Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 8: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:26, 8 February 2022 editGizzyCatBella (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,604 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Honchy Brid massacre (2nd nomination).Tag: Twinkle← Previous edit Revision as of 06:41, 8 February 2022 edit undoCoffee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arnold van den Bergh (notary) (XFDcloser)Next edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__ __TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arnold van den Bergh (notary)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Honchy Brid massacre (2nd nomination)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Honchy Brid massacre (2nd nomination)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus (grandson of Herodes Atticus)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus (grandson of Herodes Atticus)}}

Revision as of 06:41, 8 February 2022

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 8 (Wed)      January 7 (Tue)      January 6 (Mon)     More...

Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

< February 07 February 09 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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 no consensus. The issue here is whether this man was notable outside of his alleged connection to Anne Frank. If not, our guidelines suggest that he should be covered in an article about her, if at all. But arguments have been made here that he was in fact notable for other reasons, based on the sources cited in the article. And on that question, there's no consensus in this discussion. Sandstein 08:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Arnold van den Bergh (notary)

Arnold van den Bergh (notary) (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:1E. Obscure notary who in a recent book was accused of possibly being the betrayer of Anne Frank. That accusation is disputed (as noted in the article) and subject has no notability other than that disputed allegation. Should be deleted or merged into Anne Frank. If his guilt was not disputed and was well-established, there would be justification for a separate article on this person. But it is disputed and is not well-established or accepted by scholars at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: "Obscure" is not really the right word here… please try to keep any proposal WP:NPOV and contribute personal viewpoints as part of the discussion. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Coretheapple:, appreciations for returning to Misplaced Pages, and contributing additional input.
  1. It is fairly usual that articles get expanded: for example, if an editor raises concerns about WP:Notability, it is usual to see additional citations added, documenting WP:Notability.
  2. We can see a new edit Special:Diff/1068130241/1068867655 (from yesterday) tagging {{Original research}} and, here on the AfD, also stating "lengthy footnotes" but… inspection of the article shows zero footnotes and all sentences individually referenced, including with |quote= and |trans-quote= for the benefit of readers (and editors) who may find working with scans of historic documents in multiple languages difficult—a situation unavoidable when the subject was active 70‒100 years ago, and in The Netherlands.
  3. Likewise, the formatting of Dutch names can vary; so in An interim Report on the Art Activities of Hermann Goering (1945) (cited fully in the article, and URL-linked above) the subject is named as both "van der Bergh" and "A. v.d. Bergh". To assist readers (and other editors) these names have been wikilinked using {{ill}} so that transcription differences like Hermann Göring/Goering are (hopefully) less confusing to readers (and editors).
In summary: editors are generally happy to attempt to address any concerns and to improve articles (that is the basis of Misplaced Pages), but it requires effort (and cooperation) on the part of those initiating AfD (and/or similar processes) to clearly spell out (ie. precisely and exactly) those concerns. Is that something you'd be willing to do? —Sladen (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Easily. Not only did this so-called event or his alleged role change the course of history, but the article clearly states and sources that he was a notable notary during his life. That's all that matters here. Trillfendi (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - with multiple sources, and seems to make reasonable claims of notability, think its an easy keep. OwainDavies (talk) edited at 08:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • (Follow-up) Comment: @Coretheapple (initiator) …another week has gone by without initiating a discussion on Talk:Arnold van den Bergh (nor replying at this AfD) regarding the precise basis for subsequently adding {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags.
    Per WP:WTRMT " strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed", then it would appear appropriate to remove those newly-added {{Original research}} and {{Primary sources}} tags: because without having precise details, it will remain (extremely) difficult to attempt to "address" any asserted problems.
    —Sladen (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC) (Note, in the mean-time Gidonb, enacted by Synoman Barris, have moved the article to Arnold van den Bergh).
    Sladen, shit I didn't notice the AFD tag on the article when moving it, otherwise I could have declined it immediately. I don't know what's wrong with my browser that I could see it. I will revert my move until this AFD is closed. Cheers and thanks for the ping Megan B.... till the end of time 10:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Synoman Barris:, don't think there was actually a problem with the move. It was simply noting that the Article (and therefore the Talk: page—where Coretheapple might have left any reply—would have also moved during the course of discussion. (And there appears to still be no reply, so the matter is somewhat mute). —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm unaware of a problem moving when in AfD. Maybe someone could explain this one to me. We always continue improving articles while in AfD! I saw the article as it was in AfD. Please move again to the correct location right after the discussion because, as we have no article on another person by this name, this is a totally trivial move and the current name is WRONG. I would have rather had it at the correct location all the time. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gidonb:, again, don't think there is/was a problem with proposing the move. The (notary) disambiguated article name was following Dutch Misplaced Pages and because there's another Arnold van den Bergh  (1857‒1932) (also from Oss…) (one of the sons of Simon van den Bergh who was was involved with Margarine Unie and founding of the Unilever empire. (ie. a disambig might be better in the long-run). Regarding "after the discussion", if the article should be kept/deleted, then please say so (here on the AfD), along with justification!… —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Sladen, I did say so here and on the other page. We should never disambiguate where there is nothing to disambiguate, just because of some situation at Nlwiki. Went into lots of trouble and now a necessary improvement is undone. Synoman Barris, can you put the article back at Arnold van den Bergh? Your first move was perfect! gidonb (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Gidonb,Sladen Per WP:EDITATAFD there is a clause Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion and Articles at AFD's should never be created into redirects. If this article is kept just post a request at WP:RM/TR or a ping will do and it will be immediately moved back. Cheers Megan B.... till the end of time 07:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Synoman Barris, thanks. Will do. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep; there's no justification in merging such a lot of information about van den Bergh into the Anne Frank article because the evidence is so disputed. Nevertheless, the accusation links him to a piece of history that is very relevant and interesting to WP's readers, who may therefore have a legitimate interest in his background and who he was. I know this is close to notability-by-inheritance, but it's more about fulfilling an encyclopaedia's role of providing background to important subjects and periods in history. He also clearly played a much wider role in society at the time, and there is no shortage of stuff written about him, even before the allegations. I think it's interesting enough, and well-enough sourced, to keep. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Re your point and Sladen's above, since this nomination the article has been padded with primary sources, and synthesis. There are no secondary sources for the new material added. With that surplusage stripped out, there is very little that needs to be added to the Anne Frank article as it currently exists, if anything. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an article about the village Honchyi Brid is created, this article can be undeleted via WP:REFUND for the purpose of merging it into the village article (to the extent editorial consensus supports that). Sandstein 08:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Honchy Brid massacre

