Those aren't all (or even mostly} reliable sources at all, so none of them establish passage of GNG — GNG requires coverage in reliable sources, not just in any random website you can find her name in. Bearcat ( talk) 15:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Every single one of those are unreliable services used by self-promoters who practice dishonest SEO tactics. That method can get someone near the top of search results but it is a shallow accomplishment at best. See also the intensive and convincing analysis by Beccaynr below. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I think these sources help raise further concerns about this article being WP:ADMASQ, because there seems to be a pattern of likely paid self-promotion by the subject in low-quality sources:
  • The Confidence post is written by "a blogger and social media manager. She enjoys blogging about current events, lifehacks, and her experiences as a millennial working in New York." On this website, the Latest Articles sidebar lists "What Aspiring Professional Musicians Need to Know (An Interview with Jiawei..."; "How Does Online Video Marketing Work?"; "How To Create The Best Video Marketing"; "How Can You Use Video Marketing?"; "How To Create An Animated Marketing Video". This is not a reliable source and it further lacks independence because it is based on an interview ("With the rest of the article, we’d like to share some of Simone’s thoughts...").
  • Inspirationfeed "is a digital magazine covering everything from quotes, net worth, self-development, entrepreneurship, entertainment, technology, and creativity." It is also a sponsored content farm: "Inspirationfeed also occasionally receives monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for mentioning and/or linking to any products and services from this blog." It is not reliable coverage of her or her work with Redemption Paws.
  • The Linger source lacks a byline and appears to be reproduced marketing copy, on a website that describes itself as "an internation publication that showcases the industries of fashion, beauty and art with a focus on the creatives" and offers "celebrity interviews, coveted event coverage, engaging collaborations, industry partnerships and more" - this is a low-quality content farm that appears to have no staff or editorial policies posted.
  • Artvoice "was excited by the opportunity to talk to Simone about all of her projects" and is not independent coverage, and the reliability of this website appears questionable at best.
  • EssentiallyPop is a blog, and the paragraph intro to the Q&A that might as well be a press release is trivial coverage about her, although it has an interesting factoid about the location of the original television Bat Cave.
  • Fierce and Fabulous Revolution is another blog, that also appears to reproduce the same marketing copy that appears on other websites.
  • The WeFoundNewMusic post is marked "blog" and the website describes itself as "an artist discovery platform".
  • Two Story Melody is a website with over 30 contributing writers listed, and the 8 sentences of superficial marketing copy that precedes the Q&A is trivial coverage in this context.
  • The MusicTalkers post is written by "a regular contributor for established press release distribution website Release-News.com." The website also offers a sliding scale Music Promotion Packages and has other indicators of being a sponsored content farm.
  • The OCNJDaily post is bylined to "MediaWize" and is based on what Simone says. MediaWize appears to post similar interviews and PR copy.
  • LadyGunn notes that it has "a VERY SMALL editorial team", and the excessively-capitalized introduction to the Q&A posted by LadyGunn staff is a version of the same superficial marketing copy that appears across similar websites.
  • The Hollywood Dynamics post is written by "a writer and blogger for Hollywood Dynamics", and its sidebar includes links to "How Much Are Ubers In Los Angeles", "How Much Are Utilities In Los Angeles", "How To Watch Ncis Los Angeles In Uk", "How Much Is Uber From Los Angeles To San Diego", "How Much Is A Storage Unit In Los Angeles", "How Much Is Unemployment In Los Angeles", "How Far Is Los Angeles From Las Vegas By Plane" and "How To Get Vaccinated In Los Angeles", which seem to be SEO clickbait for this spam website. The intro to the Q&A is also a version of the same superficial marketing copy that appears across similar websites.
Beccaynr ( talk) 16:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As noted by others there appears to be enough citations and sources to justify keeping the page. Dubarr18 ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • If it's just about how much there is, it's enough, but what is disputed is whether the coverage is independent and from reliable sources. Most of it looks questionable. Peter James ( talk) 01:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      The Toronto Star stuff I linked above is surely independent though, right? CT55555( talk) 01:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      The Toronto Star is coverage of Redemption Paws - per WP:INHERITORG, An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      She is mentioned 7 times in one and 15 in the other. I wasn't making an argument based on inherited notability, but one based on them being significant coverage of her, even if she isn't the primary focus of either articles. CT55555( talk) 01:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      One of your earlier comments [34] included I think founding a notable organisation and having a mildly notable musical career justify my keep vote, so I don't plan to change it (but I have an open mind, I could be persuaded), so the guideline seems relevant to that aspect of this discussion, and I discussed the Toronto Star coverage in my !vote comment [35] - the mentions appear to mostly be related to her statements, which is not independent coverage of her. Also, the Toronto Star is technically one source, publishing multiple articles in a short period of time - it seems to help support a redirect after this article is deleted, but does not appear to support WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC notability, particularly after the quality, independence, and depth of the other available sources are closely reviewed. There does not appear to be significant coverage based on combined independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      I am continuously re-evaluating my !vote on this one, and I respect the points you've made, and yes I've not been clear how much I'm arguing based on WP:BASIC or GNG or the inherit guideline, so I acknowledge that, and sorry for that. I guess I'm trying to think of the spirit of all of them, and treat them all as guiding me, rather than hard rules. I'm still mildly leaning keep, still open minded, respect the arguments to delete, this isn't an easy one. CT55555( talk) 01:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      After reviewing the sources and in light of your creation of the Redemption Paws article, I am also thinking about what this article will look like after the non-RS sources are removed. I also agree with a focus on the spirit of the policies and guidelines, including because we don't have many strict rules here. And I think your effort to create the new article is commendable and clearly done in the spirit of helping preserve encyclopedic content. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
none of the sources you've listed are ones we can use for RS, we need Billboard, a major newspaper or the like to talk about her. Oaktree b ( talk) 05:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment : I was accused of sock puppetry by Beccaynr, but the CU has found it otherwise. I believe that Beccaynr is trying everything she has got to get her POV accross and is not coming from a WP:NPOV because of her dispute with me in the sock poppet investigation. I request the admins to strike her comments and vote. Her actions here equal bullying WP:Bully, just because she has 21k edits that does not give her the right to harass newer editors and try to make her own view point across. Please note that according to policy WP:BASIC it states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Because of numerous significant citations, this subject meets notability. as even Beccaynr has said, there are numerous articles that have sections which are acceptable. Redrosally ( talk) 16:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Welcome to wikipedia. Thank you for starting an article that is a biography of a woman. We need more of that around here. I'll briefly offer some advice, which I hope is helpful. It can be stressful when someone nominates an article you worked on for deletion. It may help you to know that I doubt this one will get deleted, it seems to be heading towards being kept or merged or renamed.
    Beccaynr has a track record of careful and thoughtful editing, and even though I disagreed with their edits here, it seems clear to me that they are editing in good faith. The justification for the investigation seems fair to me. Assuming good faith (link to guideline: WP:AGF) is the expected norm on Wikipedia and action can be taken against editors who don't. Also, if you really have an issue with someone's behaviour, the starting point is a conversation on their talk page. I would urge you to pause, breathe, wait, see how this turns out, and you might find things seem less stressful in a few days. And please do assume good faith. Peace, CT55555( talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timtempleton (filed 01 February 2023). Beccaynr ( talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
All are blogs or self-promotion websites, so not helpful. Further proof that she isn't notable if this is all we have for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hello again everyone! As you might remember I nominated her article for deletion last time. As I don’t have much experience with Wikipedia and my motivation for that nomination was under suspicion I’m just commenting here, however I support either delete or redirect. The analysis of sources by Beccaynr is excellent and I think says enough. There hasn’t been any significant increase in notability for her music since the last article was deleted, however there has been some in relation to Redemption Paws.

