Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
< March 10 March 12 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Bustos

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

Deprodded article (Notability concerns, potential self-promotion) hence AfD. As this is just a procedural AfD, I'm neutral as nominator. --Lenticel (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "Mass deletion of pages added by SoilMineo39, G5". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarsjah

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

Generally fails WP:GNG as I find it difficult to identify the individual's notability, as it seems to be predominantly associated with his role as commissioner of Petrokimia Gresik. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NSUBPOL:
Members of local/municipal bodies or members of bodies without law-making powers have generally been denied presumed notability (see WP:POLOUTCOMES); that is, members of bodies only capable of enacting subordinate (secondary) legislation are not presumed notable under the criteria established in WP:POLITICIAN. YordleSquire (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Ahmad

AfDs for this article:
Abdul Karim Ahmad (edit | talk | history | 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 individual's name is currently a red link on Indonesian Wikipedia, indicating a lack of significant coverage as outlined in WP:SIGCOV. While he did serve as the chair of the local ulema council at one point, this appears to be the extent of his notable contributions. It is likely that his recognition is primarily limited to his local region. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Per
WP:NSUBPOL
:
Members of local/municipal bodies or members of bodies without law-making powers have generally been denied presumed notability (see WP:POLOUTCOMES); that is, members of bodies only capable of enacting subordinate (secondary) legislation are not presumed notable under the criteria established in WP:POLITICIAN.
YordleSquire (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that not existing in other Wikimedia project like Indonesia wiki is not a criteria for WP: N All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject meets no notability. Same as it was deleted per discussion at previous AFD. Fails WP: GNG. The article was based on WP: BIOFAMILY and the cited sources were directly to discuss Family which fails WP: SIGCOV and WP: ANYBIO. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucylena Martínez

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Cuban women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that my searches produced were passing mentions (2011, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Women's football in Cuba is not something that will, under almost any circumstance, appear significantly in media sources available to the rest of the world. A dozen national team caps and at least six references, in my view, should be sufficient evidence of notability given the context of the article's subject. Anwegmann (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Passing mentions as the nom indicates. [1] is typical. Searching .cu websites brings up 8 articles, all match/team reports, where she's mentioned but not described beyond a mention. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorenzo Manganiello

Fiorenzo Manganiello (edit | talk | history | 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, WP:SIGCOV. Non-existant refs. scope_creepTalk 18:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source seemed to focus on the subject, and I'm not sure it's reliable. Articles authored by the subject or short profiles do not establish notability. YordleSquire (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes the notability criteria under WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as he was the vice president of Banque Profil de Gestion [2], a professor at Geneva Business School [3] and was named as Swiss Blockchain Expert for 2018 by Acquisition International [4]. He has significant coverage in [5] and [6]. The issue of "Non-existant refs" can be resolved using wayback machine like this [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesfab (talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA editor. scope_creepTalk
  • Comment
  • Ref 1 is a profiles and they are not considered significant coverage and general non-rs.
  • Ref 2 is another profile is a non-rs.
  • Ref 3 states he is a new ambassador which means WP:NPROF can apply here.
  • Ref 4 isn't significant coverage. It is another profile and non-rs.
  • Ref 5 is another profile and is not significant. Ref 5 is another short report.

None of these references have byline informations. They are just profile and are junk.

As regards satisify WP:NPROF, an examine of both Scopus and Google Scholar finds nothing of worth. This is a WP:BLP, the subject fails the three criteria for WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is not "profiles" and I am not WP:SPA by any mean. Even if, let's say for the argument, I was, in the very article it says "The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However, a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them." Mesfab (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 is a classic profile likely written by the person himself. It states in the description "Profil de Gestion". scope_creepTalk 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Banque Profil de Gestion is a Swiss Bank. Mesfab (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the articles first block of refs:
  • Ref 1 [8] Former contributor, written by himself, like much of coverage. That is non-rs
  • Ref 2 [9] Content appears to be written by Manganiello himself. Unable to view the vlog.
  • Ref 3 is linkedin. Non-rs
  • Ref 4 [10] 404
  • Ref 5 [11] Raw url search listing. Don't see his name.
  • Ref 6 [12] 404
  • Ref 7 [13] Interview
  • Ref 8 [14] A landing page non-rs
  • Ref 9 [15] 404
  • Ref 10 [16] Another very short exclusive interview.

Not a single one of these references show that WP:BIO, or WP:SIGCOV for that matter. They are shockingly trash. UPE article. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple other reliable sources which have significant coverage of the subject such as [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Mesfab (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that the article needs improvements but it is a notable subject. Mesfab (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No its not. It far from notable. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's say we trash these sources, but he is a notable subject as he was the vice president of Banque Profil de Gestion which satisfies the first clause of WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Mesfab (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He satisfies notability requirements, but you need sourcing that talks about him. "Just because" isn't really what's needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I will have a look at the five references above:
  • Ref 16 [22] It states: "publié par La rédaction en partenariat avec Lian Foundation" The Lian foundation was created by Fiorenzo Manganiello. So that is PR and non-rs.
  • Ref 17 [23] This is TedX profile. It is WP:PRIMARY and its a profile.
  • Ref 18 [24] This states "Par L'agence Delta pour Lian Group" So this PR.
  • Ref 19 [25] That site is probably non-rs but it does state: "Lopez told HackerNoon this story exclusively." Lopez is part of the Lian Group. So that PR as well.
  • Ref 20 [26] That has no author information and looks and reads PR. It states "Content produced on behalf of The LIAN Group".

So all these PR and are non-rs. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Mesfab: There needs to be coverage as its a WP:BLP. In an Afd you must be able to show evidence that the person is notable. The standard best-practice per consensus since last summer is a provide WP:THREE references. Provide three secondary sources that prove the person is notable. scope_creepTalk 22:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion so I'd like to see input from more editors who frequent AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: PROMO. Sources are all primary or in non-RS. Cite Highlighter has none that are green, most are red/orange, meaning non-reliable sources or PR items. I don't see any we can use from the extensive list above. I can't find any either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the crypto items don't fill me with hope; an article about crypto as the future of banking, when most NFT's are worthless now and FTX has gone bankrupt, don't paint a rosy picture as to the reliability of such sources as used here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promotional article, sources do not prove notability or are promotional as said above. Spinixster (chat!) 03:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Any significant coverage comes from non-reliable/paid sources/non-independent sources. TLAtlak 04:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yahman

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Yahman (edit | talk | history | 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 individual's name appears as a red link on Indonesian Wikipedia, indicating a lack of significant coverage as stipulated by WP:SIGCOV. Being a local preacher, it's probable that his recognition is confined to his immediate region. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. Owen× ☎ 23:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Census info and primary sourcing aren't what's needed here. There's nothing I can find about this person, very likely not meeting notability requirements either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Best sources found are wikipedia mirrors and social media, none of which help here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a before search popped up several similar names but nothing significant about this person. TunGunPun (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. --95.233.51.253 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: my reference search doesn't bring up anything that would pass NBIO. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act

Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of this article is just a massive list that has been copied directly from legislation. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. The rest of it (which is just the introduction) can be merged to Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That article already has a link to the legislation, if the readers want to see the whole list; that article should just summarise the list, not reproduce it in its entirety. Richard75 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My concern isn't just about clutter, it's about content. If the list is useful, then link to it – that doesn't mean it all belongs in the article. The article about War and Peace doesn't quote the whole book, it just tells you about it. Richard75 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the article about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists all 34 sections, but I'm not sure what either War and Peace or the Charter has to do with our case. We have many articles that include a comprehensive list, when the list is encyclopedic but not suitable for a separate listicle. This particular list is useful and encyclopedic, but it isn't notable as a standalone list. That makes it a perfect candidate for inclusion in an existing article about its topic, in this case, the 1971 Act. Owen× ☎ 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Charter article lists and summarises all 34 sections, but it doesn't quote them in full. Richard75 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been deeply useful to me in the past. The government legislation pages are now easier to browse but I think it would be a shame to see it moved off wikipedia. If the problem is that it only lists substances specifically named in the legislation, a better solution would be to start making it a "list of x" article and including things like 6-APB and others that are classified but not specifically named in legislation. Testem (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies LISTN and GNG easily and by a wide margin. This topic (both the topic of controlled drugs, and even the Schedules which list those drugs) has received significant coverage in books and periodicals. To deal with the nominator's arguments, which are irrelevant to LISTN and therefore irrelevant: The contents of this article differ significantly from the text of the legislation, which definitely does not include much of the content of the tables. Further, the list is not copied from the legislation, because the amended text of the legislation does not actually exist as a published work that is a statute. It is true that various secondary and tertiary sources contain something that purports to be the amended text of the legislation, but these sources are actually compilations and annotations, and they are not the verbatim text of the numerous statutes and statutory instruments they purport to compile into one. Wikipedia should contain a list of controlled drugs, because this is important and useful encyclopedic information that our readers need and want, and (more importantly) because it is included in the treatises and other books on this subject. Our readers cannot just go and look at the amended legislation, because it does not exist as a published work that is a statute. And they cannot necessarily go and look at secondary and tertiary sources that purport to revise the legislation, because those sources are generally controlled by the government or commercial publishers: and such sources can be paywalled, passworded or completely withdrawn. Telling our readers to just go and look at those sources would also have issues with NOTPROMO, as we generally do not exclude information merely because it could be obtained from a non-WMF source, and we will not promote such sources by giving them a free gift of 10,000 page views per month of our article traffic. And those compilation sources are usually out of date. The length of the list is not excessive, having regard to the notability and importance of the subject. James500 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a complete list on the legislation website, which is free. Richard75 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could put a paywall on that website at any time. They could even take it down. Public opinion may not necessarily stop them forever. Public opinion does not always stop austerity, or rent seeking, or price gouging, or the use of regressive indirect taxes, or privatisation, by governments. It only takes the words "budget deficit" or "this costs the taxpayer too much" (the word "taxpayer" being a dog whistle that really means certain rich people who pay direct taxes) to shut down a service like that. They originally wanted to put a paywall on that site. A paywall was actually placed on the British Newspaper Archive. These kind of sites are not necessarily immune. If we give them the opportunity to restrict free access, they may actually take it. We have to think about the future, and the future is a very long time, during which government policies can change drastically. James500 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_1971 This list is definitely a decent part of the encyclopedia. However I feel as though the contents of the article would be better as part of the main article on this act. People would be able to find these details more useful if they are able to find them among the rest of the information on the legislation. These are important aspects of the legislation and thus deserve some coverage, even if that doesn't mean that it gets its own complete article. Samoht27 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Sullivan (composer)

Henry Sullivan (composer) (edit | talk | history | 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'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue Mohammed VI, Marrakesh

Avenue Mohammed VI, Marrakesh (edit | talk | history | 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 sufficient notability per WP:GEOROAD, WP:SIGCOV. This is a major street, but there's not much else to say about it. It's not even one of the more central streets of the city (Avenue Mohammed V would maybe qualify for that). At most, you could list some businesses along it, but that's not significant coverage and would fall into WP:TRAVELGUIDE-style trivia. R Prazeres (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baku Carriage Repair Factory

Baku Carriage Repair Factory (edit | talk | history | 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 may be missing something, but I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Azerbaijan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. When the subject of an article is located in a country where English isn't the primary language, a nominator should check the references included in the corresponding articles in other languages' Wikipedias. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are good examples for subject passing WP:GNG: [27], [28], [29]. There are also numerous reliable secondary sources in Azerbaijani and Russian languages for fact checking. --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of recently added content would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although a large portion of the article is unsourced and needs sources or should be removed, the subject itself doesn't have any notability concerns and meets the WP:GNG as there are multiple sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. While I see WP:TNT as an editorial choice rather than an administrative one, a strong, policy-based argument was expressed here by many that the page is a POV fork. However, just as many, even after discarding those clearly canvassed here, validly claimed that the topic is notable, as evidenced by sources, and that POV issues can be fixed without deletion. This close is without prejudice against merging with an existing NPOV-written article, or rewriting from scratch, both of which can be discussed on the article's Talk page. The article is currently semi-protected per WP:ARBPAK, so things should move in a more productive direction now. Hopefully, the page will be in good enough shape (or properly merged) in two months that we won't have to go through another AfD for it. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan

Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | 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 originator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and the content from previous socks has been shown to be biased, lacking in neutrality as they admit in their unblock request that they were here with a political agenda of exposing something instead of building encyclopedia. These subjects are already addressed in articles on Military coups in Pakistan, and each election article discusses allegations of rigging such as here. Several other editors have also expressed concerns, such as content failing verification. With such a vast article, it's impractical for anyone to meticulously review every piece of content against numerous sources. Therefore, it would be wise to delete it, saving volunteers countless hours. WP:TNT might apply here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Personally I was inclined to keep but given the massive damage done to this article by a separate sockpuppet I am inclined to support a delete or a massive rewrite, preferably one that focuses less on history rather than the methodologies allegedly used. Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland:, we can easily recover the old versions [30]. 23.156.104.104 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the last version before Bolt Kjerag tampered the 2024 election would be the last competent edition of this article. Borgenland (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only sources 21 onwards seem to be about vote manipulation/rigging, rest are simply election results. I suspect there's a story here that could be written, but the sockpuppet and other issues in the nom don't leave me filled with hope. Likely TNT is the best option; a super enthusiastic editor could draft it and work from there, but this will be a long one to rework. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. FWIW, WP:TNT is an essay and article content does not determine notability. What matters is that the topic is notable as independent coverage exists and the article has already been reviewed by @Bastun: [31]. It is very lazy to say that just because the article is long, so I won't review it. I'd suggest to revert it back to the version Bastun reviewed.