AfDs for this article:
Honchy Brid massacre (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)

Last AfD had three sock puppets voting to keep out of 5 keep votes -->. I'm re-nominating it for deletion due to unreliable and low-quality references used that do not meet ArbCom's recommendation for this topic area - also a case of dubious notability. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus (grandson of Herodes Atticus)

Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus (grandson of Herodes Atticus) (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)

Just a bare name in a family tree, fails WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Avilich (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 05:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Robby Maria

Robby Maria (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)

He made a Self-PR. Nor relevant for Misplaced Pages. No good Sources. --Tromla (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is borderline malpractice. What’s labeled “German National TV“ is a municipal Public-access television station. The six sources for the introduction are mostly dead, the GND link works but does not, and has never, mentioned anything connected to the paragraph. I can definitely say that there is not and was never a ‘cult following’. The Teehaus Open Air is some beer garden’s summer promo event, and the only serious source is the Rheinische Post (mislabeled and typo’ed “Rhur something”. The others are street zines that take whatever contributions they get, the Böblinger something is the artist’s very very local paper doing a local-guy-makes-it-big-in-regional-sub center routine. K. Oblique 18:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The German Wiki article is now deleted. Tromla (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Liz 05:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Angela Garcia Combs

Angela Garcia Combs (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:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER. Other than the lack of subject specific coverage, I don't think having made a film that has been reviewed by blogs and a screenplay that is in a library is enough to establish notability. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article is largely about her notable film, Nothing Special. If someone wants to spend a few minutes they could easily reorganize the article and move it to Nothing Special (film), but moves during deletion discussions are discouraged. However, I note that some of her other works may also be notable, for example Missouri Waltz (see Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Backstage, L.A. Times, L.A. Weekly). pburka (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Rescind nomination Per Pburka. Not really knowledgable about theatre but that amount of coverage will probably suggest that it is a notable piece of theater. My cynicism wants to discount it as mill local theater coverage (it's rather difficult to tell with LA) but I think I can err on the side of notability and just clean up the article instead. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Westford School of Management, Sharjah