As you can tell from the paid media coverage Nicole Simone has a habit of trying to buy fame and awards. Analysis of her social media following suggests she may have paid for a significant amount of her followers, and therefore I would not be surprised if she paid someone to create this page again, many business will take your money to do this. Therefore I find Redrosally’s involvement quite interesting, particularly how they “added more info about redemption paws” to the article as indicated on the talk page, yet managed to exclude all mention of the Toronto Stars articles. Arguably those articles are the most significant reporting done on the organization and also some of the most recent. I don’t find the section on redemption paws to be neutral as Redrosally wrote it given that omission. I also find immediately jumping to the assertion that they are being bullied to be interesting as on Redemption Paws social media they have used the same language that they are “being bullied” in response to any negative criticism.

I do support a redirect to Redemption Paws as I agree the organization is notable. However I have concerns about that article remaining neutral. I originally nominated her article after becoming increasingly frustrated with Greg, a personal friend of Nicole gatekeeping the edits and reverting anything that wasn’t positive.

Further Nicole herself has already tweeted about this Afd discussion, however in a way that grossly misrepresents the situation saying “In 2021 my Wikipedia was vandalized and removed. This year it was brought back and is now being removed but I'm just watching it like OK, how does this keep happening. Read it while you can! lol”

I find it quite suspect that she immediately knew about the page creation, unless she had a hand in its creation. Also her saying that it was vandalism and no mention of it being removed for lack of notability seems intentionally misleading.

Oaktree b Said “based on what I've read in the last AfD and some of these articles, she tends to sue people that don't paint a flattering picture of the organization. Not sure I'm wanting to venture down that rabbit hole by creating the article”

This is correct. Currently she is suing the former foster of Mayo (the dog profiled in the Toronto Star article who was sent to Newfoundland with no plan and eventually euthanized) for libel, slander and breach of contract. They have been maintaining an instagram account “dkfosters” where they have continued to highlight issues with Redemption paws and share other peoples experiences. This could very well be a legal rabbit hole and your concerns are valid.

She is also currently involved in a legal dispute over the ownership of a former foster dog that was adopted by their foster parent. Months after adopting when the owner posted a comment on the Redemption Flaws website Redemption Paws decided to take the dog back (by taking it from a vet without the owner present) and assert it had been stolen. A gofundme for legal fees have been started by the owner (espieandej on instagram). This legal action appears to be retaliation.

Redemption Paws themselves have recently posted about these lawsuits on their own social media, attempting to defend that they aren’t SLAPP suits.

I think that’s it… just wanted to provide some context and share my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSpamming ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and SALT Like last time, the subject fails ANYBIO and GNG, despite how much paid-for content and churnalism the subject may have bought. To that end, there's no reason to suggest a redirect because it would inevitably serve as a coatrack or be controlled by undeclared paid editors to keep the bad news out. In a perfect world, WMF would spend some of its ill-gotten gains taking legal action against the UPEs involved. Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As in the 1st AfD, I reviewed the sources and found that almost all are content supplied by the subject: either interviews or material that shows up identically on different sites, or is otherwise obviously not researched by the publication itself. For example, a new one, The Confidence (as above) has a home page covered with articles on how online video marketing works, and what the aspiring professional musician needs to know. These are not reliable sources for notability. And given the article's rise from the ashes only 14 months after deletion, I also support SALTing. The only reliable coverage I see is the Redemption Paws topic, and the article that now exists is adequate in my opinion. The CEO simply isn't notable as an individual outside this role. My two cents. signed, Willondon ( talk) 16:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I also support salt based on the article history and the discussion of sources in the AfDs. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:05, 17 February 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. Without the verification, a redirect is not a viable AtD Star Mississippi 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Bhanumati (Kushana Empress)

Bhanumati (Kushana Empress) (  | talk | history | 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:V as admitted by the creator when writing the article The mentions about Bhanumati are unnamed in History but little mentions about Queen Bhanumati. So, essentially this is an admission that sources do not exist, therefore, we cannot have this article on Wikipedia. The article is copied and pasted without attribution from Bharatpedia, a user-generated Wiki. This is not acceptable as we can only write articles about topics based in WP:RS, otherwise we leave ourselves open to hoaxes and WP:OR. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not encyclopaedic, zero sources. WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:NOTMIRROR all seem relevant. CT55555( talk) 00:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. No evidence whatsover. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 02:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Google confirms there aren't many sources found, so I don't doubt that there aren't. I can't find any, and it appears to be OR based on the above explanation, possibly a hoax. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V - minor if not legendary (in the semi-fictional sense) historical figure. Bearian ( talk) 04:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above: the subject is not notable and the article may violate WP:V and WP:NOTESSAY. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • POssibly redirect to Kanishka III, her husband. There is nothing in this article but genealogy. This is often a good solution to such articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I would only support this if someone were able to provide at least one reliable source (Bharatpedia is user-generated and not reliable) confirming that Kanishka III's wife was called Bhanumati. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 16 February 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Street Fury

Street Fury (  | talk | history | 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:BEFORE search returns no significant coverage, though is complicated by the fact that "street fury" returns so many false positives, even when restricting searches to newspapers from the relevant timeframe and part of the world. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Devamala (Shunga dynasty)

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

Probable hoax. Sent to Draft:Devamala (Shunga dynasty) as the article is unsourced and this was contested by the creator who copied and pasted it back to mainspace with no improvements whatsoever. The article has been copied over entirely from Bharatpedia, an unreliable source that anyone can edit. I note that the IP that has edited the Bharatpedia article is the same one that has added content about Devamala to Agnimitra and tried to add the same unsourced info to Pushyamitra Shunga. See also Simple English AfD where multiple editors in good standing have attempted to find sources to no avail. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No sources in Hindi or English that aren't from Wikipedia or similar user generated encyclopedias. If not a hoax, definitely fails WP:GNG. Pear1020 ( talk) 17:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia isn’t the place for this kind of stuff. Mccapra ( talk) 18:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not encyclopaedia, zero sources. WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:NOTMIRROR all seem relevant. CT55555( talk) 00:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There is no evidence of notability. Almeida Fernando ( talk) 09:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination and in the other editors' comments. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 09:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete appears to be only sources from either a self-published work, or entirely made up. I don't find any sources, and Google can't find any either. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 'Delete per WP:V. Another semi-legendary person who is not attested in historical or religious texts. Bearian ( talk) 04:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above: fails WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 07:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If true, she might be notable, as a queen regnant. However we have no sources - possibly tag and draftify. Or is this a fiction/hoax. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We should search her name in Hindi language but I don't know how to spell her name in Hindi. Taung Tan ( talk) 20:23, 16 February 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; well sourced and expanded now. ( non-admin closure) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Roger Scarlett

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

This is interesting, buuut ... absolutely not well or widely documented and/or discussed. Essentially this is material from the introduction of the re-issue of one of the novels; otherwise coverage of both author(s) and books seems lacking. If someone can come up with a couple reviews or some non-primary biographical coverage, please do. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I did some research and it turns out Dorothy Blair and Evelyn Page (the people behind Roger Scarlett) are believed to be the "first same-sex couple to write mysteries." I also found recent reviews of their mysteries in Publishers Weekly and Booklist along with a ton of old reviews in famous magazines of 1930s (including The Publisher's Weekly, Saturday Review, The Bookman, Time Magazine, and many more). There's even an entry in Contemporary Authors volumes 5-8 from 1963 for Evelyn Page and Roger Scarlett. I haven't included all these reviews in the article but I did add a good number of new citations along with additional information. I also did a general cleanup of the article. All of this proves to me that that Dorothy Blair and Evelyn Page, writing as Roger Scarlett, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 20:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Stellar job. You took the article from undersourced to well-sourced and expanded the scope substantially. Thanks - withdrawing. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 11 February 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 and redirect to Libertarian Party of Texas. Randykitty ( talk) 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Whitney Bilyeu

