Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 26: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:12, 26 April 2023 editJeffhardyfan08 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users542 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sandy Poulsen.Tag: Twinkle ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:14, 26 April 2023 edit undoJeffhardyfan08 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users542 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Masaili.Tag: Twinkle 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/Masaili}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sandy Poulsen}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sandy Poulsen}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Álvarez de Asturias}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Álvarez de Asturias}}

Revision as of 22:14, 26 April 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 7 (Tue) January 6 (Mon) January 5 (Sun) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 25	April 27 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris 04:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Masaili

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable village in Nepal. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

*Delete - Mass-created article by Dr. Blofeld. The location given in the article is an empty field. Only two sources are provided in the article - a link to a UN map of village development committees in the Sarlahi district, and a link to the Nepalese census website. The UN website is a 404 link. The Nepalese census website lists a location called Masaili as a Village Development Committee in Sarlahi district. Clicking through the various boxes gives you a text-file output such as this:

Nepal Census Data 2001: Population 1991

vdc_id 3486

vdc_name Masaili

district_name Sarlahi

total_house 528

total_pop 3072

This fails WP:GEOLAND as sourcing for the following reasons -

1) WP:NGEO explicitly excludes tables (and maps) from supporting the notability of geographical entities.

2) Including this content, the only content that can be reliably supported here, violates WP:NOTDATABASE.

3) Writing an article based on this article content would result in a geographical dictionary entry, which would violate WP:DICT.

4) There is no evidence that a "village development committee" is a populated place having legal recognition. It appears to be a low-level census-taking area which is excluded from WP:GEOLAND.

~~Nothing further was found in my WP:BEFORE, so Delete it is. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)~~

Flip to Keep based on Aymatth2's Nepalese news sources. Whilst I maintain that pure statistical sources are not sufficient to show notability under NGEO, this does appear to be an actual village that is legally recognised rather than just a statistical-counting unit. The article should be edited so as to recite a village as well as a (former) VDC. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A Village development committee (Nepal) was similar to a municipality but with greater public-government interaction and administration. Each VDC was divided into wards. In 2017 the VDCs were reorganized into rural municipalities. Some merging and splitting was done in the process. Masaili VDC was reduced in size and downgraded to a village. Nominator, who was blocked on April 29, must understand this. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep A verifiable populated place with over 4000 people verifiable in book sources like this. This was a former VDC, an official subdivision of a country, not some tiny hamlet in the middle of nowhere. It has its own mosques and schools. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This a frivolous nomination. Per WP:NPLACE, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. A search on मुसैली shows plenty of results, as one would expect of a place of this size. Even the village pond has been in the news: , , . Aymatth2 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC).
Keep appears in 2011 census with population of 5,190 (p.28). As above, passes WP:GEOLAND. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2023 (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 result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris 03:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sandy Poulsen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Article needs work, but subject is notable. Olympian 1, successful business and land owner 2, 3,
Some of these citations are for a person born in 1918; likely a relative, but not the person competing in the 1972 Olympics. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources like this, this, this, this, this, and this. The person with the earlier birthdate appears to be her mother, who apparently also had the same name. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per GNG and Ejgreen77's sources. pburka (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep It fits with WP:GNG however it does need a lot more things to be added it seems more like a page in progress rather than something that needs to be deleted. Swaggalicious (talk) 07:45, 01 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris 03:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Rodrigo Álvarez de Asturias

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One sourced article with no significance of importance. and with no significant coverage Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep: An attempt at WP:BEFORE was clearly not conducted. Simply Googling his name returns an absolute slew of sources providing WP:SIGCOV indicating he easily passes WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Further, I am going to reiterate what Jack1956 said at this other AfD that this account only appears to exist to nominate articles for deletion (and to add on) without conducting proper searches before nominating (per the series of rapid-fire bad nominations). Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Before fail. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Fremont Lake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable lake in Wyoming with no significance of importance. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep I'm usually in favor of deleting articles on ponds and remote lakes that have little human activity, but this is the second largest in Wyoming and has a campground, lodge, and beach on it. Sources with decent coverage include . Reywas92 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per Reywas92 and WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Here is another reference, and there are others like it. StonyBrook _babble 03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Per Reywas92, particularly the Gillette News Record article. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep: the sources cited by Reywas92 have WP:SIGCOV and indicate that the subject of the article passes WP:GEOLAND. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, not notable and not enough significant coverage for this to be an article. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, and India. Spiderone 21:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep: Clearly passes WP:NBOOK as the book has been subject of multiple reviews from many reliable sources. Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, The Wire, The Hindu, Pacific Affairs, Hindustan Times and Foreign Affairs. In this list of reviews, there are some notable book reviewers like Ronojoy Sen and Andrew J. Nathan. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 05:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep satisfies WP:NBOOK per sources identified by LordVoldemort728. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:NBOOK per the sources listed above by LordVoldemort728. Sal2100 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was withdraw‎ . I withdraw to nominate this article. (non-admin closure) Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Unbeatable (game show)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. with no sources, and no significant coverage of the article. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Spiderone 21:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a quiz show on BBC One, the most popular television channel in the UK. I am RedoStone (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep: Article has had sources added to it that I think more than adequately establishes WP:GNG. Seems likes there are plenty of more sources out there that can be used to expand and improve the article. - Navarre0107 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep - as is, article currently has sources that meet GNG. matt91486 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Rajib Moni Das