Thanks. 23.156.104.104 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — 23.156.104.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep There were & there are alternatives to deletion available instead of outright deleting this pg. While it's true that this pg needs significant work,but per WP:PROBLEM, deletion shouldn't be used as a form of punishment. @Borgenland: You remember this discussion ? The same sock puppet who added the messy content to this pg also added some unveriable OR material to the main election pg, but with some effort, it was cleaned up. The same approach should be taken here. Someone needs to step up and clean it up, maybe me (but not sure when) but let's not disregard the efforts of those who have contributed to this page at some point, including yourself. --Saqib (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I was also two-ended in my comment. By the way, someone has been making a branch article called Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election. Hopefully it is a better-made article that can survive scrutiny. Borgenland (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Saqib. BBC Urdu recently covered this important topic as well ([33]). 103.148.128.128 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) — 103.148.128.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete seems like a notable topic, but I completely agree with the TNT concern. Best to start over, or to work on individual elections. SportingFlyer T·C 16:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Leaning keep. Oaktree b and SportingFlyer agree that this is a notable topic so there is nothing to debate here. This article should help. It is more of a list and meets WP:NLIST as well. 103.65.140.93 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) — 103.65.140.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete There is no heading of allegation in all election pages except 2018 and 2024. There is separate page for Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election. It is better to move information of this page to respective election page and delete this one.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin: Most of the SPA IP addresses that voted keep here were mainly involved in AFDs related to HistoriesUnveiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the blocked sock puppet and originator of this article. There is an ongoing SPI with no action taken yet. In my opinion, these votes should be disregarded due to their questionable nature. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable article, electoral fraud is a very much a thing in Pakistan. Its deletion amounts to getting rid of the article. The new article won't also be much different from it. Concerns regarding content can be addressed on talk for which AfD should not be used. WP:DEL-CONTENT Muneebll (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article appears to be a WP:POVFORK, Nothing significant in this article, containing redundant or overlapping information added by a blocked sock puppet. Much of it is already covered in Military coups in Pakistan and election articles, Given these concerns deletion seems like the most practical solution. War Wounded (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article contains notable content that is adequately referenced as per WP:RS. Being blocked due to SP does not in any way mean that we take a look at the editor's contributions from a biased filter. We should judge on the merits/demerits of the article. I do not find anything in its content that warrants a nom for deletion. There is room for expansion, yes, and I like the fact that it provides a general overview of a country whose electoral history has been fraught with allegations of malpractices. Wiki.0hlic (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the issues raised regarding the neutrality and verifiability of the content are significant. The article appears to have been heavily influenced by a blocked user with a known bias, which undermines the credibility of the information presented. The time and effort required to verify and rewrite the content would be substantial, and it may be more efficient to delete the article and start anew, if necessary. Ainty Painty (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, a request, please let uninvolved editors, Checkusers or SPI clerks strike opinions from sockpuppets. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Already done. --Saqib (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, topic is subject of analysis by independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 12:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2024 Pakistan Elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheel (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I changed my mind. The citations give it a WP:GN. We can discussing merging later if the content is required for merging.Cheel (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and rename to Election rigging in Pakistan. The coup article covers only direct interventions of the military, while this article is about interventions pre or post elections. Not all of these interventions are alleged, as the article's current title suggests. Electoral rigging in 1977 is widely recognized [34], while rigging in 1990 by the military resulted in a conviction in the Asghar Khan case [35]. I'm compiling all the reliable references or academic works below for review:
Majeed, Zohaib Ahmed (February 7, 2024). "Ranking the 5 'dirtiest' elections in Pakistan history". DAWN.COM.
Mufti, Mariam (June 19, 2018). "Who rigs polls in Pakistan and how?". Herald Magazine.
Asif, Muhammad; Khan, Tariq Anwar; Khan, Muhammad Fahim (2021). "Electoral malpractices in Pakistan: Facts and events of political instability". Pakistan Journal of International Affairs. 4 (4).
"عام انتخابات میں مبینہ دھاندلی اور نتائج بدلنے کے الزامات: الیکشن فراڈ کیا ہے اور اس سے جمہوریت کو کیا خطرہ ہوتا ہے؟" [Allegations of rigging and tampering in general elections: What is election fraud and how does it threaten democracy?]. BBC Urdu.

Skål, 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) — 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

N. Martin covered electoral fraud in Pakistan and India in 2020 [36]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Solid work by Mazhar Abbas [37] on this topic. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ELECTORAL FRAUD: A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO DYNASTIC POLITICS by MU Din et. al. [38]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Electoral malpractices in Pakistan article in the Pakistan Journal of International Affairs [39]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Electoral manipulation or astute electoral strategy? published by Taylor & Francis [40]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Election disputes' or disputed elections?: Judicial (non-) review of the electoral process in Pakistan by MH Cheema [41]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ELECTION MANAGEMENT AND PARTY DECISION MAKING IN PAKISTAN [42]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Military rule, civilianisation and electoral corruption: Pakistan and Bangladesh in perspective [43]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan: Voting under military tutelage [44]. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions but this is a first, I've just protected this AFD so only autoconfirmed editors can participate. I think the possibility of sockpuppets and these drive by comments are hindering productive discussion and arriving at a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What a mess, my condolences to the closer. I think that there is probably consensus that the topic here is notable, and that is pretty much where I land too. Policy-wise I suppose that means that we should edit our way out of the problem, perhaps by semi-protecting the article too. However, WP:TNT has been a valid application of WP:IAR since the very beginning, and I have sympathy for those that favor it here. Pragmatically, perhaps close this procedurally as no consensus and open a redirect discussion on talk page to point this to the far superior Allegations of rigging in the 2024 Pakistani general election Borgenland noted above. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agenda based article and it already covered in the articles mentioned above. Vijay Kumar RJ (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. It was deleted by Courcelles under G5. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Puspanditaning Sejati

AfDs for this article:
Amanda Puspanditaning Sejati (edit | talk | history | 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 individual lacks notability as an academic, failing to meet the standards outlined in WP:NACADEMIC. The only achievement listed in the article is authoring a guide on English writing techniques. Also, red link in Indonesian wikipedia. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says that this is the second AfD nomination. Where is the first? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: The initial nomination is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad. I've withdrawn from that nomination and opted to initiate a separate nomination based on the discussions there. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I think it would have been better not to have unbundled the AfDs, whose bios are all junk. Separating them wasted the time of volunteer editors who had to look at individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When I suggested a procedural close, the bundled AfD had seemed on its way to a trainwreck [46], and I was concerned about how much more sprawling one discussion could become while evaluating that many articles under varying notability guidelines. How the AfD now appears follows the conclusion of an SPI (I had initially been unaware of) and removal of sock comments/discussion; that context is only in the edit history [47]. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no indication of notability. TunGunPun (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ourasi

Ourasi (edit | talk | history | 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. I'm suprised it has existed for 20 years now. If it is possible to make a better article about the horse, it would be better to Delete it and make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah raji (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: French article has many RS; the horse appears to have had book published about it in 2000 by Homeric, which I can't bring up on any sort of website; the author only having one name ala Cher or Madonna, makes me question the reliability of the source... Regardless, there are quite a few newspaper articles about this animal. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are probably the most RS that English editors would recognize by name, Le Parisien newspaper [48] and Le Monde [49]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav Wadhwa

Anubhav Wadhwa (edit | talk | history | 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, WP:1E, and is promotional, returned from CSD User4edits (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, Delhi, and United Kingdom. User4edits (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Hindu here. The article needs updating but I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Atlantic306, Most of the references are related to him becoming youngest CEO (Rest references are PSTS or non-RS). The one (TheHindu) you mentioned is published in Kid's section (Category Young World, URL: thehindu.com/features/kids/...), and is precisely the 1E I mentioned above, and does not denote notability or WP:SIGCOV.
    User4edits (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Source 1 and 14 are about him in RS, rest is used to colour the discussion. Doesn't really mention it in the article, but the tire recycling/disposal website seems to be notable. Article has a PROMO tone but can be rewritten. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Barely out of his teens, this is a nice young man who hasn't really done much yet. Lastly, this appears to be written so as to be a social media page, not a real article. In 2024, everyone knows that. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (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! 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as autobiography and NOTWEBHOST. This is a BLP written by the subject with some sourcing. Fails GNG and ANYBIO. Nothing significant has happened since he wrote it so it can't be updated. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Age should not even be considered for notability. Have seen this from some people who keep bringing it up in various deletion discussions. I don't think 1E should really apply to something like this, they are young and they are notable. We've got coverage over more than one year in four of India's top (a handful more) publications. TLAtlak 13:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: no WP:CONTINUED and there is precisely WP:1E and WP:SENSATIONAL. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 14:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The pubs span about 18 months, so I don't think this passes the bar to fail 1E or CONTINUED. I wouldn't say this sensational either, it's really not gossipy. TLAtlak 03:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Sources present with SIGCOV and GNG. Closing as keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Atamian

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

Article about a non-notable writer and film-maker who fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Possibly WP:UPE. Jamiebuba (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like it if you could please specify why the Article fails to correspond to WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.
The references provided are from independent sources, and in my opinion a significant coverage was shown in those resources about the person in question, his work, prizes/nominations, and the contribution to the Armenian culture.
Also, if there are any suggestions of how I can improve the Article to fully correspond to the guidelines I would very much appreciate that.
Thanks a lot Asti.96 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to read the guideline for Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline which can help you know whether an article is ready for mainspace (if draft) or inclusive on wikipedia. WP: SIGCOV means Significant Coverage and WP: GNG I had already explained. I will review the article again and know how best I can try. I also see some what of promotional words WP: UPE and to avoid disputing the neutrality if any to declare whether you are paid or associated to the subject All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamiebuba I had thought why you AFD this article. Although it reads promotional but I suggest tagging and improving can work. Seeing the page alone cited works and per citations from some reliable courses, seems to pass WP: GNG and WP: SIGCOV except from removing promotional words and copy editing. Remember Deletion is not the best option when article can/may survive stand alone or WP: THREE. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP: GNG, WP: ANYBIO, WP: SIGCOV, WP: NAUTHOR based on translations which he had won awards for. Meets WP: JOURNALIST since there are verifiable sources that he has written for notable newspapers and magazines. I can find many sources plus the notable awards he has won shows he is notable. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handgod Abraham

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

Article about a non-notable poet. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Possibly a WP:COI or WP:UPE. Jamiebuba (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chehalis School District. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orin C. Smith Elementary School

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

Contested PROD. Subject is a local elementary school with no apparent notability beyond being named for a Starbucks executive, which is a good chunk of the article and its sources. The sources that do focus on the school are from a local newspaper, the school district, or state databases, thus not meeting WP:GNG. SounderBruce 20:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Kennedy

Jayme Kennedy (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she serves as chair of a British Columbia regional district, which is essentially that province's equivalent to a county council -- but politicians at the local level of office are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant depth and range of media coverage about their work to demonstrate that they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of prominence.
But this is written more like a résumé than a neutral encyclopedia article, and is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with not even one hit of WP:GNG-building third party media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YordleSquire (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's actually a state level politician and thus meets WP:NPOL. Furthermore, she her smile enriches Wikipedia.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 11:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"State-level" politician in what sense? She's a county-level politician in a country that has provinces, not states, and has never held a seat in any provincial legislature. And since when was "her smile enriches Wikipedia" a notability criterion in and of itself? Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your last question, Bearcat, consensus can change... SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GDX420 Seems to be engaging in trolling at AfD since an article they created about a local politician was nominated for deletion. This has included nominating a state-level politician in India for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Patel using a false (labelling Patel a local politician) but very similar rationale to the AfD for their article. AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But... her smile enriches Wikipedia! We just have to keep her! It's a small price to pay. Not to mention British Columbia is my favorite state. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina#District 11. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 North Carolina's 11th congressional district election

2020 North Carolina's 11th congressional district election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a special election, no individual page needed Cannolorosa (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namak Haraam (TV series)

Namak Haraam (TV series) (edit | talk | history | 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. Tag and Prod challenged by IP so here now at AfD. CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I hope these sources get added to the articles. Thanks to User:Mushy Yank for their work improving the articles after nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin M. Sivam

Lenin M. Sivam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1999 (film) (edit | talk | history | 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 Gun & a Ring (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, film directors are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of third-party reliable sources covering and analyzing their work -- but after stripping numerous unacceptable sources of the "film sourced to its own directory entry in IMDb" variety (which is not support for notability at all), what's left is one unreliable source reporting that he won an award at a minor local film festival that isn't prominent enough to clinch "notability because award" -- that's looking for major film festivals like Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance whose award announcements get covered as news, not just any film festival that exists on the planet -- and one film review in a source that's fine for use but not widely distributed enough to get him or the film over GNG all by itself. In fact, the film's article got draftspaced last year for lacking properly substantiated evidence of notability over and above the same single film review, and then got deleted as a stale draft without ever seeing any further improvement.
The two films I've bundled here are also both referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building ones. There's one film, Roobha, that I'm not bundling, as it actually does have reliable sources present in it — but it's still not at all clear that it has enough sourcing to clear the bar, so no prejudice against somebody else listing it for a separate AFD discussion in the future.
Nothing present in any of these articles is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sri Lanka, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Director: Meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of at least one notable film that received significant coverage from reliable sources, Roobha that the nominator had the kindness not to bundle with the other 2 films and their director. Which leads us to the said 2 films: they are clearly notable and received coverage and reviews...........Will improve the pages, Added a few things rapidly, see for yourself....My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (+1 film that had been draftified so far)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lenin M. Sivam passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

      People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

      • 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.
      Sources about Lenin M. Sivam:
      1. Bhandari, Aparita (2018-10-02). "Lenin M. Sivam's new film subverts the traditional Tamil love story with a tender trans romance". CBC.ca. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "Lenin M. Sivam's third film Roobha is unlike the traditional Tamil love-story films that he grew up watching. ... Sivam came to Canada from Jaffna, Sri Lanka in 1991, and started making films on the side while working as a software architect. He quit his job four years ago to take up filmmaking full-time, with Roobha — which opens the Reelworld Film Festival on October 9 — coming as a result. ... Sivam met Jesuthasan in 2013, when Sivam was in Paris to screen his previous film A Gun & A Ring. ... The usual challenges of filmmaking were even more onerous with Roobha. While Sivam has addressed difficult topics — such as gang violence among Sri Lankan Tamil Canadian youth in his first film 1999 — Roobha could prove to be controversial."