Whitney Bilyeu (  | talk | history | 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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Note that being national chair of a minor party does not confer presumed notability. The only available sources seem to be run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, trivial mentions, and WP:PRIMARY/non- RS. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines found no WP:RS-based significant coverage of her. As an alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to 2021 Libertarian National Committee chair special election Libertarian Party of Texas#Officeholders. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC) *Comment: Note that I have changed the proposed redirect page based on discussion below. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, Women, and Texas. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being chair of a political party, even at the national level, is not an "inherent" inclusion freebie that guarantees a Wikipedia article — it can count for something if the person is the subject of sufficient coverage and analysis about their work in the role to pass WP:GNG, but it isn't automatically notable enough that relying on primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things would be sufficient. Bearcat ( talk) 16:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Libertarian Party of Texas after updating that page to include her election (which oddly is not there). Lamona ( talk) 04:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    While that might be suitable (following a page update, as you suggest), I think 2021 Libertarian National Committee chair special election is the most appropriate target page for a redirect. She features prominently in that article, with already-existing coverage that is more than would be fitting for the LP of Texas article (IMO). Sal2100 ( talk) 21:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
That makes some sense, but quite honestly I am not sure that article meets notability itself as there are no substantive independent sources on the topic of the election. Lamona ( talk) 21:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Good point. Upon close inspection, that article does appear to be a prime candidate for deletion or merging based on a lack of RS-based sourcing. I have updated the LP of Texas article to include her election as national chair, and I now agree that it is the better target page for a redirect. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. I would agree with Bearcat (no relation) that a deletion is in order. On the other hand, a good argument can be made to redirect based on precedent. Bearian ( talk) 04:13, 15 February 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 no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Judy Hopps (Zootopia)

Judy Hopps (Zootopia) (  | talk | history | 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 significant coverage in reliable sources. A loose necktie ( talk) 16:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I haven't really looked in to whether or not Judy has become significantly notable in her own right that an article split off from the main Zootopia article is appropriate, but even if it were, this is not the proper article to do so for multiple reasons. The entire article is just a list of appearances, and some of the descriptions for these appearances are literally just copied/pasted from the official descriptions of the games being described, and there are no reliable sources present. Also, if an article on Judy was to be created, it would likely be done at the Judy Hopps space (currently being used as a Redirect to the movie), rather than this title with its odd, unnecessary specifier. In short, whether or not Judy is notable or not, this current article is not the proper article for that, and should be removed from the encyclopedia mainspace, either through deletion or (to be generous) sending back to draft. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes GNG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (I found these within minutes of searching, really wish people would start doing WP:BEFORE). "Article is bad" is not a good reason for deletion, and pretty much no article is improved in draftspace. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • That's twelve sources of varying quality and with varying focuses. Would you be willing to pick the best WP:THREE and explain why you think they motivate having an article for this fictional character separate from the work of fiction the character appears in? TompaDompa ( talk) 00:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Single articles of works would be way too large if all information about notable individual characters were shoved into them, and this character has appeared in several other places than the original work they debuted in. I don't really care about sources having "varying focuses" or "varying quality" as long as they can still be considered reliable overall (if you think one or more do not qualify as reliable at all feel free to point out them specifically). I have demonstrated in depth coverage and I could easily find more with some more Googling, so I don't really feel like picking a "top 3" for whatever reason. ★Trekker ( talk) 00:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Articles aren't supposed to include all information in the first place, they are supposed to summarize. Sources do not just need to be WP:Reliable, they also need to provide WP:Significant coverage. In particular, coverage of fictional characters needs to go beyond plot description and be coverage specifically of the character(s) rather than the work(s) they appear in. The reason I'm asking is that I took a quick look at some of these sources and am not convinced that the coverage actually meets these criteria. That is to say, I'm not persuaded that a separate article for the character is warranted. Source number 6 is about a chatbot. Source number 5 mainly contains plot detail, and some of what I would characterize as analysis of Zootopia (rather than analysis of the character Judy Hopps). Source number 8 is about a deleted scene. Source number 12 is about the different varieties of English used by different characters in Zootopia and contains, to my eye, no significant coverage of the character Judy Hopps (though the character is of course mentioned). TompaDompa ( talk) 01:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
          • I guess we simply disagree then about what counts as being about a character. ★Trekker ( talk) 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources provided by StarTrekker. The subject passes the general notability guideline, with significant coverage in multiple books and journal articles. —  Ingenuity ( talk •  contribs) 01:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as I believe that there is significant coverage on this subject in reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. Protagonist of a major film. Bearian ( talk) 04:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see an article on Nick Wilde and/or every other character, so why just Judy? Espngeek ( talk) 21:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no evidence of real-world notability. Indagate ( talk) 21:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is no notability at all. CastJared ( talk) 14:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per StarTrekker. Plenty of coverage provided. WP:OTHERTHINGS regarding Nick Wilde is not a valid argument for deletion. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 16:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • So basically a "positive female representation with flaws" should get her own article yet none of the other characters have theirs as well? Espngeek ( talk) 20:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      If there is adequate sourcing for other characters, I would recommend you take the time to create that article. There are plenty of subjects that could be deserving of an article per notability guidelines that don't currently have one, and those ones not existing are not a reason for others to not exist as well. Cerebral726 ( talk) 21:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above sourcing, and I'll note that the delete arguments which assert non-notability in the face of sourcing, without disputing that sourcing, are not policy based. Our acme is not whether a character appears in more than one fictional work, but whether that character has received sufficient coverage. Jclemens ( talk) 08:26, 17 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Ashley Neal

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

Could not find WP:SIGCOV for this football player/YouTuber. The article has remained unsourced since it's creation over 10 years ago. Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Probably weak keep wearebrighton.com described him as one of Brighton's worst ever players. [36], talks about the footballer turned driving instructor. [37], a little bit on where are we now. [38]. If you can collect sources for his football career, I'd say weak keep. Govvy ( talk) 16:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first source is a fan blog Red XN, the second is meh as it is essentially recapping a youtube video (BLP1E?) and relies on a lot of quotes, the third is a fan database with literally one sentence on him Red XN, and the fourth is two sentences in another fan blog Red XN. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per above. @ Govvy:, I found 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 among other sources. He played for English Liverpool, one of England's most successful teams, made 12 appearances in fully pro English Football League, and has over 130000 subscribers on YouTube. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    5 is almost entirely quotes/relating things Neal said Red XN, 6–8 and 10 are impossible to assess as they're just blurry screenshots, 9 is pure NOTNEWS Red XN, and 11 is a 6-word passing mention Red XN. What do the newspapers.com images actually say? JoelleJay ( talk) 22:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources above. The second source presented by user:Govvy is an obvious GNG pass. #5 from User:Das osmnezz has enough non-interview content to be borderline GNG at worst. And even without this, WP:NBIO states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. So there is enough here to keep. Frank Anchor 03:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The below references added by Beaniefan11 remove any doubt I may have expressed in my “keep” vote. Frank Anchor 16:50, 12 February 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Rachnadevi

Rachnadevi (  | talk | history | 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 sources at all, nor could I find any. This is also unfortunately the case on the corresponding article from hiwiki. Silikonz 💬 14:18, 10 February 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Jon Benjamin (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 13:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Agree that this diplomat has not received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. -- Excutient Talk 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete as per Excutient. Bedivere ( talk) 23:00, 10 February 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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Rudy Rupak