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than some passing mentions ( of the sources are in Bengali are just interviews, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Just passing mentions no in depth sources. NP83 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Absloutely nothing notable about this. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Bangladesh. Spiderone 21:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article appear to be all interviews and brief mentions, nothing with SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). If someone finds IS RS with SIGCOV fit for a BLP, let me know. // Timothy :: talk 20:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎ . withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

William Charles Hood

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Blimey, that was quick! You nominated it for deletion after my first three edits! You account seems to exist only to nominate articles for deletion! Jack1956 (talk
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United Kingdom. Spiderone 21:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. User:Jeffhardyfan08, you appear to have nominated this article while it was under construction. If you look at it again, I believe you will see that it now has sufficient references. Would you kindly withdraw the nomination? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to withdraw nominations, but if someone could kindly do it, that would be fine. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. – Joe (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

AVTECH Corporation

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Previously deleted. Could not find significant coverage. Note there is a similarly named company from Sweden which isn't this one. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. AllyD (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Weak delete. Current content and sources fail WP:NCOMPANY/GNG, my BEFORE yielded nothing useful, but I don't speak Chinese. Would be good to hear from someone who did BEFORE in that language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "New Taiwan Weekly article". New Taiwan Weekly (in Chinese). 2005. Retrieved 2023-04-15 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "公司簡介陞泰科技主要營收來源為 IC 通路以及視訊監控系統,在二 OO 二年時比重約為六:四,後來隨著視訊監控系統的比重慢慢提高(二 O O 三年已提高到五五% ,至二 OO 五年上半年 IC 通路與視訊監控比為四:六) ,公司整體的毛利率也跟著大幅竄升, ..."
  From Google Translate: "Company Profile The main source of revenue of Shengtai Technology is IC channel and video monitoring system. In 2002, the ratio was about six to four. Later, as the proportion of video monitoring system gradually increased (6 O three years, it has increased to five 5%, and in the first half of 2005, the ratio of IC channel to video surveillance was four:six), and the company's overall gross profit margin also soared sharply, ..."
2. Gao, Shengkai 高聖凱 (2005-06-01). "電子監控股利王陞泰科技─60分的成功本事" . Global Views Monthly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-15. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  The article notes: "比起其他同業，陞泰科技的產品腳步並非最快，獲利卻最耀眼，原因是陞泰業務能力一流，擅打市場游擊戰。 ... 國內監視器業者三巨人悠克、慧友與陞泰之中，陞泰各客戶的營收比重不超過5％，相當平均，其中的關鍵，就是與客戶建立緊密的關係。美國前三大品牌有兩家是陞泰的長期伙伴，而歐洲的前十大品牌幾乎都與陞泰往來頻繁。"
  From Google Translate: "Compared with other peers, Shengtai Technology's products are not the fastest, but its profits are the most dazzling. The reason is that Shengtai's business capabilities are first-class and it is good at fighting market guerrilla warfare. ... Among the three giants in the domestic monitor industry, Yoke, Huiyou and Shengtai, the proportion of each customer's revenue of Shengtai does not exceed 5%, which is quite average. The key is to establish a close relationship with customers. Two of the top three brands in the United States are long-term partners of Shengtai, while almost all of the top ten brands in Europe have frequent contacts with Shengtai."
3. Liu, Zhiming 劉志明 (2003-10-23). "把九十分當六十分的經營哲學 P.64" . Business Today (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-15. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  The article notes: "陞泰的產品價格比競爭對手低三成，加上七成是以自有品牌行銷，毛利一直維持在三成，甚至對客戶還一律採取﹁先收款、七天後出貨﹂的管理模式，在競爭激烈的安全監控產業中，陞泰的強勢令人難以想像。「陞泰到底是什麼公司，為什麼可以連續五年保持每股純益( EPS )達十二元，與立錡互爭興櫃股王？」在未上市股票網站中，最近有關類似的討論相當多。獲利突出但非常低調的陞泰科技，未來的表現將是投資界注目的焦點。"