      2. Adler, Mike (2018-10-02). "Roobha, latest film from Scarborough's Lenin Sivam, opens Reelworld". Metroland Media Group. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "... says Lenin M. Sivam, the Scarborough filmmaker whose latest, Roobha, opens Toronto’s Reelworld Film Festival on Oct. 9. ... said Sivam, 44, who believes Roobha, like any love story, has universal appeal. ... Sivam’s previous feature films, 1999 (2009), about gang violence during a turbulent year in Toronto’s Tamil community, and A Gun and a Ring (2013), a study of trauma left behind by Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-Tamil civil war, were done on shoestrings."

      3. Hopewell, John (2022-07-19). "Alarm Pictures Closes North America on Lenin M. Sivam's 'The Protector' (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "... it captures Canadian filmmaker Sivam – who was born in Jaffna, Sri Lanka but moved to Canada in 1991 – once more drawing on his Tamil heritage to stand out from the crowd of Canadian auteurs. Sivam’s 2009 breakout first feature “1999” was set on Toronto’s late ‘90s Sri Lankan gang scene; 2013 follow-up, “A Gun & a Ring,” proved a multi-generational cross-cutter also set in a Toronto’s Sri Lankan community. 2018’s “Roobha” explores the rapturous love affair between a middle-aged married Tamil man and a 20-something trans woman."

      4. Nandhakumar, Sindhuri (2018-04-20). "Tamil diaspora cinema: Tales from the global backyard". The Hindu. ProQuest 2028071736. Archived from the original on 2023-12-02. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "Tamil-Canadian filmmaker Lenin M Sivam, who fled the Sri Lankan civil conflict as a 17-year-old, is of the same bent of mind. In 2009, he used the $10,000 credit limit on his credit card to fund his début feature 1999, a gritty narrative about the gang violence that swept through Toronto's Tamil communities when he was a teenager."

    2. Sources about 1999:
      1. "Indie film exposes T.O. gang violence". South Asian Focus. 2010-04-07. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The review notes: "Inspired by real-life events, Canadian indie filmmaker Lenin M. Sivam's captivating first feature, 1999, is a sinuously provocative, edge-of-your-seat story of friendship, betrayal and courage."

      2. Adler, Mike (2009-09-25). "New film to put spotlight on Tamil gang violence. Scarborough story will open at Vancouver Film Festival". Scarborough Mirror. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "The murder of Palasanthiran - one of several innocents killed by chance during the years the VVT and AK Kannans fought in Scarborough's streets - was not recreated in Lenin M. Sivam's 1999 film drama about Tamil youth gangs, but Sivam recalls Palasanthiran's funeral as a turning point. ... Those interviews formed 1999's main characters: the underachiever Anpu, Kumar the gang leader and Ahilan, a straight-arrow university student."

      3. Shankar, Settu (2010-02-15). "Canadian Tamil film 1999 won in Norway festival". Filmibeat. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "Canadian Tamil film 1999, which made its debut in Vancouver International film Festival in October last year, won the Midnight Sun award Wednesday at the Tamil Film Festival-2010 held at the Filmenshus Kino in Oslo, Norway, cinematic enthusiasts attending the event said. 1999 was directed by Lenin M. Sivam, an Eezham Tamil of Canada and a software professional. ... The film 1999, featuring violence-affected Eezham Tamils struggling to adjust their lives in Canada, is the first full-feature production of the largely self-made filmmaker."

      4. Takeuchi, Craig (2009-09-08). "Vancouver International Film Festival reveals Canadian Images 2009 lineup". The Georgia Straight. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "1999 (Lenin M. Sivam). Lenin M. Sivam's insightful drama explores the paths of three young Tamil immigrants grappling with gang violence in their Toronto community. Emotional and eye-opening, Sivam's film explores the challenges and opportunities of life in Canada, and the devastating impacts of experiencing civil war."

    3. Sources about Gun & A Ring:
      1. "Tamil-Canadian film shares untold stories". Brampton Guardian. 2013-09-27. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "Inspired to tell the kind of story "no one else was telling," Canadian filmmaker Lenin M. Sivam and Eye Catch Multimedia have created the riveting new feature film A Gun & A Ring, screening at York Cinemas on Sept. 28. ... Weaving six stories together, linked to a single gun and a wedding ring, the film explores the harsh realities faced by different generations of Tamil Canadians who try to rebuild their lives in an adopted land, but are unable to let go of their pasts framed by violence, death and conflict in Sri Lanka. ... A Gun & A Ring had its world premiere at the 16th Shanghai International film festival in June where it was nominated for the prestigious Golden Goblet Award."

      2. Adler, Mike (2013-09-25). "A Gun & A Ring tells stories of Sri Lankan civil war's impact on Toronto-area Tamils. Lenin Sivam's film debuts locally at York Theatre in Richmond Hill". Metroland Media Group. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "All of the Scarborough filmmaker’s six storylines are connected through a diamond engagement ring and a revolver with a hawk on the handle. ... A Gun & A Ring is a far bigger film than 1999, Sivam’s 2009 feature about Tamil-Canadian gangs fighting on the streets of Scarborough a decade earlier. ... A Gun & A Ring, with its six different narrators eventually colliding into one theme, is not entirely fictional as it brings more stories from Greater Toronto’s Tamil community to the screen. ... But underlying everything in A Gun & A Ring is the civil war, and Sivam’s aim in the film - which has its Greater Toronto premiere at 7 p.m. this Saturday at the York Cinemas in Richmond Hill - is to explore how the war still affects day to day experiences in Canada. ... With all its locations in Scarborough and Markham - viewers may recognize Morningside Park or Sylvan Park by the Scarborough Bluffs - a Gun & A Ring cost $100,000 to shoot over a single two-week period."

      3. "Scarborough filmmaker Lenin M. Sivam's movie at Montreal World Film Festival. A Gun and A Ring set for local premiere in September". Metroland Media Group. 2013-08-20. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "A Scarborough filmmaker’s latest feature, A Gun and A Ring, will screen at the 37th Montreal World Film Festival, which starts this week. ... The Toronto area premiere of A Gun and A Ring is scheduled for Sept. 28 at the York Cinemas in Richmond Hill."

      4. "Tamil-Canadian film to make world debut at Shanghai fest (With Image)". Business Standard. Indo-Asian News Service. 2013-05-28. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "Canadian filmmaker Lenin M. Sivam's Tamil-Canadian venture "A Gun & A Ring" is set to make its world debut at the 16th Shanghai International Film Festival (SIFF) in June. Nominated for the prestigious Golden Goblet Award, the highest prize awarded at the festival, the film uses brilliantly interwoven montage of characters to explore the harsh realities faced by different generations of Tamil Canadians who try to re-build their lives in an adopted land, but are unable to let go of their past framed by violence, death and conflict in Sri Lanka."

      5. Persico, Amanda (2013-06-21). "Film on Tamils' challenges makes debut". Markham Economist & Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.

        The article notes: "From the streets of Markham to the big screen, cast and crew of A Gun and a Ring are walking the red carpet during the 16 annual Shanghai International Film Festival, which continues to tomorrow. Their first full-length feature film, produced by Markham's Eyecatch Multimedia Ltd., brings to light the harsh realities experienced by different generations of Sri Lankan residents in Toronto. The film, partially filmed in Markham, also explores the emotion turmoil of Tamil Canadians stuck between a cruel past marred by violence and new future in a new land."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lenin M. Sivam, 1999, and Gun & A Ring to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for analysis of the sources and the consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the sources presented above are all good, and the reasons for the nomination were not proper (WP:NOTCLEANUP). Valid subjects demonstrating N for each. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partners In Leadership

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

Deleted at last AfD. Doesn't meet WP:ORG ' WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article seems curated mostly by editors with a vested interest in the organization. It has no secondary sources listed at all. There's nothing to indicate it might meet WP:GNG. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - couldn't find any sigcov in secondary sources, I don't believe this meets NCORP or GNG. I'll note the book, same discussions had in the last deletion discussion. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Sources are press releases, and lack of any actual SIGCOV. TLAtlak 04:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansbach Middle High School

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

Has been unsourced since creation 17 years ago. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as required. AusLondonder (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe Hotel

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

There doesn't seem to be any WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS for this hotel, mainly just listings. Not to be confused with a similarly named hotel in Australia. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unsourced article and I cannot find anything on it elsewhere. No specific claims to fame in the text, seems to have been just a hotel. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - was unable to find any independent or sigcov to pass NCORP microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liechtensteiner films of 2014

List of Liechtensteiner films of 2014 (edit | talk | history | 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 list containing just one film, which does not have an article. No sources, just a IMDb external link which is useless. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ruttan

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

Article about a mayor, not properly demonstrated as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show significant reliable source coverage supporting substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But the bulk of the content here is background biographical trivia that isn't evidence of notability, while his mayoralty is summarily dispatched as "election result, the end" -- and for sourcing, there's one hit of verification of the election results, three primary sources that aren't support for notability, and one book that doesn't cover the subject at all, but is here to tangentially "verify" background information about his ancestors, and fails to even really do that because it contains the surname Ruttan but was published in 1869, and thus obviously fails to name John Ruttan at all for the purposes of properly verifying that he's actually a descendant of any of the Ruttans covered in that book. And even if that were somehow more verifiable than it is, that still wouldn't help to support John Ruttan's notability anyway, since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. This is a case in which there was little argument as to whether reliable sources had covered the topic. Rather the discussion centered on how to address the coverage of this story consistent with Wikipedia’s purpose. A minority of the commenters here felt that the coverage would most appropriately be merged back into the parent Catherine, Princess of Wales article, however that view did not reach consensus, with a decided majority either directly or implicitly noting the coverage would overwhelm the article. A majority of the editors responding here felt that the article should be kept, and the information from the sources covering the story presented here in some form. There was a fair bit of support among these editors for restructuring the focus of the article, or renaming it, but they concurred that it should not be deleted. A plurality of editors were concerned with the tabloid/gossip nature of much of the coverage, and argued NOTNEWS either directly, by reference in citing the essay WP:RECENTISM. To be clear however, I did not devalue the opinions of any group of editors; in my opinion the keep editors, collectively acknowledged NOTNEWS, but differed in their view of whether the amount and duration of coverage warranted an exception. I felt that the position that reached consensus in this discussion is that it did. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate?

Where is Kate? (edit | talk | history | 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 wrote this article and am bringing it to AfD in the hope of garnering community consensus about whether it should exist or not, and am therefore Neutral.

The article discusses recent speculation concerning the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales, which I think has reached sustained media coverage in reliable sources, and indeed, a relevant episode has been in the headlines of British papers today. Yesterday, I was surprised to read that contributing editors to the talk page of Catherine, Princess of Wales seem to have rejected several proposals for a separate article on this topic or inclusion of further media reporting into the article. Some of these discussions were closed by involved editors less than 24 hours after the proposal, which seemed to jump the chance to form community consensus.