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for entrepreneurs. As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they and their companies exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is not referenced to any significant reliable source coverage about him, instead citing a mixture of primary source press releases from his own companies, blogs, directory entries, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and purely tangential verification of stray facts in sources that completely fail to name Rudy Rupak in conjunction with them at all, none of which are notability-building sources.
There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA whose editing interests revolve almost exclusively around Rudy Rupak -- even the stuff in their edit history that doesn't seem obviously connected, such as Sainte-Adèle and Les Misérables, still hinged on finding ways to shoehorn Rudy Rupak into them.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, United Kingdom, and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not only overly promotional, and with many of the sources not even name-checking him, and others doing only that, this guy must be related to George Santos because the stories told in this article are unbelievable. I suspect that this is an act of reputation-washing, as this fellow has been in jail for attempted murder (he was just protecting his home!), was indicted for embezzelment, and runs or has run a medical tourism business where he was accused of fraud, with some indication of (even for that biz) shady deals. Almost nothing here can be confirmed in RS - the statement that he had a game company links to an Answers.com that is unrelated to that. I also wonder about the IMDB entries, since those can be modified. The NY Times article on surrogacy only mentions him, although it does say that he was a co-founder of the company. (Note that "co-" isn't in the article here.) The section on Surrogacy Controversy is basically a cover-up of a crime, as he moved from the US to Mexico and allegedly defrauded folks from there ( NY Times). In any case, the only verifiable info seems to be this guy's crimes, but I don't think those rise to the level of notability. Lamona ( talk) 05:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Here's an LA Times article about his medical tourism business that says more about him (but is mainly about the biz). I note that it says that he has only a high school diploma (in the ending portion) while above that it says he attended medical school in S Africa. This WP article says he attended a technical college in India. Lamona ( talk) 05:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It just keeps getting better. The Indian Institute that he supposedly attended after a year of college (around 1970) is a non-profit formed in 2022 in California, and which may not have yet done anything. The link to that lists his name as Rupak Acharya. The article here gives his name as Acharyya Rupak and using that name I can find "US v Acharyya Rupak", a news release "International Surrogacy Clients Defrauded in Racketeering Scheme". He apparently was sentenced to jail time in 2017, and this article was mostly created by an SPA in 2022. His creation of a medical tourism service and subsequent conviction for fraud may almost make this fellow notable, but as a criminal. Lamona ( talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I cleaned up a bunch of articles where his un-referenced info had been added ("Les Miserables"!). What remains is Rudy and Rupak. Lamona ( talk) 17:33, 13 February 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 no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hurricane Tyra Black

Hurricane Tyra Black (  | talk | history | 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:NTENNIS: She has only won one title that has a prize money higher than $15,000, and she did not reach a W60 final. Timothytyy ( talk) 09:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and United States of America. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets GNG thanks to sources such as [45] [46] [47]. A lot of the coverage is derived from her sister Tornado Alicia Black, so if you disagree on GNG, we should merge as an alternative to deleting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iffy ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Iffy Firstly, please sign off when you are giving a comment. Secondly, the player does not have any significant achievements that allows her to have separate article (see NTENNIS). I agree that merging is a good way, but just FYI her sister's article is very close to failing NTENNIS as well.
      For the biography section, the information is very unimportant (such as matches in W15 tournaments), poorly written and not neutral at all. It just seems that her friends wrote it rather than an encyclopedia.
      If you are still not sure here are the notability guidelines for tennis players:
      • Winner of an ITF tournament that has a prize money more than $50,000 (the sisters didn't achieve this)
      • Winner of a Junior Grand Slam (not achieved either)
      • Participant in the main draw of high-level tournaments (achieved by Tornado, not by Hurricane; this is the only reason that I did not nominate Tornado's article for deletion)
    • Thirdly, enough sources doesn't mean that the person is notable; the sources are just about the small tournaments and doesn't have any reference value.
      Apologies, this is what source 2 was meant to link to: [48]. The URL changed when I scrolled down to the bottom of the page. Also, tennis players don't have to meet NTENNIS to have biographies, they can be notable for other reasons or merely for receiving significant coverage in the tennis media a lot (regardless of their achievements). Finally, the currently quality of an article is not a reason to keep or delete the article ( WP:NOTCLEANUP). Iffy★ Chat -- 13:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
      Source 4 is about a junior Grand Slam quarterfinal, which is not presumed as notable. Can you please tell me what is the significance of these three sources (1,3,4) that contributes to the notability of the article? Is it just because her name is special and her sister is a tennis player as well? I mentioned the quality of the article not because it is a reason for deletion, but because I want to show that the career information about the player is limited (relying on statistical pages as sources), and the creator of this article might not understand the guidelines of an article. Timothytyy ( talk) 13:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
      Per WP:GNG, I think she is notable because she received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The level of the tournament doesn't matter for GNG, what matters is that the coverage of the player is significant and that the source is a reliable one. Iffy★ Chat -- 14:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per guidelines and scant coverage this is not really a notable player. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for same reasons as above. -- Leonstojka ( talk) 05:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, meets GNG. with [49], this [50] and this [51]. Should also be kept to be sure we cover gender diversity/minority groups in wiki. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm going to do some research on this subject, and plan to vote once the research is done later today. Tails Wx 13:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, looks like she meets GNG. Tails Wx 14:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:24, 10 February 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sarwar Shaheed College

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

Mostly WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader ( talk) 12:28, 10 February 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Adli Shinichi

Adli Shinichi (  | talk | history | 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 far as I can tell, has only had minor roles in mostly non-notable productions. Can't see how he passes WP:NACTOR. Copied over from the repeatedly-declined Draft:Adli Shinichi, with the only difference being the removal of the WP:UPE tag. Only bit of coverage in WP:RS I can find is baskl.com.my but this is a trivial mention in a cast list. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:22, 10 February 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Azizyan Gor

Azizyan Gor (  | talk | history | 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 any in-depth coverage on this person. Current sourcing does not have a single in-depth reference from an independent, secondary, reliable source. In fact, half the sources do not even mention him. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. Sherdog and tapology do not consider? these are his personal pages. Also, since he is posted as a coach, I think it's okay to list his fighters and link to their achievements under his leadership. Gor is the founder of the martial arts academy, I'm adding a link to the academy's website in the article. Reached such a coaching level that the fighter of his club is signed to ufc. The article in the Armenian Wikipedia is posted and not appealed, Russian, German and French versions are in the process of being developed. TT me 12:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - coaches are not inherently notable, and I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. Ping me if you can find significant coverage Bearian ( talk) 04:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Gor is the founder of a sports academy whose athletes win world titles, is a representative of the american company american top team, he is also a winner of competitions and champion of Armenia TT me 0:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be significant independent coverage of him that would meet WP:GNG. Database entries on his school do not show WP notability nor does routine sports coverage of fighters from the school. I don't see that any of his fighters meet WP:NMMA and even if they did, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I also don't see individual achievements that meet any SNG. Merely running a successful business is not grounds for WP notability. Papaursa ( talk) 11:07, 16 February 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. Salvio giuliano 12:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

National Model Higher Secondary School

National Model Higher Secondary 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)