Westford School of Management, Sharjah (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 violates WP:NPOV as seen in the lead of the page and has only one reference on the page, which is a link to their own website. I searched up looking for articles to improve the page but it seems like there isn't a good variety of sources to choose from, only one source which is from Gulf News as far as what I could find. The page reads like a clear advertisment which violates WP:PROMOTION. I feel this page is not ready as yet to be in the mainspace, let me know your thoughts. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete the article is written like an add and only contains a single reference, which appears to be primary. I couldn't find anything that would constitute in-depth coverage of the school when I looked either. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ––FormalDude talk 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Geeta Vadhera

Geeta Vadhera (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 can't find reliable sources on a Google search. When I tried to check some of the links that are peppered at the bottom of the article I get dead links and threat warnings. At the very least the link farm at the bottom should be removed immediately. Is it vandalism by an IP? Check the links at your own risk. I think the whole article should be deleted. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References have been updated to reflect websites that have closed All links are active . I have checked each one and added new working links. Geeta Vadhera has had a long stellar career as an artist and has had multiple exhibitions much before the internet was invented. She is an awardee of the Bharat Nirman Award as well and reference to the same has been provided. Please attempt Google Search again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.139.128.252 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any !voters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment The Straits Times is not reliable and the articles are puff pieces. One of the "reviews" was for an art exhibit at a hotel. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
They're not puff pieces and The Straits Times is reliable. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage". Cheers KH-1 for the sources! Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

James Quincy Butler

James Quincy Butler (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:POL by quite a long shot, unelected politician who's media attention is based on his fringe candidacy Bangabandhu (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Click on the link for ANC. Its the lowest level of DC government. Many of the positions are unopposed. WP:POL requires a position of some significance.Bangabandhu (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I am hesitant about treating even the city coulcil of DC as like a state legislature, but anything below that level is just ludicrous. Even in states, nor all position that is elected on a statewide basis confers automatic notability. In Michigan where I live, we elect by state-wide direct balot the boards that oversee the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University. While in the MSU case in the wake of the Nassar scandal, there has been significant coverage of who is on the board and the board races, I am not ready to grant that every member of the MSU board in 1970 is default notable. These 3 boards were created by the 1962 Michigan constitution. That constitution actually shortened the number of offices elected on a state-wide basis though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The policy states "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" ... So all politicians holding some sort of government or state office qualify. Nowhere I see here stating that only high level politicians qualify. If you can enlighten me as to how you came up with that conclusion, let me know. Plus the subject qualifies just based on news coverage and meeting WP:GNG. Caphadouk (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Well the language you quote says "state-wide". In this case there are 39 ANCs, each one covering one of the 39 portions the District is divided into. People are members of one ANC, there is one council for each of the 39 areas. So this is not a district wide position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete being part of the ANC in Washington DC clearly does not come even remotely close to meeting the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete falls well beneath WP:NPOL which does not include "all politicians holding some sort of government or state office" being covered and even if we consider Washington, DC as a state (which it is not) the ANC would not qualify because it has zero legislative duties or power. Campaign coverage and local political reporting generally do not contribute to WP:GNG per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The actual wording is something like first-level subdivisions in a federal style government. However the District of Columbia's unique status makes it less than clear that it meets that criteria. However since the ANCs have no legislative power the point is moot. We do not grant default notability to members of county councils/commissions/legislature/whatever else they may be called, even though in many cases they do have at least some legislative power (an in the case of true county commissions they are also to some extent the county executive, although there are several bodies called "county commission" that have the name basically as a legacy of the way things used to be, and no longer have legislative power, this is true of the 3 county cmissions in the tri-county Detroit Metro area where I live for example).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • KEEP " First, this page qualifies due to significant news coverage such as , and .