These are experienced, good-faith editors with far more experience in WP:BLP and WP:GA than me, so their concerns (which, principally, I suspect are WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS), may be valid. On the other hand, the Catherine, Princess of Wales article seems to downplay the speculation entirely, and splits it between the subsections Health and Privacy and the media, and I think that has some WP:NPOV concerns, which of course, Where is Kate? also has (WP:CONTENTFORK). If the article is kept, there is likely a case for renaming, but what to? I defer to the community's judgment. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Internet, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete or merge This has as much lasting notability as the Kate Middleton effect, which also used to be an independent article. Killuminator (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole thing should be deleted because it is a conspiracy theory and us as citizens of the world should not allow conspiracy theories to be posted to Wikipedia. This is like when Kim Jong-un disappears for sometime and there’s rampant speculation that he’s dead or and some undisclosed location it’s a conspiracy theory get over it. 2601:1C0:C602:59F0:9CDC:48C4:C0A0:3D36 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – I agree that the Catherine, Princess of Wales main page should expand on the highly notable subject a bit more - a subsection in its existing location of "Privacy and media" is most fitting, since within the scheme of her biography I don't think it yet warrants a section of its own. This article is unique, the only peer I can think of is perhaps Conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales - if the article continues to exist, I believe it should be renamed thusly (Conspiracy theories about the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales) given that numerous reliable sources refer to the speculation as such (also here, here, and here --Bettydaisies (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do Not Rename until a better name is proposed. 'Where is Kate?' accurately encompasses the speculation, media coverage, conspiracy theories, much like the Megxit article is concisely named 86.31.83.194 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - "Megxit" is a popular monkier. "Where is Kate" is not nearly as widespread to refer to the colloquial social media commentary or press coverage.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything more common and encompassing than "Where is Kate?". Vox (reliable source) just published this: https://www.vox.com/culture/24087565/princess-kate-middleton-disappearance-rumors-explained-abdominal-surgery-kensington-palace with the headline "Where is Kate Middleton?" 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harpers Bazaar too (not listed on WP:RSP however): https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a60009409/kate-middleton-abdominal-surgery-disappearance-explained/. What other names could the article be titled if not that? 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC (reliable source) published an article back in February with "Where's Kate Middleton?" in the title: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/kate-middleton-online-conspiracy-theories-memes-rcna141027 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo! News (reliable source) published article titled "Where is Kate Middleton?" https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-kate-middleton-154750321.html 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just as many reliable sources refer to the speculation as conspiracy theories. If renamed, it's title will be up to consensus. --Bettydaisies (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bettydaisies I had suppoet you to an extent. But the question is-Do we really need this? Regards MSincccc (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul is dead is a good precedent. Anyway, I wasn't really clued up on this until KP's photo yesterday: don't think it's notable enough for its own article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One issue is it's not just the conspiracy theories that are the scope of the article (they currently comprise one sentence), but the speculation and media coverage surrounding Kate's absence. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind this is a forked page of a BLP. The veracity of information is paramount. The media coverage is rooted in public speculation about her health - beyond what has been publicly stated by the person's spokesman or the person herself. The public speculation isn't just about whether Kate Middleton got a BBL - it's about whether there is an active coverup - a conspiracy - about her health itself. The media itself has referred to the speculation as "rampant gossip" "furious rumors", and "social media speculation". Unless there are legitimate reliable sources that document an express concern about her health and wellbeing - which might indeed come out, but haven't yet been published - the speculation itself is rooted in an idea of conspiracy.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all the more reason for the article to exist. I mentioned in my other comment that ITV This Morning has already fallen for a hoax related to Where is Kate? https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/itvs-morning-slammed-falling-kate-32326495. So it would be useful to have an article, as the point of Wikipedia is to be a reliable source to prevent people falling for hoaxes.
Shouldn't the article be titled as such to refer to conspiracies then? The speculation existing as is in the article - especially in the lead - makes it seem like the media scrutiny about her hospitalization and subsequent events has happened organically, rather than from an uproar external concerns that are not yet evidence-based.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should cover well sourced reactions to her absence, including the Mother's Day photograph and well sourced reactions to it. It should not speculate about her health. Possibly rename it to "Where is Kate Middleton?", as that seems to be the most common amongst reliable sources, but 'Where is Kate?' seems perfectly fine as it is for conciseness:
https://www.vox.com/culture/24087565/princess-kate-middleton-disappearance-rumors-explained-abdominal-surgery-kensington-palace
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/kate-middleton-online-conspiracy-theories-memes-rcna141027
https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-kate-middleton-154750321.html
And some that are not listed on WP:RSP:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a60009409/kate-middleton-abdominal-surgery-disappearance-explained/ 86.31.83.194 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the speculation about the absence is rooted in conspiracy. The palace specifically mentioned the exact time her purported recovery would take. This is not a mystery. Almost all articles covering her absence mention the rampant social media conspiracies, and how various events have exacerbated them.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good argument, which I think is leaning towards convincing me. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was Princess Diana's death. Nothing of the sort is happening or will happen here. This page should be kept so that the main article concerning Catherine is not unnecessarily expanded with something that will have little significance or relevance a decade later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's arguing for a WP:POVFORK which is contrary to policy. Either the content is right for Wikipedia or it isn't. You can't say it's good enough for an article you don't care about but not for an article you do care about. DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales. It's too early for an article like this. The problem is AFAIK there's no reference to the issue in the main Catherine article. The OP says that it's split between the Health and Privacy and the media sections. I don't thiink that's true. I think there's literally no mention of it. There's mention of the photo controversy and the current health issue but no mention of the speculation. It seems to be an overzealous view of NOTNEWS. That's what needs to be corrected - not creating a whole article on it. What the article the subject of this AfD has demonstrated is that there is decent sourcing out there that entirely justifies its inclusion in the Catherine article.DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa Merging will largely increase the main article's size in an undesirable manner. If the recent reports are so important, lets KEEP this article. But please do not MERGE into Catherine, Princess of Wales. Regards and @Bettydaisies and @Keivan.f. MSincccc (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article is kept then the per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE a summary of its content should be added to the main article. You've worked hard to keep all reference to the Where is Kate? issue out of the article. There is not one sentence on it in the article as a result. The size of the article has got nothing to do with that - over recent months you've assiduously added every piece of trivia about her to the article. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stopped adding trivia to the article after the Coronation in May 2023 on your advice @DeCausa. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As some editors, myself included, have mentioned on talk pages, the Catherine, Princess of Wales article is heavily censored and not balanced. Furthermore, the pre-context of people already asking ‘Where is Kate?’ before the Mother’s Day photograph was published is important. A ‘photoshop fail’ on its own isn’t notable, it’s pre-context makes it notable. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not often I contribute to articles that are in the news, but the WP:OWN issues at Catherine, Princess of Wales are glaring, to the detriment of encyclopaedic coverage. I'd urge involved editors to ensure they're fostering a collaborative environment that encourages consensus-building before they land at WP:ANI. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Trim and Merge Cibrian209 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The subject seems to have been notable for the past few months (so may be past the threshold for recentism) and has been talked about in the Catherine, Princess of Wales talk page a few times throughout, and has spiked in notability within the past 24hrs. The coverage has been notable, and covered by a lot of news sources. I think this may have already passed the threshold of WP:RECENTISM, but may be too early to judge. Furthermore, ITV This Morning has already fallen for a hoax related to Where is Kate? https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/itvs-morning-slammed-falling-kate-32326495. So it would be useful to have an article, as the point of Wikipedia is to be a reliable source to prevent people falling for hoaxes. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It’s one of the biggest news stories (for better or worse) in the world. It’s well sourced. It ticks all of WP’s boxes for style and tone. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Don’t Rename. In my opinion, it’s currently way past the threshold for recentism. It’s well written and the sources are reliable. The title is currently the most appropriate, as that’s what the most reliable sources are calling it (already cited in article), similar to the title of the Megxit article. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure — "Where is Kate?" is a strange title; "Catherine, Princess of Wales health concerns" would be more encyclopedic. I believe the Mother's Day photograph could warrant a separate article, but speculation on Catherine's health is speculation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the content for the article transcends the Mother’s Day photograph. It contains the coverage of her absence (including the Mother’s Day photograph). TheSpacebook (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I pointed out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies! I just re-read it. At no point in the article should it speculate on Catherine’s health. It should just cover well sourced reactions to her absence, and strange events during the absence (such as the Mother’s Day photo) TheSpacebook (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeCausa made a good point in Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales: the hoo-ha over the photo makes zero sense without the 'Where's Kate?' background. This is the issue I have with Catherine, Princess of Wales at the moment: by separating the discussion of the various events in this story between Health and Privacy and the media, it doesn't capture well the narrative that explains why both the health and the photograph were notable. And while I apprecite that speculation...is speculation, it's speculation that has been reported extensively by reliable sources. Relatedly, it's not a conspiracy theory article. But one option that you lead me to wonder is whether we might restructure the article so that it becomes about the Mother's Day photograph, and then rename it to something suitable (what?) with a background section discussing the speculation. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should it cover (well sourced) reactions to her entire absence, or just talk about the photograph? I think a stand-alone Mother’s Day photo article would vastly miss the context of the coverage of her absence. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a restructured article around the photograph could have exactly the same content as the current Where is Kate? article, just grouping Hospitalisation and Speculation as subheadings under a Background heading. I think the underlying issue is that there are three components to this story as suggested by the current headings of Where is Kate?: 1) hospitalisation, 2) speculation, 3) the mother's day photograph. Any one of these three components could be a viable title heading, and "speculation" could also be "conspiracy theories" or, indeed, as it is now, "Where is Kate?". The milestones to choosing the best article title will probably move as the story develops: "Where is Kate?" will presumably run out of currency very soon as we now all know where Kate is, while something to do with the mother's day photograph might grow even more legs if the story doesn't die down in 24 hours (which it may well do so). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it generally matters that the question has now been answered, as the article covers the, now historical, commentary of reliable sources asking it. As per the first line: In early 2024, speculation… asked "Where is Kate?". TheSpacebook (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They’ve had ‘photoshop fails’ before, but this one is notable due to the absence and people already asking ‘Where is Kate?’ before the Mother’s Day photo was even published. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Rename I think everybody has covered it above. Q T C 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong coverage in reliable sources, including world-wide headlines of the doctored Mother's Day photo and subsequent newswire retractions. Current name is good, cc Megxit and Paul is dead, don't rename unless a better one is proposed outside this AFD. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and rename to 2023 Mother's Day photograph by Catherine, Princess of Wales The day-to-day blog at the top is not notable, the photo is. The answer to the question is pretty clear 'Sitting in Windsor, fiddling on her laptop'. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article covers the well sourced commentary of her absence starting as early as February, and the reliable sources all asking “Where is Kate?”. The photo is just the most recent development. Focusing on that may classify as recentism, if unbalanced to the rest of the sources. Also, the photo was credited as taken by Prince William, in 2024, so it would be inaccurate to say “by Catherine”86.31.83.194 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, accounts differ, but in that case rename differently or Delete. We really don't want the froth at the top. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "froth" reads like an undercurrent of royal gossip leading up to the photograph. I'm decidedly not a royal family fan and didn't pay any attention to the story until I came across the talk page of the Catherine article — my exposure to the news is limited to checking the BBC website once or twice a day — but the army website debacle and the sudden memorial service apologies both caught my eye and were fairly prominent news items when they happened. The Celeb Big Brother comments and paparazzi photograph were not (I suspect the latter might have had more coverage outside the UK). But all this is to say that the froth is context that did receive considerable media coverage at its time, rather than retrospective engineering to justify the notability of the Mother's Day photograph. As the article's sources suggest, speculation about Kate's condition was reported before the photograph, symbiotically with the froth events. To this extent, I don't really see why the froth needs to be binned. Its lasting effect is the speculation; if the speculation is notable, so is the froth; if the speculation isn't notable, then the Mother's Day photograph doesn't really make any sense. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The “froth” is paramount. It could be rewritten so it reads less like a timeline. But it’s definitely needed as pre-context for the Mother’s Day photo. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to section in the biography. NOTNEWS! JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with no stance to the name. I think that the article, with it's current sources and the others already mentioned here, establish notability to validate it's inclusion on Wikipedia. While it is primarily based on the mother's day photo, as others have pointed out, the earlier speculation and health events lend context to the photo and help to explain the level of speculation. Given the length in my opinion it also passes WP:NOPAGE to prevent the Catherine, Princess of Wales article from becoming to cluttered, and with the number of reliable sources that have now provided coverage including, the BBC, Le Monde, CNN, Deutche Welt, and others moves it beyond previous tabloid speculation. While yes, it's WP:RECENT that's something that can be reviewed in future to see if it keeps being brought up in reliable sources. Shaws username . talk . 01:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having read and engaged with the above discussion, as nominator, I'm persuaded towards Keep. I think the notability of the topic (through significant coverage in reliable sources) is beyond doubt for now, and the article can be merged into the Catherine article as and when the topic's lasting effects, if any, become clearer. A standalone article may not be justified in the future by WP:RECENTISM, but WP:NOPAGE persuades me for now. There are cases for renaming to Conspiracy theories about the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales and Mother's Day photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales, or keeping the current article title. Because of the link between the hospitalisation, speculation, and photograph, I do not think any trimming is necessary to suit a page move, just changes to lead sections and (sub)heading titles/organisation as appropriate. Lastly, I'm concerned by this talk-page interaction, which, combined with the interactions that led me to write the article in the first place, confirms my worry that editors pursuing GA/FA status for the Catherine article are happy to accept less comprehensive coverage of recent events even where such coverage is evidently due. A recent edit summary to the Catherine article banished a trivial sentence from it to the equally trivial article Where is Kate?. At this point, a merge might cause more aggravation than it is worth, and it can be executed as aforementioned in the future once the dust settles on the lasting cumulative effects of the hospitalisation, speculation, and photograph. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a further comment (I don't want to bludgeon, just contribute to the discussion): I think citing the ten-year test as Delete-supporting editors have done is off:
    • The 10YT (which is essay, not policy) really concerns recentism in writing style and proportion, not notability. On notability, the 10YT says: detailed stand-alone articles and lists may [over time] no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines. To me, this doesn't suggest that the 10YT is intended as a deletion rationale (unlike WP:NOTNEWS), or that we should anticipate an article's future notability ten years early. In fact, the 10YT seems to expect articles on recent events to be condensed over time, rather than outrightly deleted (see my blockquote at 14:02 UTC below).