Non-notable school system. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. BookishReader ( talk) 11:14, 10 February 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! 01:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Scapegoat (band)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines as is and I found zero additional coverage. Previous AfD claims 1. Notability per WP:BAND #5 (at least one album was released by Tragic Hero Records so it might qualify there, but that alone wouldn't clear it for me) and 2. Coverage potentially existing in "outlets like Alternative Press and Absolute Punk" which was not linked and said to be "difficult to surface through casual Googling". Worth considering, but that comment is over two years old and nobody's tracked down said coverage yet so its existence is still only an assumption. QuietHere ( talk) 06:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Additional nominations for their two albums
These Cards We're Dealt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let Our Violins Be Heard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
QuietHere ( talk) 06:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I could only find two reliable sources reviews, one at PunkNews here and one at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Atlantic306 when you say "imv", do you just mean that those are the only sources you saw which were reliable in your view? QuietHere ( talk) 04:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, I didn't find anything else. I just mentioned those in case someone found more sources but on their own they're not sufficient for WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 11:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Atlantic306 I should've asked earlier but I'll at least do it now: are you saying you also agree with deleting per the GNG fail you mentioned? Just so the vote is clear. QuietHere ( talk) 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, but i'd need to reconsider if someone finds extra good sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:59, 10 February 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 Estrella–Pantaleon Bridge. (non-admin closure) SeanJ 2007 ( talk) 11:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Estrella Street

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

Unlikely to be notable by sources. The two sources presented here fail spectacularly. One (now dead; archived copy) talks about the old residence of a former mayor whose surname is carried by this road, but there is no single mention of the street in the source. Another, from GMA News, talks about the opening of the Estrella–Pantaleon Bridge, but no mention of the street itself even if it connects to the bridge. In effect both sources tried to infer through name but lean towards WP:OR.

Unless more reliable sources that do not trivially mention the street are presented, this street fails in notability dramatically. Failure to become eligible for WP:GEOROAD! JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:48, 10 February 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. Salvio giuliano 11:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Beacon Light Academy, Karachi

Beacon Light Academy, Karachi (  | talk | history | 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:SIGCOV. I did a WP:BEFORE, but there is nothing in newspaper/magazines about this obscure school. BookishReader ( talk) 10:26, 10 February 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. Salvio giuliano 11:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Carole Crofts

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 10:08, 10 February 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. Salvio giuliano 11:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

James Lyall Sharp

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 10:07, 10 February 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. Randykitty ( talk) 16:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Athletics at the 1993 Games of the Small States of Europe

Athletics at the 1993 Games of the Small States of Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for this list of results for a minor competition with unremarkable results. For example, searching for the winner of the 10.000m, Lahcen Essoussi gives a tiny handful of hits, the best being a non-independent source of the Monegasque Athletics Federation confirming his medals [52] but nothing further about him [53]. If even the winner of an event (plus another medal) is so completely lacking in coverage, then it seems unlikely that this received much coverage beyond routine results reports. Fram ( talk) 08:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep – Athletics at the Games of the Small States of Europe are arguably notable even if the results are generally not world class. This part of a long-standing series of events the recent editions of which are widely covered in media of the participating countries (though not always in English, as only Malta and Cyprus are partly English-speaking). I've dug some contemporary Icelandic coverage for some days of the competition which doesn't just list the results. [54] [55] [56]. Unfortunately Iceland is the only participating country with a free newspaper archive, but I expect the Games would also get the coverage in the others, as they do today. Also, even if some events have unknown winners, there are many Olympians that have competed at these Games, e.g. Anninos Marcoullides, Eggert Bogason, Pétur Guðmundsson or Marios Hadjiandreou. In addition, we do have some coverage of similar scale events, Island Games or Pacific Games, so I don't see why we shouldn't cover these Games too, at least showing the medallists. Pietaster ( talk) 09:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 ( talk) 10:02, 10 February 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.

Noli turbare circulos meos!

The result was Keep per Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Koopinator ( talk) 13:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply


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

This article relies strongly on primary sources, without any secondary sources discussing this in sufficient detail to establish notability. The only secondary source currently in this article, Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography, merely gives a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Due to this, along with its very meagre size (half of which is just explaining the context), I propose that it be deleted or merged into Archimedes#Biography. Koopinator ( talk) 09:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn Koopinator ( talk) 13:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers is that way. There is no good reason to completely remove this very notable expression from Wikipedia, even if it is likely apocryphal (here's some more sources [57] [58] [59] [60]). But if you cannot make an argument for outright deletion, AFD is the wrong venue. Regards So Why 11:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Okay, there are more sources that establish notability. This nomination was clearly made in error, so I've withdrawn it. Please excuse my failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Koopinator ( talk) 13:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Mithlesh Kaushik (Mith)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, sources don't appear to be neutral. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

* Delete: It's a WP:TOOSOON and creator seems to be connected to the subject. --- 👑Misterrrrr👑 ( talk) 06:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr ( talk) 18:51, 16 February 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! 08:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Stephanie Anne-Lyse Ngatta

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Sources appear to be non-independent or paid interviews/articles. echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:33, 10 February 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 Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Brian Heidik

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

The article was previously deleted in 2017 as not notable. Soon after, it was re-created but with different content. It's not only about notability concerns. WP:BLP also applies, and the whole content about the subject may more likely fail that policy. Recently, I asked others about contentious content. One was more concerned about the subject's notability more than what's written about him, including supposed coatracking

Before asking around, I created a draft that was supposed to replace the content. However, as I was developing the draft, I couldn't find any reliable source on newer updates, including current marital status. The latest I can find is 2006 or 2007. I haven't found a reliable source verifying a supposed divorce, so I decided to have the draft deleted. Furthermore, post-Survivor info about him seems more negative and disturbing.

As he appeared in only Survivor: Thailand, the article should be redirected to either that season article or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Alternatively, if the article lacks any substantial value, then it should be re-deleted. George Ho ( talk) 04:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 10 February 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Horse Mesa, Apache County, Arizona

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

This appears to be the name of the physical feature just to the south, transferred to a house and outbuildings via a state highway map. I find no evidence for a town per se; GHits are for the other location, the actual mesa, or a dude ranch in Sedona. Mangoe ( talk) 04:46, 10 February 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. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sachin Bishnoi

Sachin Bishnoi (  | talk | history | 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 individual; sourcing used is paid PR pieces (Forbes) or a PR piece self-published by the company mentioned in the PR piece. Sources turn up a gangster with a similar name, nothing for this individual. Appears promotional. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Notability is justified by mentions in other news sources like [64] or [65]. I don't think this person is wealthy enough to pay for every single mention he has on reliable sources. The other Bishnoi being more mentioned because of his evil actions does not make this one less relevant, sources are just more buried.  Bradford  (Talk)  11:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Although Yahoo and a few other sources give it space, it needs significant coverage per WP:BASIC like other Bishnoi. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The fact that the individual's references are ranked worse than another individual with the same name should not influence the removal of the article, reliable and independent sources are required, which, although not many, this individual has. Franco98silva ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete on the basis that the references do not meet (1) significant coverage, (2) independent (includes PR-agency authored work), (3) reliable (Forbes, need I say more?), (4) secondary source. Rhadow ( talk) 12:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Reading WP:NEXIST: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.", and clarifying that point, the Sachin criminal is better positioned in English, however, by doing a quick search in Spanish, new reliable and independent sources can be found, such as [66] or [67]. If we deepen the search we can find new reliable sources. Xillegas ( talk) 03:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: My opinion is the same as Xillegas, the article can be maintained and obviously it can be Wikified and made more extensive as much as possible.-- Luis1944MX ( talk) 04:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I find are short puff-pieces, kind of "look at this guy!" sort of thing. The best that I see is the El Farandi article but I don't know where that publication stands in the world of entrepreneurs - it looks to be a TMZ-like entertainment site. Finding sources in major publications would make this more convincing. Lamona ( talk) 06:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Based on my assessment, this case lacks notability, and I concur with Lamona's observation Almeida Fernando ( talk) 12:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • comment: The article references have been changed and additional information has been added, the article now complies with more information and references. Bradford ( talk) 21:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Sourced to puff pieces or regurgitated press releases - no serious independent coverage of the individual.- KH-1 ( talk) 12:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I question a bit if the previous votes actually read all the references in the article, the person complies with WP:BASIC

Notoriety is based on the existence of adequate sources, not on the status of the sources

The reference section doesn't really matter, however there are others that are included in the technology and economics section

That the other Sachin is better positioned in English has no influence on the notoriety of this Sachin

WB:BIO for example specifically states: avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g. Google results).