Second, I want to point out that the numerator of this page has made significant edits to Muriel Bowser's page who is the current mayor of DC and also running again in the 2022 race against the subject. I suspect a policitail COI here, so maybe his vote should not be considered. Cuteblkguy (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe the nominator is just interested in DC politics?? Bangabandhu's edits to Muriel Bowser include noting the rise in homicides during her administration and and a controversy surrounding one of her appointments so if they do have a COI the Bowser campaign should probably be asking for their money back. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course I'm happy to give you a cut of the funds GPL93. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
LOL. Remember we do not wait for elections to be over to see if someone may become notable in the end of the election. If someone is not notable but running for a position that will make them notable if they win the election, we delete the article and then recreate it at the end of the election cycle. Otherwise Misplaced Pages would become a free campaign platform to post a candidates campaign literature, and in the US there are some people who loose an election and essentially announce they are a candidate for the election the next time around immediately. So in some cases such a rule would make non-notable candidates perpetually able to have an article. This would actually probably apply to some candidates who were very far from ever winning anything, because some of these perpetual candidates are placeholders for one party or the other in races where there is no chance of them winning at all. There are various reasons these candidates exist, one is because of the US tendency to hold elections at multiple levels at once, and to have parties function at city, county, state and federal levels, this means even if your candidate for US House is not going to get over 35% of the vote, making sure there is someone running for US house in that district still may be key to mobilizing your party vote in that district in the state governors race, where the margin of victory is under 2%. It may also be kep to helping the candidate for state house in your party who will win on that other guys coattails in part of the district, even though your party candidate goes down to defeat in the whole race. Of course some people who on first brush look like perenial candidates, like Anderew "Rocky" Rackowski, who lost a closely contested US house race and a US senate race to the brother of the guy he lost to in the US house race, if you did deeper you realize at one point they were in the state legislature and so meet inclusion criteria, and you do not actually have to figure out if the congressional race coverage is enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Say what you will about perpetual candidates, but Calvin H. Gurley has achieved notability for his attempts. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment If I am reading things right, each of the 39 communities with an Advisory Neighborhood Comission, elects multiple commissioners. The ANC member is on a board that relates to the specific neighborhood (or cluster of neighborhods treated as one unit), they are not on a body that functions for the whole of the city. This is like a community council for any other sub-unit of a city, which at least if the sub-units are not offcial government bodies do not confer notability for membership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes there's around 300 commissioners serving on the ANCs. It's amusing that we would even consider that ANC membership confers notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
To be fair I think that is less than members of the New Hampshire House of representatives, but they are an actual legislative body. Although this also probably explains why we have articles on all the current about 107 members of the Michigan House of Representatives but if you look though New Hampshire House of Representatives, we probably only have articles on about a third. With all those redlinks I have to wonder if someone has gone through that article and made sure all the blue links are correct connections, I have found enough false positive links on much shorter film cast pages. There are 400 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, so about one per 3,300 residents. Michigan it is basically 1 member of the state house per 90,000 residents. The Washington DC position works out to about one per 2,296 residents, but keep in mind they are not over the city as a whole, but just 1 of 39 divisions. Likewise the members of the Phoenix City Council may in general be notable (there are only 9, including the "mayor" who is the city-wide elected head of the city council, the city is run by a city manager), with a population of 1.6 million (to Washington's less than 700,000) but the members of the village councils are clearly not notable for such, and they I believe have more actual power than those in this position in DC (there are also way less such councils).John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Iran-Guatemala relations

Iran-Guatemala relations (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. No embassies, agreements, state visits. Article refers to a one off incident with the Iranian president. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Howard Stableford