    • We don't know yet what the long-term lasting effects of this controversy will be (WP:CRYSTALBALL), and it seems premature to delete the article supposing there will be no lasting effects before Catherine has even returned to public duties. We're still seeing commentary in reliable, non-tabloid sources, and the article is duly being expanded. Catherine's return will inevitably lead to new commentary as well.
    • Per above, the 10YT acknowledges that future revisions can counter recentism in articles, such that we can apply the ten-year test in ten years' time or at a future AfD/merge discussion, which we do not need to preempt right now.
    IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I first saw this article I was wary of the tabloid-esque nature of the controversy and questioned whether this was part of the over-coverage of Anglosphere topics and on Wikipedia. But ultimately this controversy is notable in my opinion largely because of the obsessively secretive behaviour of the royal family themselves. One of the most privileged families in the world receiving more than £100 million in taxpayer handouts every year for cutting a few ribbons think they owe taxpayers no degree of transparency when their second-most senior member and his family just disappear for half the year. That has become a part of this story, and their silence and generally weird behaviour ("Kensington Palace said it would not be issuing the unedited photograph", as if there really is something mysterious about the original photo) does nothing but fuel the conspiracy theories, and fuel the story. AusLondonder (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn’t have put it better myself. It’s such an odd story and does show the monarchy in a bad light and highlights issues with the monarchy, which can’t be supressed on Wikipedia. The reason why this article is notable is, to quote you: because of the obsessively secretive behaviour of the royal family themselves. One of the most privileged families in the world receiving more than £100 million in taxpayer handouts every year for cutting a few ribbons think they owe taxpayers no degree of transparency when their second-most senior member and his family just disappear for half the year… and their silence and generally weird behaviour ("Kensington Palace said it would not be issuing the unedited photograph", as if there really is something mysterious about the original photo) 86.31.83.194 (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a policy-based rationale. This is "keep because it makes the royals look bad". Of course, you're entitled to your personal opinions, but that isn't a neutral or really a good-faith reason to want to have the article stay. Ie, less Republican Manifesto, more WP:GOODARG. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to my comments I'm explaining why I believe the controversy is notable and therefore meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in a very partisan way, based on your opinion of the monarchy instead of any sourcing or notability requirements. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. The majority of the content on the page is speculation (OK, reports of speculation by reliable sources, but speculation nonetheless) and trivia. The content in § Health could possibly be expanded very slightly, but that in § Privacy and the media is already more than sufficient IMO and could be trimmed down when considering the WP:10YEARTEST.
  • Don't Rename even if and when the title question is answered. The title 'Where is Kate?' is not a thesis title, so doesn't need to be explicitly answered. The article is a discussion of the commentary surrounding her absence and the strange events that happened which drew attention causing the question to be asked by reliable sources. Other editors prefer this title, as per Paul is dead. In the same way that article won't need renaming when Paul McCartney actually dies, this article doesn't need renaming because/if/when the question is answered. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's sourced, beyond "recent-ism," and in the news a lot. Maybe merge it with the Kate Middleton article, but my preference is for the standalone article as it is. BalletForCattle (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This has been a major topic of conversation on British social media (and more widely) for several weeks. The surprisingly poor handling of the topic by Kensington Palace has turned this into front page news for most of the newspapers here (indeed all of the nationals except the Financial Times today) and the subject of copious discussion on TV and radio. I would prefer a more formal-sounding title, such as Conspiracy theories about the health of Catherine, Princess of Wales or something, and nobody is asserting that the article will definitely be notable in 5 years' time. But we can hold another AfD then, if we think that is the case. In the WP:10YEARTEST, this might end up being a section in her article or that of William's — or possibly even a part of something like End of the British monarchy. But for now, we've moved beyond WP:NOTGOSSIP into a major issue of public debate here in the UK and it feels foolish not to reflect that. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point should we speculate on her health. The article is about the commentary of her absence and strange behaviour. The article currently reads: "Among the conspiracy theories, Catherine was hiding after a bad hairstyle or was recovering from buttock augmentation surgery', which isn't health. Furthermore, the article currently draws attention to absence of her wedding ring, "In a separate oddity, analysts noted that Catherine was not wearing a wedding ring". Regarding the title, I don't think it needs to be overly formal. Paul is dead doesn't need to be Conspiracy theories alleging Paul McCartney died. Lenin was a mushroom doesn't need to be Conspiracy theories about the species of Vladamir Lenin. And Megxit doesn't need to be called Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, stepping back as senior members of the British royal family. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this embarrassing gossipy nonsense inspired & hyped by tabloid press and its need to sell ads. Two sentennces in her main article should suffice once the question has become obsolete. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is already obsolete. The article says at the end of the second paragraph: "Later that day, Catherine was seen leaving Windsor in a car with William." In the same way that Paul is dead won't need renaming when Paul McCartney actually dies, this article doesn't need renaming because the question is obsolete. The article is a discussion of the commentary surrounding her absence and the strange events, such as the Mother's Day photo, which drew attention causing the question to be asked by reliable sources. In the say way that Where's Wally? doesn't need to be renamed every time he's found. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Full disclosure, I may be one of those cynical talk page editors mentioned in the nomination, though I mainly restricted myself to rebutting descriptions of "scandal" and "escapades", which remain absurd. This strikes me as the very definition of no information. A person says they're having surgery and will be out of action for a while, then nothing happens. As already stated. Nothing, as in nothing except tabloids repeating fabricated nonsense from trolls on Reddit. Where is Kate? She's exactly where she said she would be, probably doing very little. It's no information. Apologies to the author(s) but the whole news story is what we in the UK call "tabloid trash". Mention the health in the main article, mention the photo editing, and there's nothing left. Some of the keep votes actually describe it best: 'news', 'speculation', 'froth', 'social media'... -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Froth" was originally described, by an editor, as content to be deleted. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That leaves the other three aspects I highlighted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think it's a non-story, but we're beyond tabloid territory. Of the 46 sources in the article, none are tabloids/listed as unreliable on WP:RSP, and a good number date before the Mother's Day photograph on 10 March that really pushed the story onto national headlines and prominent pages in the international press. Putting this point best, referring to the BBC's 29 February article, one of the sources in the article says something along the lines of "even the BBC has had to comment on the speculation". There's no doubt that the speculation doesn't come from reliable sources (and who, honestly, thinks Catherine really did get a BBL or get lost in Willy's Chocolate Experiences?), but what distinguishes it from "tabloid trash" here is that it's been so widely reported and discussed/analysed by non-tabloid sources. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely it is a 'non-story' as said by zzuzz, in the sense that there's an innocent explanation for everything. But what's happened is that it's crossed over from social media/tabloids into broadsheets/ BBC etc. That process was initially 'look-at-the-silly-conspiracy-theories' type articles to look-at-how-the-palace-has made it worse. But that's kinda irrelevant. The RS are talking about this and it pretty much doesn't matter that it all started from nothing. Its significance for us is that it's now got WP:DUE prominence in the RS. Pretending it hasn't is a type of WP:RGW. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty clear that the article should exist, in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. How long until we conclude the AfD, and focus the attention on creating a well written article? 86.31.83.194 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs typically last for 7 days. In other replies, for me, crossing from a tabloid story, to a news story, doesn't really hit the bar. YMMV. As NOTNEWS puts it, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no fundamental flaws of the article and (let's remember this is AfD) I believe the situation passes WP:GNG given the event-specific coverage. I think that all the calls for WP:NOTNEWS are relevant insofar as news articles can be primary sources (see WP:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources) but a lot of the good writing done here has completely avoided the tabloids we've listed as unreliable, and cite to stories that are reports of all the ongoings about this, by definition secondary; this therefore qualifies as passing WP:GNG. Keep all the royal drama and anlysis out of this and onto the talkpage or elsewhere. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Maybe Rename? The article is well referenced and written. We also probably shouldn’t merge it into Catherine, Princess of Wales seeing as that article is already quite long.
"Where is Kate?" is a bit sensational. I think the ideas for other titles that have been discussed previously are good. Slamforeman (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that “Where is Kate?” is the most appropriate as that’s what people are asking in the first four sources. I wish it was widely known as “Kate-gate”, that would’ve saved us a lot of time! 86.31.83.194 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Kategate redirect, per reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Potentially Rename: Perhaps a title such as "Kate Middleton Photograph Controversy" might be more encyclopedic. "Where is Kate?" doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia and more closely resembles that of a gossip magazine. As for the article itself, I'm in favor of keeping it. As others have said, merging it with the main article risks making the main article unnecessarily lengthy, and this article is well-sourced and on a notable topic. Perhaps it could be reorganized somewhat if it is renamed, but at the moment I don't see any fundamental flaws in it that warrant it's deletion. Any discussions for deletion should likely take place in the future. Retroity (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think title you suggested might be inaccurate, as the article details the commentary before the photograph (speculation, TMZ photo, uncle in Big Brother). The photograph is just the most recent development. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is more in line other controversies such as Megxit and Paul is dead. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bludgeoning the process. You are literally under every comment making the same points. At this rate you are in danger of violating the code of conduct policies on disruptive behavior. Keivan.fTalk 20:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies that were given common names. There is no name for this. "Where is Kate?" is a question, not a name. By extension, should the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act be known as "Bill to Ban TikTok" on Wikipedia because a few headlines used that verbiage? If you wanted to argue that the title should be "WhereIsKate", I could see how there would be a common name there. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why the RS can't name a controversy with a question, as they clearly have done with this one. See Who is a Jew?. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the name I don't really like renaming this so soon, since if we're being frank we don't even know what the underlying issue is aside from "where is kate?". It would be silly to rename this "Kate Middleton Photograph Controversy" only to have her discovered in a ditch a month from now. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle The photograph "controversy" has become a notable event, however framing the article around speculation and conspiracy is wrong.LM2000 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something like Catherine, Princess of Wales health concerns. The topic is being covered heavily in the media but "Where is Kate?" is not a common term that RS have used to describe the situation and shouldn't be used. Jbvann05 21:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close (if agreed) and move that title discussion to the Talk page. Should I start the discussion? I’m new here, but surely the title discussion isn’t the place in an AfD discussion. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already !voted above, so I've taken the liberty of striking the bold bits here. The title issue really summarises the problem here for me. No one agrees on what this title should be as there's no clear scope. It's a collection of news stories. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I’m new here! Should an AfD discuss the title or not? I’ve opened up a discussion on the talk page if we should move the title discussion there, and keep this discussion keep-or-delete focused. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep. Suggest to name it Kategate if it helps to keep it succinct Cibrian209 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as this isn't tabloid-pedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:GNG. Unless of course in-depth articles from The Atlantic, The New Yorker, WaPo, NPR, Associated Press, The Atlantic (again), The New York Times, The New York Times (again), The New York Times (part 3), and LA Times are considered tabloid gossip.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to descriptive title ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it's not encyclopaedic. Headhitter (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I’ve already voted above, but yesterday this article had around 10% of the number of viewers that the main Catherine article had. Is this information relevant in a deletion discussion? https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-03-11&end=2024-03-12&pages=Where_is_Kate%3F%7CCatherine,_Princess_of_Wales TheSpacebook (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or failing that rename. Should Wikipedia cover this issue, given its prominence in the media? Yes. Does it really needs its own article? Not really, in my view. However, the title is not appropriate. Wikipedia article titles are not formatted as questions. If this point is not yet included in MOS:AT then it is because, for 20 years, it has been regarded as sufficiently obvious - c.f. for instance Who is Joe Biden?, Where is Timbuktu?, and What is the armament of the Iowa-class battleship. Wikipedia is not Quora, nor is it Jeopardy!. The Land (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to a more Wikipedia-appropriate title. At this point it is definitely notable enough for its own article, regardless of whether it's valid speculation or not. As far as the title, there have been a number of news sites calling it "Kategate", so if that becomes more widespread it would be a decent choice. Estreyeria (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unfortunately. Passes WP:NOTNEWS and has been sufficiently covered by multiple reliable independent sources to have established the subject's notability. No comment on the rename; in any case that's an issue for the talk page rather than here, and certainly not a priority.
    Later: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank User:Rosbif73 for removing the table. I expect this to be per WP:NOTVOTE, etc. excellent work, and thanks for acting so promptly. ——Serial Number 54129 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is inherently notable and has been covered by multiple independent sources. She has been missing since December. The title may be rephrased as Disappearance of Kate Middleton or similar. --TadejM my talk 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wildly inappropriate - she has not been "missing" or 'disappeared' at all, just failing to make public appearances while she recovers from an operation. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may call it whatever you wish. She has been missing since December. This has been covered by a number of independent sources.[50][51] Claiming that "she recovers from an operation" is pure speculation. --TadejM my talk 17:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not speculation. Kensington Palace said that she would undergo surgery and not return to public duties until after Easter. [52] Jbvann05 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of WP's purpose here. It's not to expose the reality of the situation. To ignore the "froth" and to report the truth. No. It's to reflect what's appearing in the WP:RS whatever that is. The article, like it or not, does that. It's not our job to say this is all nonsense, even though that may well be the case. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should reflect what RS are saying, but TadejM is calling the true fact that she is recovering from a surgery "speculation". The news of her surgery has been widely covered in RS as well as by the royals themselves so calling it speculation and her absence from royal duties an unexplained disappearance is wrong. The speculation in the media has arisen from the true nature of her health and why she edited the photograph, not why she is absent in the first place. Jbvann05 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, plenty of sources in the article that predate the Mother's Day photograph discuss why she is absent in the first place rather than the nature of her health and why she edited the photograph. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, what is reported by the Kensington Palace has been recognised as 'not reliable' e.g. by AFP [53], and I agree that it should be used with caution since the Palace staff is not independent and it has (at least) recently been providing spurious material. --TadejM my talk 02:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, perhaps to Catherine, Princess of Wales Absence Controversy. This is a serious issue that – by objective measures – is unprecedented and cause for speculation. Even if this were resolved tomorrow by the Palace, the previous controversy would be, in my view, relevant to keep as its own page. Mhapperger (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jbvann05 and Johnbod. When she inevitably reappears we can condense the entire brouhaha into three lines in the 2020s section of her biography. The title is absolutely dreadful. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being; title is fine for now - if media crystallizes around some other expression we can use that. Reduce to three lines as per No Swan So Fine once she's back and we've forgotten all about this.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that the long-term coverage of this on wikipedia will boil down to three lines (which sounds about right to me, maybe even less), how can it be encyclopedic to have more than those three lines for the time being? WP:NOTNEWS. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine for there to be more lines now, even a separate article, but not in the future. Per WP:10YT:

    [I]n 2020, devoting more space to the 2020 United States presidential election article than to the 2000 United States presidential election article might seem logical. Nevertheless, in the future, when neither event is fresh, readers will benefit from a similar level of detail in both articles...
    After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites? Many articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to related issues. Much of the timeline and the day-to-day updates collected in the "rough draft" stages can safely be excised.

    IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tabloid fodder is not encyclopedic. Richiepip (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails ten-year test. ltbdl (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this grotesque BLP-violating festival of WP:NOTNEWS tabloid indulgence. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Potentially Rename: per Retrocity above. Perhaps focusing more on the photo issue, which is a big media story in many RS as well as tabloids/websites. Rwendland (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as tabloid gossip that has no place in Wikipedia. Maybe extend Catherine, Princess of Wales#Photograph controversy a little with some factual content from this article (e.g. the photo doctoring evidence). Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the main article has enough information on the matter. Nothing more to be added there.
  • Delete I commend the creator for putting the article forward for debate. Here's my take. The main article adequately covers the photo controversy and mentions that there have been speculations surrounding her health, which is backed by reliable sources. Anything more than that would be something that only the gutter press would cover. I also don't see the point of this article once the woman reappears in public. 10 years from now, we won't be needing to have an article that is mostly covering social media frenzy and hysteria on the Internet concerning a person's abdomen. Keivan.fTalk 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It may have been tabloid sensationalism to begin with, but it is now evidently a topic being covered by notable enough sources that Wikipedia should keep this rather comprehensive summary of what's gone on, at least for now. Having said that, similar to others above, I expect this will die down as soon as she restarts her public appearances; while I don't necessarily think the article should just be deleted when that happens, it certainly should be reassessed in the 'cold light of day' to see whether it still warrants an entire article. Perhaps most importantly for everyone citing WP:10YT, I would emphasise the 'just wait and see' paragraph - we don't need a rushed answer now on what seems to be a rather divided discussion, let's leave it for when consensus (and the media cycle) have a more solid, sober assessment of the topic. Gazamp (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments without !votes or arguments IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is anyone actively tallying the number of individuals in favor of and against the deletion proposal, as well as those remaining neutral? It would be beneficial if such a count could be maintained. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus will be drawn based on the strength and validity of arguments, not the number of votes. Keivan.fTalk 18:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In discussions that have attracted as much participation as this, the discussion closer often provides a "headcount", but as Keivan.f says, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Rather than tracking !votes, the best any editor can do is engage with the discussion to help reconcile other editors' views towards consensus. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page only viewable in desktop not mobile?

It is collapsed when you use a mobile phone. You have to open the section up in order to see the comments; like you would normally do when reading an article on a mobile phone. Keivan.fTalk 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- The article serves a purpose by addressing current media rumours and hypotheses, providing reliable sourcing and avoiding speculation. Therefore, it's important to retain it for the time being. Regards, MSincccc (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rename and rewrite – Subject is notable and there is no indication of content forking and tabloid and is neutral; it could be rewritten just like others. Note that the articles are so long so keeping a separate article while renaming it makes sense. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and not rename, wide media coverage by reliable sources. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, rationale as above. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article contains a multitude of reliable sources presenting significant coverage, making the topic obviously notable and deserving its own independent page. Skyshiftertalk 09:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per other reasons. The article could be renamed, though. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments (reliable sources, significant media coverage, notable person). Codyorb (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons stated above. This has gotten significant media coverage from many sources. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per reasons clearly articulated by various editors above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG, still generating coverage [54], would be too much for the Kate Middleton article so needs a separate page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as others have said this is nothing more than tabloid fodder that don’t represent the facts. Even if you want to say other sources have mentioned it, it is still based on opinion and the pieces add no evidence to the situation. There is also the addition of conspiracy and certain fan groups of other wanting to contribute to this situation which goes beyond what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloeheod34 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into the main Kate article. This is currently a massive media circus that has achieved notability in its own right. I hope it will eventually end up being merged into the main Kate article anyway once she has emerged safe and well. — The Anome (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are 36 in favour of keeping and 20 in favour of deleting or merging. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep or merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales. Something in the cultural zeitgeist (even if arguably quite flash-in-the-pan) can clearly be encyclopedic, see Barbenheimer and "Envelopegate" (I use the name in the List of -gate scandals and controversies article). I think it's compounded by the fact she is the spouse of the heir apparent to the British throne -- we likely wouldn't be having this discussion if the subject of the article was e.g., Mike Tindall (spouse of Zara Phillips, 21st in line). I note it is weak support for keeping because although encyclopedic I do not think it should be kept as a separate article, for the same reason I think Envelopegate isn't a separate article. Unless there is a major development in her situation I think the ultimate fate of this article is to be merged. MrSeabody (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MERGING into the main article was, is and never will be a desirable thing to do. The best we can do is to either KEEP or DELETE this article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments without !votes or arguments IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @MSincccc you have multiple bolded words in your comments. As well as MERGING, KEEP and DELETE in this comment, you have KEEP and MERGE in your comment at 07:38 UTC on 12 March, and you have KEEP in your comment at 06:09 UTC on 17 March. Both of the latter comments could be interpreted as !votes, and you're only allowed one !vote per AfD. It's generally helpful only to bold your !vote, as bolding other terms might confuse the closing editor and frustrate their attempt to read consensus :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, IgnatiusofLondon, and thanks for pointing that out. ——Serial Number 54129 16:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was very clear from the outset that I favoured the retention of the article and would not, in any case, propose the merging of all the content of Where is Kate? to Catherine's main article. Also anyone who actually reads my comment will know that I intend to see the article been kept should the speculations continue for the longer term. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and your position is clear and consistent across your comments. It's just formatting to help other editors, especially the closing editor, make it clear what positions are being taken with how much strength. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD: You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have seen WP:NOPAGE cited for keeping this article, but I think the spirit of this guideline proves otherwise. Our job is "to consider how best to help readers understand". In this case, it does not help the reader to promote the conspiracy theories and paranoia surrounding this situation (which is also guilty of WP:RECENTISM). Reliable sourcing covers the situation, yes, but reliable sourcing covers lots of topics that don't make it onto the encyclopedia. A few sentences of context at the Kate Middleton article would be much more helpful for the reader and more in line with what I understand to be the premise of Wikipedia. If this indeed spirals into something deserving of its own article like Paul is dead, Wikipedia will cross that bridge at that point, but we can't rely on that assumption right now (WP:CRYSTAL). TNstingray (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is RECENTISM. Yes, media commented about a thing. An encyclopedia should not be the dutiful scribe for journalists. Let's circle back in fifty years. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously this is notable, can't believe this is under debate when you have idiots creating wikipedia pages for obviously non-notable people to make a stupid point in these kinds of discussions. What a laugh! 87.196.74.92 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Queens

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

Appears to be a non-notable band that doesn't pass WP:NBAND. Lot of non-neutral puffery and a before search didn't turn up enough to convince me that they're notable. Article was also created by Michaelxcrusty, who appears to be a member of the band based on the members listed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'll concur and add that the four (unsourced) opening paragraphs sound like the kind of vacuous peacockery that ChatGPT could generate. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most resources online are show reviews or notices that they exist. It might be useful to have as a stub (as in, there are enough sources to show that the band exists), but it's non-neutral enough that most of the writing would have to be scrapped anyways. starsandwhales (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is quite highly advertorialized, and is not making any claims about their career that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than it's citing. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like advertisement, no significant coverage. Killarnee (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a non-notable band. Where are you finding your info? They've been around for over 10 years, have been direct support for quite a few well known bands (a simple google search will show you this - Bowling For Soup, Danko Jones, Cancer Bats, multiple festivals). Additionally Emily Bones has been in two videos with Sarah Blackwood with over a million views on each video. Virtuallyunknown666 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://aestheticmagazinetoronto.com/2019/10/01/interview-the-anti-queens-talk-debut-album-new-music-videos-tour-prep/ Virtuallyunknown666 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia purposes, notability requires satisfying one or more specific criteria listed at WP:NMUSIC, supported by a significant volume of reliable source coverage in real media. Kindly note that "around for 10 years" is not a notability criterion in NMUSIC, "direct support for well known bands" is not a notability criterion in NMUSIC, and "has been in YouTube videos with the singer of a more famous band" is not a notability criterion in NMUSIC. We're looking for things like charting hits and Juno Awards, not YouTube videos.. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woman hater 2001:1970:4E9C:9700:390C:73F8:E607:A31D (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The notability standards for bands don't change based on whether the members are male or female, so accusing people in this discussion of being a "woman hater" has nothing to do with anything. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hell some of my favourite bands and voices, such as Halestorm, The Pretty Reckless, and Heart (band), are women, and I'm the one who nominated this for deletion lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an article's supporter compares a call for evidence to oppression, you know that the chances of notability are pretty much hopeless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well countered IP, this of course is a powerful argument haha
The article is written differently now, but when I read the introduction I really thought the article was a joke:

Since their formation in 2012 by the visionary singer/songwriter Emily Bones, The Anti-Queens have been carving their unique mark on the punk rock landscape.

“carving their unique mark on the punk rock landscape”. 6.85K subscribers on YouTube. Oh dear. Killarnee (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The currently hideous state of the article's writing (yeesh, lighten up on the adjectives) makes the situation look a little worse than it really is, because the band has gotten some notice in the reliable Punk News and a few other places. They come kind of close to WP's notability requirements, but I will argue that they have not satisfied the significant coverage guideline because their media coverage tends to be brief announcements (e.g. someone left the band), gig notices, and new release announcements. There's nothing with which to build an encyclopedic history, so they wrote it themselves and didn't skimp on how unique and visionary and raw and talented and compelling they are. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yllson Lika

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

Footballer who has played on the Finnish third tier. This not being professional by any means, the BLP needs strong sources to support the counter-intuitive claim that the player has significant coverage (as opposed to WP:ROUTINE/WP:MILL/local news). The two sources from Keski-Uusimaa.fi are paywalled, but look like a match report and a pre-match report respectively. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rogers

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

Poorly-sourced article about a mayor. As always, mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just by virtue of existing -- the notability of a mayor hinges on writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is strictly on the level of "Dan Rogers is a mayor who existed, the end", and is "referenced" solely to his "meet your mayor" profile on the self-published website of the city government, which is a primary source that does not support notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie without WP:GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Hames

Clint Hames (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have significant reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
As written, however, this is mainly just background biographical trivia that has nothing to do with establishing notability, and features absolutely none of the type of content that an article about a mayor actually needs to show -- and for sourcing, it's citing a mix of run of the mill verification of his election victories and primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all, with absolutely none of the ongoing "in office" coverage that's required.
Chilliwack is a large enough city that its mayors would be eligible to keep substantively written and well-sourced articles that met WP:NPOL #2, but it is in no sense large or significant enough that he would get an automatic notability freebie on an article that's this inadequate. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Popove

Ken Popove (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP of a politician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have significant reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
As written, however, this is strictly on the level of "Ken Popove is a mayor who exists, the end", and features absolutely none of the type of content that an article about a mayor needs to show -- and for sourcing, it's citing purely run of the mill verification of his election victories, with absolutely none of the ongoing "in office" coverage that's required.
Chilliwack is a large enough city that its mayors would be eligible to keep substantively written and well-sourced articles that met WP:NPOL #2, but it is in no sense large or significant enough that he would get an automatic notability freebie on an article that's this inadequate. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey First

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

Article about a municipal political party represented on a single suburban city council, not properly sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and while one footnote does come from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet, ORGDEPTH and GNG both militate that one hit of media coverage isn't enough in and of itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Surrey Coalition

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

Article about a municipal political party represented on a single suburban city council, not properly sourced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and even the one hit that actually comes from a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet isn't about this party at all, but is here solely to verify a tangential fact about somebody else from a different party.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The only question before us is whether the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. This view seems to have consensus here among P&G-based opinions. I recognize the fact that the page could have been speedy-deleted under G5 immediately upon its creation, but at this point, with dozens of editors in good standing having participated, it no longer qualifies under G5.

As for WP:DENY, this essay discusses dealing with disruptive vandals and trolls, not with paid editing and encyclopedic content. It certainly doesn't compel us to remove an article about a notable topic just to "punish" a banned user, harming the project by this deletion. However, we can easily remove the banned sock's contributions from the page history with selective RevDel, although I'm not sure what would be achieved by doing so.