The rules state that if an article can be fixed through normal editing then it is not a candidate for Afd, the main problem was the references however it has been shown that the person has reliable and independent sources so the problem was editing, being fixed then it is no longer a candidate for deleting search WP:BEFORE consequently the article should be maintained Sawelito ( talk) 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Striking - this is a sock of the article's author, who has already cast a !vote here. Girth Summit (blether) 10:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I did look at each of the references in the article, plus other sources that I found. First, I do think it is odd that most of the references are from South American sites, (his businesses are presumably in India although that is not made clear), and none of those sites provide much in the line of editorial integrity. One self-describes as a blog post. The ones that I did find in English are all paid entries, like this one in forbes and this one in Life and Style. Looking under his company name, GoGo Capital, I find PR pieces like this. I also note that many of the sources in the article are entertainment/celebrity focused, which makes it odd that they have an article about a supposed tech entrepreneur. It would not be unreasonable to wonder if those aren't paid placements, as the ones in Forbes and Life and Style are. BTW, the link to Life and Style for some reason redirects to an article about Lindsay Lohan. Lamona ( talk) 18:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It is logical that the sources are in Spanish, I am from Latin America, the sources that I get are mostly in Spanish. Although, that shouldn't be a problem. Bradford ( talk) 22:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The problem is that I am not finding reliable sources in any language that would show that he is notable as an entrepreneur. If he were, my Google searches that default to English would turn them up, as business activity in India would be likely to have English as one of its languages. Lamona ( talk) 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - First batch of sources included blatant SEO/PR paid placement; current sources are awful.
  • elfarandi - Silly adcopy on an "entertainment" site, repeats large blocks of verbatium PR text
  • lapatilla - Again, adcopy in the "entertainment" section, repeats same block of PR
  • caraotadigital - Blog post that again copies the same material from a press release
  • diariolaregion - Brief post with gushing adcopy language.
  • radaronline - Just complete puffery and spam posted in a "pop culture, celebrity, and entertainment" site.
Searching for other sources turns up a tremendous number of clearly identified paid placements, and a lot of the black hat SEO farms. I just could not locate anything that even remotely looked like genuine earned media, and certainly nothing detailed or reliable. Given the sock games played on this AFD, and the just plain wrong 'keep' votes, I'm not seeing any reason to reward the obvious UDPE here. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The Outlook India and Mid-Day sources presented above by User:Bradford are tagged as "Outlook Spotlight" and "BrandMedia" respectively, which are the advertising sections of these two publications. All other sources, including the newly-added Spanish sources, are similar paid advertorials. A clear WP:NBIO fail. Maduant ( talk) 23:33, 12 February 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Rosebud, Arizona

Rosebud, Arizona (  | talk | history | 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 topo map label in the hills which disappears and then turns into a swamp labelled "Rosebud Cienega". No sign of habitation past or present, and nothing but junk GHits. Mangoe ( talk) 04:27, 10 February 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. The "delete" !votes, especially the one by BusterD, have the stronger arguments. Randykitty ( talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Tracy Harpster

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

I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that this person passes WP:GNG. Other than the Propublica piece, there is no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 02:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Other than the Propublica piece (and a reprint in the Ohio Capitol Journal), the only other sourcing is someone with her his name that had their badge and gun stolen. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi. I believe you may have meant "his" name vs "her"? I don't mean to assume this persons pronouns, but the sources do refer to he/him/his. DrGvago ( talk) 08:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. Well the police officer that had items stolen was female, so I suppose even less notability for this person. Argh, that was also a male. I'm not sure what I'm saying sometimes. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Corrected in the comments above also. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:GNG states multiple sources are needed, and ProPublica is only one. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep With the upmost thanks and respect to all concerned, I submit the following:
WP:SNG's guidelines are much more applicable to subject than WP:GNG for which the article was submitted for. Specifically, author and academics which are "explicitly listed as an alternative" to WP:GNG and state "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." and " Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline." and "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions..." met by #7 stating "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" and "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." which is clearly demonstrated by multiple mainstream sources such as ProPublica twice recently and Orlando Sentinel in 2009 demonstrating longer standing history of such, and subject's research cites in other research and books, industry recognition such as the FBI LEO Bulletin, and academic recognition by the subject's Alma Mater. In addition under WP:AUTH "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" again clearly demonstrated by sources in the article.
The subject matter of criminal justice research, theories and techniques are not generally the topic of mainstream media attention, and judgement for inclusion should consider this as accepted by the academic criteria. There have also been a number of potential sources added to the talk page prior to initial PROD and subsequent AfD which should help editors following the intent to improve before delete opportunity to do so as per "Step One: Verify if the article in question can be improved rather than be deleted" from the "A five-step approach to deletion" guidelines. Considering additional edits and sources have been added since both PROD and AfD for WP:GNG vs other, clearly specified criteria mentioned here, by only one editor (myself) it seems these guidelines do not seem to me they have been carefully reviewed and applied prior to nomination. I agree the article does need additional improvement and welcome all editors to further collaborate and contribute. Thank you. DrGvago ( talk) 01:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist (although since no one has commented after the first 2 relists, I might be hoping in vain for additional participation.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR C2 for creating a new theory. CT55555( talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nobody has raised this issue, so I will. This is a WP:BLP with virtually no sourced information directly detailing the subject, just info about his theory. There are a misleading number of citations here, some duplicates, some bare mentions, many connected in some way, but as others have stated, ONLY ProPublica meets IRS and directly details the theory, and THEY call his theory junk science, so as of this datestamp, this BLP is not only mostly unsourced, but borders on promotional and clearly misleading. I'm fine with SNGs but a BLP requires a higher standard of sourcing than a book or theory, and this article doesn't seem to possess that now, and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't seem to help. BusterD ( talk) 21:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • In this process, User:DrGvago might have, as a courtesy, revealed they are the page creator. BusterD ( talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
      Apologies. There is no intent to hide that here. I would thought that would be obvious on the history of the article. DrGvago ( talk) 22:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing/award is insufficient Star Mississippi 17:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Samar Singh Dungarpur

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

BLP article for a government official and author. Sources do not meet SIGCOV for GNG or any other SNG.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: A BEFORE search revealed the subject to be notable. Apart from being a government official, there are other noteworthy factors. Macbeejack ( talk) 17:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment/question This source in the article, a page about Samar Singh Dungarpur, states that SSD is a recipient of the Order of the Golden Ark award, but they are not mentioned at the Order's article. Is there a different source on the Order giving out its award which can be used now to develop the Order article, and more clearly establishing that SSD is a recipient. And, what is the importance of this award, why did SSD receive it? There is no development about this in the article, so it is hard to see how their receiving a national level award (this award?) means they are notable. --Doncram ( talk, contribs) 06:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: User:Macbeejack is the page creator and might have valued BEFORE during page creation, instead of leaving us a BLP with virtually no significant reliable sourcing. No claim of significance. Applied sources are tangential to the subject, and none of them directly detail the subject's life or their receiving the mentioned award. BusterD ( talk) 22:29, 16 February 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 no consensus. This is a difficult AFD to close as I see blocked accounts arguing both for Delete and Keep and long-time editors basing their own decisions on the opinions of sockpuppets. This article can't be deleted via CSD G5 as there are many other editors who have contributed to this article. I think this discussion is too tainted by sockpuppetry and relisting will not help.