Howard Stableford (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. Non-notable. Poor sources that do not demonstrate significant coverage about him JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - Nostalgia is not enough to prove notability. Per WP:GNG he needs significant coverage in reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    A week in the life of ... Howard Stableford: Howard Stableford was talking to Alice Wyllie.The Scotsman; Edinburgh (UK) . 16 Sep 2006
    Typical Biker Name: Howard Stableford Rides: Harley-Davidson Road King Classic Interview by Olly Duke.The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) . 16 Dec 2000
    a Dinner Date with Howard Stableford: Sunday Mercury; Birmingham (UK) . 07 Feb 1999:
    My Hols;Travel;Interview;Howard Stableford, Hodson, Mark.Sunday Times; London (UK) . 14 Apr 1996
    Howard Stableford 60 SECONDS EXTRA!: Howard Stableford presented Tomorrow's World for more than 12 years before giving it up to go and live in Colorado https://web.archive.org/web/20121005235636/http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/interviews/38-howard-stableford
    First four are available on ProQuest Piecesofuk (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Assuming the Stage article is more than a short paragraph, as I said, it appears to be a good source. But we require multiple reliable sources to have given him extended coverage, and interviews like the Telegraph are iffy for that, so so far it's the only one I see. I added the Mirror, and that can now be removed, since Stage refs the other shows that I couldn't find a reference for, and it's an unreliable source that we shouldn't be using in a BLP. As I say, I'm also uncertain about the reliability of BFI for his date of birth; I think we should be saying only "born in 1959 or 1960", with the Stage ref based on that statement that he was 25 in 1985. But the Mirror article is actually on the occasion of that one-off reunion broadcast of Tomorrow's World, and I really don't think that's worth mentioning as such in connection with his career, which is why I didn't use the Guardian, which says nothing about his other work. It and the Independent don't count toward notability at all, they only mention him briefly in connection with having done Tomorrow's World. To keep the article, we need at least one more article about him (that isn't just an interview about his love of biking; the Telegraph article adds Changing Places and that he married an American, but is otherwise just celebrity fluff, I'm afraid). Is there one (or more) lurking behind a paywall? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't really understand why you're questioning the reliability of the British Film Institute reference. Is there any evidence that they're unreliable or pull their information from Misplaced Pages? They have his place of birth as Poynton, Cheshire which as far as I can tell was not in Misplaced Pages.
He was also President of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors from 1998 to 2007 https://web.archive.org/web/20130627092746/http://www.theipi.org.uk/History.aspx predecessors include Bob Symes, Rhys Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Kilgerran, John Maitland (Conservative politician), Archibald Low and George Askwith, 1st Baron Askwith.
There's no evidence that the Daily Mirror is an unreliable source (no consensus according to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and it provides evidence that Stableford was one of Tomorrow World's longest serving presenters. Piecesofuk (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I've added an additional reference for his date and place of birth, it can be viewed at https://archive.org/details/whoswhoontelevis0000hayw/page/234/mode/1up It was published in 1996 so predates Misplaced Pages Piecesofuk (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 01:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. There was strong near consensus to delete but I'm moving this page to Draft space for those who believe that better sources are imminent. Please do not move to main space until it has received AFC approval. Liz 07:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Paras Kalnawat

Paras Kalnawat (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)

Only one significant role and some small roles , failing WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Though the notable role is only one that is Samar Shah in Anupamaa but still it'll be very soon to get his article deleted due to illogical fan activities by some sockpuppet users.Though ITV shows features dozens of actors. But he's one of the important character since starting of the show. And the main lead of 2017 series Meri Durga and main antagonist of 2019 web series Ishq Aaj Kal. Though his main notable role is Samar Shah right now. But see his career graph for once. Not asking as a fan. Generally. See the plot of Anupamaa first and his career graph also. Please.Pri2000 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Wide media coverage" has been asserted; is that claim backed up by reliable sources? @Gari897: links to the sources you are referencing would help move this discussion along properly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these sources do seem relevant; relisting again in the hope of getting reactions from other participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete I've looked through the links found above and all are either typical churnalism (republished tweet/instagram posts) content or interviews. hemantha (brief) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think deleting an article even after having sufficient presence in Reliable Resources just on the basis of Interviews or Churnalism will be a much sooner step. As most of the actors have their sources on similar basisPri2000 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Pri2000 ,you are commenting so many times to influence the result. You don't need to mention same thing again and again.110.226.215.221 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Pri2000, Please see WP:GNG and WP: NACTOR. He is clearly failing both guidelines.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Pri2000 but you are repeating your statement again and again. You have voted once and commented twice.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The above IP is evading their block. The closer should disregard their comments. Girth Summit (blether) 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one last time. It was suggested that the subject is "possibly notable".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz 19:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

118 Reunion

118 Reunion (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 show. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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