In the end, an editor got paid to create an article about a topic for which we actually want an article, albeit not the one they wrote, of course. WP:UNDUE, NPOV and other content issues should be dealt with editorially, not out of WP:SPITE. Any admin may procedurally close a renomination before 18 June 2024. Owen× ☎ 20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari soft power

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

Nominating this for deletion per norm. This current nomination has nothing to do with the tone of the article or its content or notability but per WP guidelines against blocked sock puppet accounts. Page creator is a confirmed sock puppet of TronFactor – the master of what looks like a well-oiled sock farm which has been blocked accordingly. Retaining this page will be a reward for unethical behavior and will encourage the sock farm to expand and create similar pages for whatever reasons they are creating them knowing that their accounts will only be blocked and the pages retained. In the last AFD, some of their socks participated and supported keep. When deleted, the article can be recreated by an ethical editor. Ludamane (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Sports, Central Asia, and Qatar. Ludamane (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can't support deleting this article for these reasons. It may have been created by a sock, but it's since been edited by 30 other people. Personally, I've never agreed with the blanket deletion of sock contributions. While I understand WP:DENY is a thing, I also think it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Does the article stand on its own merits, regardless of the author? I think that should be the deciding factor. — Czello (music) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If sock edits and articles created are retained what then is the deterrent? It will only encourage socks to do more while discouraging anti sock puppet editors. Nothing prevents this article from being recreated by a different editor if deleted. Ludamane (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the question is which option, on balance, benefits Wikipedia. While I can support the deletion/striking of sock comments on talk page discussions, deleting what is otherwise constructive work strikes me as detrimental to the project. Deleting this article only for a legitimate editor to immediately recreate it (which it almost certainly will be as it appears to be notable) strikes me as needlessly bureaucratic. — Czello (music) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is somewhat satisfying to see someone pay for an article that gets deleted, then recreated for free. That's the whole point of a free encyclopedia, the "free" part. Oaktree b (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Satisfying, perhaps – but not necessarily beneficial to the project. — Czello (music) 09:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close - I actually agree with the nom. and argued in the previous deletion that this was a cynical expenditure of significant sock resources to get a paid article in place with a slant that would be hard to remove by a sock who would know that their article would be retained after their own removal. I stand by that, and think it would be better for the encylopaedia if this were gone. But the last AfD finished less than a month ago. It is too soon to relitigate this. AfD demands considerable editor time, and merely rehashing the arguments just weeks after the last close is going to waste that time. Rather than !voting, I request someone speedy close this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article should not have been re-nominated for deletion after the exact same arguments failed to produce a consensus for deletion quite recently. The topic is valid, and any issues with the contents can be addressed through the normal editing process. There's no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this article. P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is mish-mash of sports, airlines, news reporting and a whole bunch of stuff.Sources used aren't about this topic of "soft power", but are used in OR to draw conclusions that aren't there. Fine if you want to create a separate article about each subsection here, but without some scholarly journal analyzing this "soft power" topic, you've got an article cherry-picking facts and mushing them together to draw a conclusion that isn't stated in any sources otherwise. At the very least Draft this thing so it can be sorted out... Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Source 57 appears to be in a peer-reviewed journal, but CiteHighlighter marks it as Red, so very likely a pay to play journal, or not a RS for some other reason. The rest are news articles, which will tend to be biased one way or another. I'd !keep this if we had scholars writing about this and had peer-reviewed sources discussing it. Popular media is spinning the story one way or the other, and the fact that this is a paid article doesn't fill me with hope that this is in any way neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czello. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the facts presented by Oaktree b and also support moving it to draft and be properly worked on. Lagdo22 (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As we are all !voting anyway, I'll re-affirm my view that this should be deleted as the cynical complete creation of a sock farm that expended considerable resource, almost certainly paid, to establish an article they knew we would be reluctant to delete. The page continues to represent the decisions and slant of the sockfarm creator. and per Oaktree b it is OR. I am inclined to believe some kind of soft power article is possible, but only if it is built on reliable secondary sourcing, which this article is not. At the very least it needs WP:TNT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: much of the argument for deleting this article is unchanged from the previous discussion. We already addressed whether the article should be deleted as the creation of a sockpuppet, but as the nominator here acknowledged, the topic is notable, the content of the article is okay, the tone is no longer at issue. And as Czello points out, a lot of other editors have worked to improve the article since it was created; it is not solely the product of a sockpuppet. Claims that the creator was paid to write it were made then, and not substantiated by anything; and they're still just somebody's guess, based on the above comment. The only thing new here is the notion that all of the sources can be disregarded, because they're "news articles, which will tend to be biased". This is a novel approach; since when are all news sources considered unreliable on Wikipedia?
AfD is an evidence- and policy-based process; articles aren't supposed to be deleted for reasons that are plainly contrary to policy, based on mere suspicion of impropriety by an editor who hasn't contributed to the article in some time, and who is banned from doing so in future. If WP:TNT is the "very least" that should be done to it, what further, stronger measures can we take? Erase all mentions of Qatar, scour the internet for bad press, blow up the whole encyclopedia? Here we have a coherent article about a notable topic with verifiable claims based on reliable sources. Deletion based on nothing more than the suspected motivations of its creator is ridiculous; or as an experienced editor noted in another discussion I was recently involved in, this article may be in need of improvement through ordinary editing—as has been done by quite a few perfectly legitimate editors. AfD is not cleanup; it is the wrong process for this article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder should not be necessary: there was no consensus whether the article should be deleted as the creation of a sockfarm, and no consensus as to whether the article was balanced. You made 12 comments on the previous AfD. How about we step back now, and let other editors see if they can find a consensus where we had none previously. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, here we are, having the same discussion over the same issues. How about you step back and stop trying to maneuver the conversation the way you want it to go, by telling other editors whether they should or shouldn't be replying to all of the nonsense being posted in an attempt to show that no consensus is actually consensus? Even the nominator here isn't taking issue with the content or tone or notability of the article, but solely with the identity of the article's creator, even though two dozen other editors have worked to improve it since that time. What a pointless exercise this is! P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed that AFD is evidence based and the evidence available shows that this article's sources do not support the topic. I am allying with Oaktree b. This is not a straight topic that requires only routine news coverage to prove notability but more of an invented topic that ought to have been covered or discussed extensively in peer reviewed journals or publications. The sources cited are mere news stories about several events that the subject had been involved and does not discuss the topic of this article itself. Wikipedia relies entirely on third party secondary sources to present a view, but that is not the case here as the creator merely invented the idea of what to write about and went ahead to use only news sources without presenting reliable sources to support the topic. The sources cited are reliable but their discussions not relevant to the topic of the article and should all be discarded. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This just went through a long deletion discussion and resulted as "no consensus". What is the grounds for the new nomination immediately after? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is constantly infested by pro-Qatar socks, who are almost definitely state-sponsored. John Yunshire (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense: there was one sockpuppet, who was banned shortly after the previous deletion discussion began, along with his aliases who tried to participate in that discussion. Who are all the other sockpuppets who you claim are "constantly infesting" this article? In the previous discussion, the claim was that the article was biased against Qatar. Who are the "pro-Qatar" sockpuppets, what state is sponsoring them, and what evidence is there, besides the perceived bias—which can't be particularly strong, if people are reading it as both pro- and anti-Qatar at the same time? P Aculeius (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two sockfarms involved in this area, one holds an anti-Qatar POV (TronFactor SPI) and there another is pro-Qatar and participated in the initial AFD (see Morgan1811). That being said, while the pro-Qatar sockfarm is very active in Wikipedia (overview), they had a minimal role in this article. My primary concern is TronFactor, because of their apparent use of compromised accounts across various articles, not just this one. MarioGom (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While other editor have made edits to the article, 95% of it is from one sockpuppet account. Delete as per WP:DENY. Cortador (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That essay—not policy—is about vandalism. This article is clearly not vandalism. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of Qatar's use of soft power is extremely notable, and easily passes the general notability guideline. If we want to have some sources listed here for sake of positivism, I'd link these three works, all of which are scholarly or from reputable think tanks (Brookings Institution), in addition to The New York Times writing about it (particularly in post-blockade times). Deletion is not cleanup, and this is not eligible for deletion as ban evasion precisely because editors other than the blocked sock have made non-trivial contributions. The article seems to be well-written, well-referenced, and genuinely neutral. Merely because there was some sockpuppet involved in its creation does not warrant it being deleted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article was not nominated to AFD, it would have probably ended up speedy deleted per G5. That boat has sailed though, and I doubt subsequent nominations will result in delete. But I still think this should have been deleted to avoid incentivizing a group that seems to be actively compromising accounts of other editors. My original rationale is here. MarioGom (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nobody WP:OWN's an article, so an article can't be deleted due to the owner. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this topic easily passes GNG and as per @Red-tailed hawk WP:NOTCLEANUP Mr Vili talk 04:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:DENY. TunGunPun (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also think it is notable. I'll write what I wrote last time, I don't think it matters who created it, what matters is the quality of the content. I think many editors have worked on it and now the article is at a good state but others can continue working on it to make it better. I agree with Red-tailed hawk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajoub570 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do agree with the delete !votes that the topic needs to be completely WP:TNT'd, but it is a notable topic with several easily found academic articles directly covering the topic. I would not mind a close where this is moved to draft space, or where the article is completely restarted from scratch, because it does need heavy editing. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per my !vote above (for Procedural Close), we seem to be re-running the previous AfD. I have two questions:
  1. For Delete-supporting editors, has anything changed since the previous AfD (which closed as no consensus)?
  2. If nothing has changed, then procedurally, is there a way for comments in the previous AfD to be considered by the closing administrator for this AfD as well? I am quite concerned about the possible precedent here of previously-nominated articles returning to AfD with the same deletion rationales in such a short space of time with the hope of a different result.
Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing really changed, and I wouldn't mind a procedural close. Anyway, this will certainly end up in keep or no consensus in a couple of days, and a single AFD rarely sets a strong precedent (this is not a common law court, etc). MarioGom (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimie McEvoy

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

Article about a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he served on the municipal council of a mid-sized suburban city, which is not "inherently" notable -- at the local level of office, the notability test is not passed just by verifying that the person exists, but by writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact. But while this is at least trying to head in that direction with some statements about specific projects he's been involved in as a councillor, it's completely failing to source them properly: the only two footnotes here are the city's self-published list of its council members on its own website and a book he wrote himself circularly cited as verification of its own existence, neither of which are support for notability. We need to see third-party coverage about his work in sources independent of himself, not stuff he had personal editorial control over.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Councillor from fairly small city, nothing to indicate they are among the small number of local politicians to meet notability requirements solely on the basis of involvement in local politics. Article is also written in a vaguely promotional way and we need to avoid Wikipedia being used as a venue for promotion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. New Westminster is not a small city by Canadian standards, and even it was, it is part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Translink, and New Westminster politicians usually play important roles on those bodies.
2. Mr McEvoy's book deals with an important episode in local history. Prescottbush (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The test for the notability of municipal politicians doesn't hinge on whether the city is large or small "by Canadian standards" — it hinges on whether the city is large or small by worldwide standards. That is, internationally famous global cities like London, New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or Tokyo are the only ones whose city councillors get extended any kind of guaranteed notability just for being city councillors per se — in any city outside of that rarefied class (even a suburb within the metropolitan area of one), a city councillor is only eligible to have an article if the sourcing and substance can show a reason why they're personally a special case of much greater nationalized or internationalized significance than most other city councillors, which this article is not doing at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if they somehow passed NPOL which they do not, the sourcing on this article is woefully short of demonstrating we can write a reliable article on them using only secondary sources (list of councillors and one self-written piece is all that's in the article.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 14:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usmart Securities

Usmart Securities (edit | talk | history | 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 establishment of notability using independent WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sammarinese films of 2014

List of Sammarinese films of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of unclear necessity. Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with separate by-year lists spun off only when that base list has become too large and needs to be chunked out for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user undertook a misguided project of creating standalone "list of country films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which has never otherwise been done for any other year before or since.
But this is a list of just one film that doesn't even have an article to link to, and San Marino doesn't even have a base list at all -- it's such a small country that it's deeply unlikely to have any significant film industry of its own, and is likely at best an annex to the Italian film industry (even the one film listed here is tagged by IMDb as a San Marino-Italy coprod), so that we don't even have a Cinema of San Marino overview, or a Category:Sammarinese films category, either. So no prejudice against the creation of List of Sammarinese films if somebody with some knowledge of the subject can be arsed to find more than one film to list in it, but we don't need a 2014-specific list, and with just one unlinked film here I can't mentally justify moving this to the general title myself if I can't find any other films to add to it. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Europe. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no need to list a single non-notable film. I would recommend mass-deletion/redirection of most of this user's 2014 articles, few of which make any sense as standalone pages. Reywas92Talk 15:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why state that it produced over 200 films in that year if you're only just going to list one film that doesn't even have an article? Makes no sense to me. Hell, even the IMDb source only has one entry, so I have no clue where the 200 figure came from. Sadustu Tau (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the "200" figure may have just been uncorrected copy-pasting from the creator's boilerplate starter text, because it does seem incredibly implausible that a tiny country with only one-fifth the population of my own not-especially-large hometown actually produced that many films in one year when even the US generally only pulls off about 600. Also, even List of Italian films of 2014 features exactly the same "over 200 feature films" claim too, while also not listing anywhere near 200 films either, which bolsters my suspicion that the creator just copy-pasted boilerplate text without adjusting it. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Manthena

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

There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources; the sources cited are either paid for, sponsored, or simply briefly mention the subject. GSS 💬 13:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have other BIO creations that need to be looked at: Paid editor? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor O'Brien (alpine skier)

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

Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content, Self-promotion

Speedy keep. Olympic athlete. SIGCOV per https://www.esbl.ee/biograafia/Connor+Olev+Martin_O'Brien --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

at 2020 olympics, 11,300 competitors participated, so wikipedia needs a page on each of them? Newtonewyork (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the definition of trivial coverage. We need much more than that if you want to speedy keep this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like there's enough coverage to me, especially noting that we have no Estonian sources from the time. The link above looks like an entry in some kind of Estonian sports biographical dictionary and it is well over 150 words despite being in an abbreviated language (SIGCOV). The article itself has a link to a New York Times feature story. There's also some coverage on Newspapers.com, such as the Kingston Whig-Herald and The Olympian; and there's also a story in The Gazette probably regarding him, with the name, dates and college matching up. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY HARD DELETE - the NYT article doesn't even mention his name in the title, and if you read it, you can see that it's a current affairs minor tidbit. I am sure he's a agreat skier, but a wikipedia page? really?