I recommend launching a follow-up AFD that, hopefully, will be sockpuppet-free. No penalty for editors copying their comments here to a second AFD or for starting a new AFD as soon as this one is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sameh Sami

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

fails WP:BIO, no Notability, all the refs are Trivial mentions and talk about the magazine which he works in not about him, many references are unreliable an unknown websites, ref no. 7 are YouTube link and refs (12 - 13) are not independent (guest articles written by the person), The article is clearly WP:MASK with a lot of puffing phrases and the article's creator manipulate with sources because he knows that most of the users do not know the Arabic language. Adelk220 ( talk) 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Egypt. Adelk220 ( talk) 18:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment starting this AfD was the second edit of this new account, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Sami is head of the cultural section of notable Egyptian daily newspaper Al Shorouk as well as editor of an Egyptian film magazine so he may be notable. There are a lot of external links in the article as well as references including dead links. There is also the Egyptian Arabic wikipedia article translated here, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are thousands of people who are (head of section) in many newspapers in many countries, so all of them are notable? also, (AlShorouk) is founded in 2009 it isn't old nor a high notable like other Egyptian newspapers, I think this is weak argument and not compatible with WP:BIO. Adelk220 ( talk) 13:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    He is a Christian person 105.32.75.209 ( talk) 18:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning Keep reference 9 is not an article written by him as claimed in the nomination and is significant coverage about him translated here, references 13 and reference 14 are also not articles by him as claimed, Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply
(alb-masr.com) is a low-profile website and unreliable source, ref #13 is an interview with him and that is not an independent, ref #14 is trivial mentions and a column article also. Anyway all this referances don't comply with WP:GNG and just collection of links contain his name no more. -- Adelk220 ( talk) 15:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
have you edited as Ibrahim.ID [68] as your afd? Ahmed aldola ( talk) 22:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article seems somewhat promotional, and issues with references are echoed. I am an Arab and the first time I hear of it! -- Osps7 ( talk) 20:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    thank you, please read this link [69]> it is an interview with him in the Egyptian Syndicate and he is an editor of an Egyptian film magazine so he is notable. please read the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia article.regards Ahmed aldola ( talk) 23:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is clear evidence that this source is not independent, it's an interview with the person. Adelk220 ( talk) 13:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • *Comment starting this AfD was the second edit of this new account why? please read this link the Egyptian Syndicate described him and he is an editor of an Egyptian film magazine so he is notable as well as the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia article [ https://arz-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/سامح_سامى?-- Ahmed aldola ( talk) 22:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I am an Arabic Wikipedia editor, I find this article: No Notability, Promotional article without reliable resources. also, the external links are repeated and some of them is broken.-- Sandra Hanbo ( talk) 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am an Arab and I read his articles at Magazine El film which is concerned with the culture of image and film. Sameh Samy is head of the cultural section of notable Egyptian daily newspaper Al Shorouk so he is notable.. There is also the Egyptian Arabic wikipedia article translated here-- Larosa jp ( talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  •  Comment:: the article in Arabic Wikipedia deleted 14 time (Per A7 no notability) from 10 admins after re-creation many times and now infinite protected from creation. -- Adelk220 ( talk) 13:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    here the protection level for " Sameh Sami " ([Modify=Sysop Only] (unchecked) [Move=Sysop Only] in he Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia Ahmed aldola ( talk) 15:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment:: Sameh Sami is the editor-in-chief of Film Magazine, which is considered one of the prominent and influential magazines [70] in Egypt. It is the only specialized magazine now in Egypt in the culture of cinema. He is also the director of the Cairo Jesuits [71], which is one of the prominent cultural places [72] in Egypt [73] built on the legacy of the second oldest studio [74]. Cinematic and includes famous art schools such as the School of Film, Animation and Theater-- Ahmed aldola ( talk) 17:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I'm still not seeing a consensus here among editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. As per Ahmed aldola, the editor in chief of an influential publication is sufficiently notable. CT55555( talk) 02:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment:: I am with the quick deletion, the character does not meet the standards of notability, and I repeat my words. I am an Arab and I have never heard of it before. Note: the following accounts: Ahmed aldola / عيسى ايوب / Larosa jp It is used to rally votes and it is for one person. -- Osps7 ( talk) 06:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you Mr. Osps7, but I wish to delete the last comment that hints that I am someone else. How do I defend the topic and at the same time ask to delete it under the name of عيسى أيوب? Please note the comment from Mr. Atlantic306 that he noticed from the top of this page and it is (starting this AfD was the second edit of this new account) [75], I am also Egyptian and I read the film magazine and I know the activity of the Cairo Jesuits. Please see these written links written in Arabic [76] [77] You should read Mr. User:Meno25 tag for the article as ({{WikiProject Biography |category=no|living=yes |listas=Sami, Sameh |class=Start}})
  • Speedy Delete per G5: Page creator and at least one participant in this have been blocked for socking. This page is the workproduct of a blocked sockpuppet, meeting criteria for speedy deletion as G5. BusterD ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Anurager Chhowa

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

Pay-TV show doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL pieces for such a TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The amount of coverage just isn’t significant enough to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Serratra ( talk) 03:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC) ( Sock strike — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep. Enough sources are there, also it is top rated show in West Bengal currently, so people will also visit this page. Hence, article can be updated time to time. 49.32.232.154 ( talk) 03:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help if those editors wanting to Keep this article provided a link to article with SIGCOV rather than just saying they exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Seems notable. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/trp-list-anurager-chhowa-continues-to-be-the-most-watched-show-on-bengali-tv/articleshow/97791574.cms "Anurager Chhowa continues to be the most-watched show on Bengali TV". Also https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/tv-show-anurager-chhowa-completes-one-year/articleshow/97696832.cms?from=mdr CT55555( talk) 01:40, 11 February 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! 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Hillary Anne Matthews

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

Potential a nonnotable actress. Barely any third-party sources covering her and she didn't have main roles in many television programs/movies. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;

None of her roles are significant. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Bit parts or one appearance in a show aren't notable. No sourcing other than brief cast lists or mentions in articles about the various tv shows she's been in. Not ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    We don't delete votes we don't agree with in AfD. That's the kind of thing called vandalism here. Please stop, user MikeAllen. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    This page is on my watchlist because I was going to comment later. I don't know how I hit the Rollback button, but it was a mistake (and didn't realize it until you reverted it back prompting an alert). I've been on Wikipedia a long time, I assure you it was not vandalism. My apologies. (I actually don't disagree with you about deleting... ) Mike  Allen 01:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: She may have been in notable films, but she has not had notable coverage in third party sources. I can only find mostly primary searches on her and her roles. Mike  Allen 01:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 10 February 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! 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Defyhatenow South Sudan

Defyhatenow South Sudan (  | talk | history | 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 independently sourced, and WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:55, 3 February 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! 03:06, 10 February 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! 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

AP Pro32 rankings

AP Pro32 rankings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to have been a weekly ranking of NFL teams that is now shut down (based on no rankings for the 2022 season). It's existed as a 2 sentence article with a single reference since creation in 2012. Doesn't appear to pass GNG or any other notability requirements that I'm aware of after a WP:BEFORE search. Hey man im josh ( talk) 02:56, 10 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Al Young (American football, born 1902)

Al Young (American football, born 1902) (  | talk | history | 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 a microstub that duplicates a database violates WP:NOTDATABASE. Violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 due to the lack of sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search found no suitable sources.