  • Also if you read the wikipedia article itself as it stands, there's barely anything on the guy's actualy skying career... its all about his current day job Newtonewyork (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Newtonewyork (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
    You do not get to !vote when you are already the nominator. That the New York Times article doesn't mention his name in the title is irrelevant; its a 1,200+ word piece in one of the world's most globally prominent papers focusing on him. All that matters for getting a Wikipedia article is that the person has in-depth coverage, something that this subject clearly satisfies. The potential issue of there being too much focus on a business career is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show where the in-depth coverage is? That article from 1994 is in-depth coverage?
    Ok so anyone mentioned in a New York Times article deserves a wikipedia article?
    Editing vs. Deleting: the fact that the article is all focused on his business career is simply to highlight that it surely is being used as a braggard-style cv to impress god-knows-who (but surely, family members, business associates and love interests), but clearly not the many many people interested in knowing who represented Estonia in skying at past Olympic Games. Newtonewyork (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear, wikipedia bots now don't even allow the trimming and condensing of Mr. O'Brien's copious irrelevant business addendums, so a deletion seems to be the only way to right the ship... see the editing history of the article. Newtonewyork (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show the wikipedia policy stating that nominators do not get to vote?
    I am sorry but since candidates in most democratic countries can vote in elections, I assumed I got a vote here as well.
    Also I am not sure if this deletion is subject to a 'vote'
    Finally, I suppose you don't mind if I remove the entire 'business career' section of our famous Estonian alpine skier? Newtonewyork (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion ... nominators should refrain from repeating this." As for why you would remove the entire business career section, I'm not quite sure I see the purpose? Everything looks sourced? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1- Because the business career section is irrelevant to the skying which is the only reason this article would stand in the first place., which of your sources discusses the business careers? Where in the NYT article, is any of the subsequent events deemed interesting enough to be covered?
    2- Because the business career section strongly implies that the article in itself has other purposes than to inform curious folks about Estonia's past olympic participants. You understand what self-promotion means?
    3 - Because the business career section is 90% of the article, and frankly, will all due respect, on its own, the business career section would never warrant an article. How can you argue with a straight face then that this article is about the skying?
    4 - Because you - BeanieFan11 - argue that this deletion process should actually be an editing process, but somehow you don't want to indicate what part of the article should be 'edited'. Is it possible that some folks who feel that 90% of an article is irrelevant, could feel 'deletion' is a better solution.
    5 - Because frankly, with all due respect to the subject of the article itself, the inclusion of the business career portion is an embarrassment because it implies such high insecurity that Mr. O'Brien's ego requires a massaged wikipedia article, a character trait which is not lost on anyone with a few gray hair. Hint: its a trait that's not particularly well perceived, or put another way, it's a flaw Newtonewyork (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Estonia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per entry at Eesti spordi biograafiline leksikon (ESBL) as well as an entry at Eesti Entsüklopeedia. Also found coverage at Eesti Elu and mentions in Postimees and Õhtuleht. ExRat (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per BeanieFan and ExRat. TLAtlak 04:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Press

Northern Press (edit | talk | history | 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:ORGCRIT, non-notable periodical published by non-notable journalist who fails GNG. Official website looks like a free web host. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Stag Leadership Development Program

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

"Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content. "

UPE is extremely likely based on off-wiki evidence that correlates this article to the author responsible for vast majority of authorship on this article.

Sourcing is absolutely terrible and advertorial intents are quite evident. I am not sure if it meets NORG either, although the pure advert nature alone merits a deletion. Graywalls (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Perfectstrangerz. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Fumo

John Fumo (edit | talk | history | 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 doesn't cite any sources, and I haven't been able to find anything more than mentions (aside from an interview). toweli (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Garrett (politician)

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

Article about a mayor who served for a relatively short term, containing no secondary sources at all. Completely fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing major seems to be popping up. There is some independent coverage, mostly referring to "former mayor has brain tumour",(1) and the Buccanner Commission named their new HQ after him - which seems slightly notable.(2). Given his period of service as Police Chief and Mayor was pre-2010, there's probably some stuff out there in newspapers.com but pre-dates reliable online coverage. That being said, it's going to be hyper-local coverage of hyper-local politics and I doubt it would pass GNG anyway. Hemmers (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. Mayors aren't "inherently" entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed — the notability test for a mayor isn't passed by minimally verifying his existence, and requires you to write and source substantive content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. This isn't even close to what's required. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No context for Stand alone article. I can't necessary say a mayor is that notable. Well, there are even no verifiable source! Fails WP: N All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "Mass deletion of pages added by SoilMineo39, G5". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action Plan Kamarijani Soenjoto 5

Action Plan Kamarijani Soenjoto 5 (edit | talk | history | 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 film solely documents events within the local university and does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:NFILM. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Education, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A film about an orientation at a school? Sounds like a video for internal use, not for the public. Unless the description is incorrect, the film isn't meeting requirements for FILM. Oaktree b (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A university student orientation video is in no sense an "inherently" notable film, and an award presented by that self-same university is hardly a notability-clinching award — we're looking for awards from major internationally-prominent film festivals that get media coverage, like Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not just any small-fry local award that exists on earth and has to be sourced to a YouTube video of the ceremony due to lack of media coverage. We would need to see evidence of external significance in the wider world, which nothing stated here shows. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey tree phenomenon

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

WP:NOTNEWS, all sources are from September 2007, no long term significance. Also primarily created by Sengkang, so WP:PDEL might apply. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 09:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Clavier

Tony Clavier (edit | talk | history | 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 person does not have many citations and is only known for allegations of sexual misconduct. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Episcopal bishops, like Catholic ones, almost always have enough sources for notability (though sometimes the sources are offline), and this one seems if anything particularly notable.— Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moriwen: That is the case with bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and other Episcopal churches of the Anglican Communion. However, I have just corrected the article to reflect the fact that the subject is not an ECUSA bishop but is rather part of a Continuing Anglican denomination. Unlike bishops of the Anglican Communion, bishops of obscure splinter denominations cannot be assumed to be notable. Graham (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep per reasoning by @Moriwen and @Jahaza. Ominateu (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to WXw World Tag Team Championship as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dante (wrestler)

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

Lots and lots of routine match reports and episode summaries, but where are the significant, non-database sources about Michael Dante? Fram (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Codest Boi

Codest Boi (edit | talk | history | 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 or WP:MUSICBIO, sources are mostly music releases, the PM News Nigeria is mediocre. As such, non-notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: By "the PM News Nigeria is mediocre", I meant the piece used on this article and not the entire PM News publication, to be clear. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator. Subject does not satify WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICBIO. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good day @Jamiebubaokay you say it doesn't meet up with Wikipedia:GNGcheck what entails under that it does the sources used in the article are all reliable sources according to wikipedia's Wikipedia:NGRS check that for your self as the subject is a Nigerian artist, because most editors make the mistake of trying to make judgement on Nigerian artist with international sources. hope that explains this much better have a blessed day ahead. ProWikignome (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – With the exception of this and this (both publish almost the same time, implying some sort of wp:BLP1E), there are no reliable sources left to establish notability. ((edit conflict) while striking.) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Good day @ToadetteEditif you check the PM news article really closely you would see that it was an interview an interview that was recorded by PM News that was why i included it for references so the fact it was released on the same day is entirely on the team at PM News he was in the limelightband the got an interview and posted it the same day as tribune online did that was why and you should know that both articles meet up the standards for Wikipedia:NGRS thank you, have a blessed day ahead. ProWikignome (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Music sensation" with only two articles, both published on the same day, with nothing before or since... [59]. For someone active since 2011 and "sensational", there is a lack of coverage. Something's wrong... This is PROMO. Delete for lack of sourcing and almost obvious puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good day @Oaktree b you check the PM news article really closely you would see that it was an interview an interview that was recorded by PM News that was why i included it for references so the fact it was released on the same day is entirely on the team at PM News he was in the limelight and he got an interview and they posted it the same day as tribune online did that was why and you should know that both articles meet up the standards for WP:NGRS thank you, have a blessed day ahead. in Nigeria am Nigerian my self once there is a new sensation not just one press wants to talk about it everyone wants to and in no way this is a promo because all the articles are Nigerian reliable sources. ProWikignome (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Day @Vanderwaalforces i consider you one of the most respected wikimedian Editor. all the vote here are behind the fact that he is a Nigerian artist with Nigerian reliable sources according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources let me outline all the points of the Wikipedia:GNG
Independent Of The Subject each of those articles was written either because he did something that grabbed people's attention or achieved something significant in his career. This means they're not tied to any specific topic but reflect different aspects of his life and accomplishments.
Significant Coverage There's substantial coverage because he was discussed extensively, which isn't the case for a promotional post. Even the article on PM News was structured as an interview, and since PM News is still esteemed in Nigeria, perhaps that's why they chose to feature the subject in an interview format.
Reliable Sources the sources are reliable as they all meet up with wikipedia Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources that is why the article does not have any tags saying the article doesn't have reliable sources.
To name a few points, I hope this convinces you of why the article deserves a place on Wikipedia. Have a blessed day ahead. ProWikignome (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update i already removed the PM News Citation... ProWikignome (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frontis Archive Publishing System

AfDs for this article:
Frontis Archive Publishing System (edit | talk | history | 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:NSOFT Passing mentions don't count. Project is dead. So, no expectation to reach notability Mfixerer (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho Green Party

Idaho Green Party (edit | talk | history | 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 this state branch of a notable party is independently notable. Cannot inherit notability from parent organisation. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Gudozhnikov

Nikita Gudozhnikov (edit | talk | history | 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/WP:BASIC for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. While he has played one match on the main tour level back in 2012 as a junior wildcard (doubles), it's only a WP:1E and hasn't done anything notable since. I haven't been able to find anything in my searches beyond his ban, coming up as a WP:PRIMARY press release by ITIA or in secondary sources closely copying or paraphrasing it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to WRIR-LP. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Minute

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP who made a request at WT:AFD which says: Jedwardchapman made exactly two edits: the creation of this article in 2009, and a minor edit to it the following year. Outside of being a relatively short article with very few sources, the subject is not very well known outside of Richmond, Virginia. Not to mention, the article comes off more as a promotion for Diversity Richmond rather than an informative piece on the radio show. CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems ok. It's purely local in nature, from what I read. Oaktree b (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Geary

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

There does not seem to be sufficient independent, non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also seems to be a decent amount of unencyclopedic cruft. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting batch nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Emmys, which can be a bit controversial but don’t generally confer notability. Also, you might want to sign your comment, User:Hyperbolick. I’m assuming you made a typo. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only see articles confirming she's joined a station, then left another station. Nothing extensive about her as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to No Rain. Consensus for redirect. The article history is preserved under redirect, if any merge is required in future. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heather DeLoach

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

Redirect undone. Actor appearing in a early 1990s' video and that's pretty much it. WP:NOTINHERITED and fails WP:NACTOR. I suggest reinstating the redirect to song "No Rain", the video in which she appeared. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Bee Girl from Blind Melon was a cultural meme from the time. [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. Gnews has many, many hits about her. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to No Rain. All of the news about her is primarily about the video, or says something along the lines of "remember that video with the dancing bee? Well, now she's married!". Pretty open-and-shut WP:BLP1E. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to HiT TV. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ya krasivaya

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

Show does not seem to be notable based on Google search. Only source in article is an interview with the winner. Spinixster (chat!) 03:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 4 March 2024 (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! 06:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesivta Ohel Torah

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

Not notable per WP:NSCHOOL, that is, per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. All I can find about it online is similar to what's here: passing mentions in articles about other things, and routine school listings. Proposed deletion last week was contested without comment by the article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Bearing in mind that high schools used to (before February 2017) be considered inherently notable, I have added what I believe to be just enough coverage to get this school over the top. It is listed and mentioned in various independent sources, including U.S. News & World Report, and this mention might fit the definition of WP:SIGCOV. Note that the school goes by a few different names and spellings including Mesifta Ohel Torah, Yeshiva Ohel Torah and Yeshiva High School of Monsey. StonyBrook babble 21:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook: thank you for all the work you put in on this, but although the sources you've added are reliable, they only provide passing mentions of the school. We need to find significant coverage of the school itself, per WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, the weak part of my !vote, and why I linked the RfC in it. But the closers of that same discussion also found that it "[stopped] short of a rough consensus" on the question of whether to grant inherent notability status on secondary schools. They went on to say that if a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search. While no one is saying that every school is inherently notable, I think we can agree that a) there are more than enough sources here which demonstrate that the school exists b) enough can be gleaned from these sources to write at least a stub article about it. In the U.S. News & World Report I found basic information such as the school's address, type, and enrollment; from other sources I found some basic history about the founders, names of head teachers and controversy about getting the dormitory approved by the local authorities. In my view, the above constitutes WP:SIGCOV in the strictest sense of the term. Contrast this with another school that I found which has a very similar name to this one, except that the source for it only provides an address, and nothing more. StonyBrook babble 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though a stub, it seems to have a good couple of reliable sources, even if they only mention it in passing, to the point of being reliable. I can do stuff! (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete run-of-the-mill school that fails to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:ORGDEPTH. In a WP:BEFORE search, it did not yield significant coverage from reliable sources, except for some passing mentions, profile listings, and a few unreliable sources that are insufficient to establish notability. GSS 💬 15:47, 4 March 2024 (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! 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of political parties in Mozambique. ✗plicit 06:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Freedom and Solidarity

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

Unrepresented minor party which received less than 1% of the vote in elections. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asy Syifa Kaila Saidah

AfDs for this article:
Asy Syifa Kaila Saidah (edit | talk | history | 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 individual does not meet the standards outlined in WP:CREATIVE. Their only notable accomplishments include winning a local English-speaking competition and being selected as one of 60 participants to present their work in a local gallery. Additionally, the article's existence is partly attributed to their relation to Zakaria, which provides another reason for considering its removal under WP:BIOFAMILY. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Because PROD will be blocked by sock/editor, these are such examples 1, 2 and 3. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than the subject has lack of notability, one of the sources that the user cited, which was from Saputra, did not mention Saidah at any pages. Faldi00 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "Mass deletion of pages added by SoilMineo39, G5". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Asyrof Al-Ghifari

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Asyrof Al-Ghifari (edit | talk | history | 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 individual fails to meet the standards outlined in WP:CREATIVE. Their sole accomplishment includes winning a local English-speaking competition and participating in a minor film project. Additionally, the article's existence is partly attributed to their relation to Zakaria, which is another reason for considering its removal under WP:BIOFAMILY. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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