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and WP:NOTDATABASE BilledMammal ( talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Seems he was also known as John Young ( [78]). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • For some reason newspapers.com doesn't seem to recognize properly "Al" ( [79] for an example) – this is making searching really difficult. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seeing a lot of mentions and brief articles, for example [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] etc. I would argue this to be a pass of NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe that a decent biographical article can be produced based off of these sources, and when I have time will try to expand it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    You missed the second half of that sentence; If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. I don't have access to all of those, but of those I do most appear trivial and none contain WP:SIGCOV; not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, and a violation of WP:NSPORT which forbids us from having articles on sportspeople unless we can find at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I disagree with you that the coverage is not sigcov/enough for notability, and will leave it at that – I do not feel like infinite arguing at the present. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Which of the sources that you linked do you consider to contain WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal ( talk) 02:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Hey @ BilledMammal, is it the Newspapers.com ones you're unable to view? The NewsaperArchive links should be available to anybody who logs in to the Wikipedia Library (I believe, as I can access them and don't recall requesting it). Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The sources are primarily brief mentions and play-by-plays which, even if combined, do not add up to enough significant coverage to meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. I did go over the sources and in my opinion none of them is what I would consider significant. There are a few articles about his arrest for speeding and subsequent short jail time in 1925, but none of them go into much detail about him. The other sources are mostly normal game reports and brief mentions. Redirects are WP:CHEAP so I suggest redirecting the article to Los Angeles Buccaneers. Alvaldi ( talk) 11:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Draftify the article is also acceptable in my opinion. Alvaldi ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Los Angeles Buccaneers: per WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG, brief mentions of Young in routine transfer and game reports do not demonstrate notability; there isn't enough source material to write a biography. The LA Buccs only played in one season, 1926, so just mention the players in that article. It'll give the readers the proper context, which a stand-alone article won't. Levivich ( talk) 16:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Having written several hundred biographies myself, I can guarantee that something decent can be written on this player – unfortunately, the amount of players being nominated and all the editors attacking me is overwhelming and making it very difficult for me to find time to. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The reason I support merger is that anyone can expand this to an article if/when they find proper GNG sources. It's better than sending it to draftspace. Levivich ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Draft-for now. This one is a very tough call, given the sources that BeanieFan11 provided (I can see both sides of this argument.) My thought is to move this to draft in order to give BeanieFan11 an opportunity to uncover some sources, which will obviously require a ton of work and time. In my experience, BeanieFan11 does great work expanding similar articles and turning them into decent BIO's. With the mass nominating happening recently, I understand Beanie's frustration given their passion in this subject/project, given that the opportunity cost of trying to find sources on EVERY one of these nominations is losing the articles and all of the information, since it wouldn't be archived. There shouldn't be a huge rush to delete this article, so give BeanieFan11 some time by putting this article in draft, and I will do what I can to help if I'm able. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 17:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
THANK YOU for suggesting this. That is a great idea. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Though, a question: if it is moved to draftspace and I do write a decent draft on Young, how would we determine if it could ever go back to mainspace? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
BeanieFan11 raises a good question, and I would assume you could either just go ahead and publish it again, or maybe put it through article for creation? to be assessed? SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Self-publish is the way to go when you think it'll survive AfD. I don't think we'd expect Beanie to go through the AfC process. Hey man im josh ( talk) 00:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh, I know Hey man im josh, just pointed it out as an option, so that at least a second opinion from a reviewer could support it, but I absolutely know that BeanieFan11 is more capable than most to make the article passable and expanded. That’s why I think moving to draft is a good option, giving Beanie some time to uncover very hard to find articles almost certainly will help, as he’s done it so many times before. There aren’t a ton of editors who are dedicated to early NFL coverage, and there should not a huge rush to delete all of these player articles. The fact that so many AfD’s in this topic are being raised so quickly, how can Beanie have the time to actually perform these thorough searches? I know there is a 7 day period for this AfD, but this all volunteer, so move this to draft and preserve all the information archived. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Los Angeles Buccaneers#Roster for now. No objection on moving the content to draftspace or userspace for User:BeanieFan11 or others to work on it. I believe the coverage that BeanieFan found for this person fall short of GNG, but its a good starting point. Frank Anchor 20:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or delete. I'm seeing routine, local coverage of little encyclopedic value and certainly insufficient for GNG. I suspect draftification would just lead us back to AfD eventually so I don't see the utility there. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. Given BeanieFan's willingness to put in the work, and his record in building encyclopedic content, sending it to draft space makes sense. Beanie is one of our best workers on creating non-stub content for players in the early NFL. Give him a chance to work on it. Cbl62 ( talk) 10:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, or redirect if there is a good target. Also happy to see it moved to draft if BeanieFan11 believes they can find more sources given time. At the moment only one source deals with the article subjects football career, as that isn't enough to pass GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 01:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or draftily, there isn't sufficient significant coverage to get over GNG or any of the SNG. Unless some can be found there is just no reason to have this article. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus among the options mentioned (Delete, Draftify, Merge, Redirect and one lone Keep) but a No consensus close is not acceptable as the one consensus that comes through is that this article should be removed from main space. So, I'm relisting to see if one of the four options gets a lion's share of the opinions from those editors who are participating in this discussion. Otherwise, I would be closing this as a Super Vote which is inappropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify since BeanieFan11 seems willing to work on it and it may take time and effort to track down suitable sources. Rlendog ( talk) 17:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per Rlendog; the article still has potential even though it is not justifiable in mainspace right now. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 07:20, 16 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Marie-Thérèse Kaiser

PR Article: Deleted in her home Wikipedia: Reason: Far below notable. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten

She is an unknown model and low level local "politician". She is one of 54 community people in a small district. Not eaven a salery. There is no level under this level in politics. Its an "office" far below the level of a small mayor.

Dosent hit WP:POLITICIAN also not WP:ENT. She is kind of the german version of Brittany Pettibone - with less fans. 200 subscribers on you tube. https://www.youtube.com/@marie-theresekaiser1446 MumQuin ( talk) 06:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. She fails WP:NPOL because she is only a Landkreis-level elected official, i.e. local. However, for better or worse, she has attracted enough significant coverage in the German national press as cited in the article (see the article in Der Spiegel [ [94], another in Die Tageszeitung [95], an article in Tag24 [96], and so on.) Fiachra10003 ( talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep is profiled in a France24 news report as part of the new right-leaning politicians in Europe [97], in addition to what's given in the German press, should be at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:39, 10 February 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! 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Anya Rozova

Anya Rozova (  | talk | history | 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, full of dubious sources, including forum posts among others. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:17, 27 January 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 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I do agree with the nomination, the author should consult WP:RS. The article needs more reliable secondary sources like some already inserted publications from legit magazines. References to forums etc. should be removed. ThegaBolt ( talk) 18:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm not seeing much coverage in independent sources, that is, not related to modelling. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 04:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete kind of not notable model. too much buzz but not reliable references online. -- Mozzcircuit ( talk) 11:39, 11 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Cow (bull)

Cow (bull) (  | talk | history | 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 unclear what purpose this DBA serves. The first suggestion of Kao (bull) could possibly be misspelled as "Cow" (and perhaps this could be redirected to it), but no one would ever search for the second in such a manner. I recomend deletion to avoid all ambiguity. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:15, 10 February 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 00:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Abby Chin

Abby Chin (  | talk | history | 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 sports journalist, the only source available in the article is clearly unreliable, and the only sources I could find from a search were either also unreliable or primary sources. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:17, 10 February 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_February_10&oldid=1139992437"