  From Google Translate: "The price of Shengtai's products is 30% lower than that of its competitors, and 70% of them are marketed under its own brand. The gross profit has always been maintained at 30%. In the fierce security monitoring industry, Shengtai's strength is unimaginable. "What kind of company is Shengtai? Why can it maintain a profit per share (EPS) of 12 yuan for five consecutive years, and compete with Richtek for the top stock market?" On unlisted stock websites, there have been quite a lot of similar discussions recently. . The future performance of Shengtai Technology, which has outstanding profits but is very low-key, will be the focus of attention of the investment community."
4. Wu, Rujing 吳瑞菁 (2005-02-04). "陞泰連6年EPS超10元" . United Evening News (in Chinese). p. 15.
  The article notes: "陞泰產品經營模式與同業差異相當大，陞泰有2大產品線，分別為安全監控產品及IC零組件銷售，儘管IC零組件銷售有『二低三高』的弱勢特質，但由於陞泰IC零組件小而美，主要專注在毛利較高的影像產品，因此相較於IC通路同業，陞泰IC零組件毛利率還約維持15％左右水平。此外，在安全監控產品開發上，由於有IC零組件技術的奧援，陞泰卻創下晚推出DVR產品，卻奪下DVR市佔率龍頭的寶座。
  From Google Translate: "Shengtai's product management model is quite different from its peers. Shengtai has two major product lines, which are security monitoring products and IC components sales. IC components are small and beautiful, and mainly focus on high-margin imaging products. Therefore, compared with IC channel peers, the gross profit margin of Shengtai IC components is still around 15%. In addition, in the development of security monitoring products, due to the support of IC component technology, Shengtai launched the DVR product late, but won the leading position in the DVR market share."
5. Li, Jiaji 李佳濟 (2003-10-20). "陞泰明舉辦法說會" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. 14.
  The article notes: "陞泰科技半導體零組件代理經銷業務以代理ADI為主，雙方長期維持良好合作關係。AD的產品大多非大眾化標準品，需要精確之說服技巧及Design-in能力以取得客戶信任， ..."
  From Google Translate: "The agency and distribution business of Shengtai Technology's semiconductor components is mainly the agency of ADI, and the two parties have maintained a long-term good cooperative relationship. Most of AD's products are not popular standard products, and require precise persuasion skills and Design-in capabilities to gain customer trust."
6. Peng, Yixian 彭依賢 (2003-10-16). "監視防盜系統產品出貨攀升陞泰九月營收創單月新高" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. 12.
  The article notes: "準上櫃公司陞泰科技 9 月營收為 2.05 億元，再創單月新高，該公司自結前三季營收達17.86 億元、稅前為 5.4 億元；因監視防盜系列產品出貨持續攀升，該公司日前宣佈調高財測，營收及稅後盈餘目標分別由 22.5 億元、9.5 元，調升至 23.27 億元及 12.21 元，並計劃於下月底掛牌。"
  From Google Translate: "Shengtai Technology, a quasi-over-the-counter company, achieved revenue of 205 million yuan in September, a new monthly high. The company’s revenue in the first three quarters of the year reached 1.786 billion yuan, with a pre-tax figure of 540 million yuan; Climbing, the company recently announced that it has raised its financial forecast. Its revenue and after-tax profit targets were raised from 2.25 billion yuan and 9.5 yuan to 2.327 billion yuan and 1.221 yuan, respectively, and plans to list at the end of next month."
7. Jian, Yongxiang 簡永祥 (2003-10-18). "陞泰下月底上櫃每股 140元 21日法說會今年每股要賺 12.21元" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. 20.
  The article notes: "陞泰科技預定下周二舉行上櫃前法人說明會，該公司預定11月底以每股140元掛牌上櫃。 ... 陞泰主要以監視防盜系統及電子零組件代理為兩大業務主軸，..."
  From Google Translate: "Shengtai Technology is scheduled to hold a pre-listing legal person briefing next Tuesday. The company is scheduled to be listed at the end of November at 140 yuan per share. ... Shengtai mainly focuses on monitoring anti-theft systems and electronic components agents."
8. Chen, Yalan 陳雅蘭 (2005-02-07). "安全監控業陞泰最賺連六年賺進一個資本額看好今年" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. C5.
  The article notes: "陞泰是國內安全監控產業獲利最高者， ... 陞泰共分為兩大角色，一是IC通路商，主攻內銷市場，一是安全監控製造商，則以外銷為主，也達到不同幣值自然沖銷的效果。"
  From Google Translate: "Shengtai is the most profitable in the domestic security monitoring industry. ... Shengtai is divided into two roles, one is an IC distributor, which focuses on the domestic market, and the other is a security monitoring manufacturer, which focuses on export, and also achieves the effect of natural offsetting of different currency values."
9. Chen, Yalan 陳雅蘭 (2005-08-19). "安控股王陞泰今轉上市前七月每股稅前盈餘9.39元股價表現強勢" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. C4.
  The article notes: "安全監控類股股王陞泰科技（8072）今（19）日將轉上市交易，並得辦理融資融券交易，上市有價證券數量為6,077萬股，上市代號將沿用原上櫃的代號。陞泰昨天股價表現強勢，終場上漲4元，以155.5元收盤，成交量901張。"
  From Google Translate: "Wang Shengtai Technology (8072), a security monitoring stock, will be transferred to the IPO today (19th), and will be able to handle margin trading and securities lending transactions. The number of listed securities is 60.77 million shares, and the listing code will continue to use the original OTC code. Shengtai's stock price performed strongly yesterday, rising by 4 yuan at the end, closing at 155.5 yuan, with a turnover of 901 contracts."
10. Chen, Yalan 陳雅蘭 (2007-09-23). "陞泰流通性轉低介入宜謹慎" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. B5.
  The article notes: "陞泰今年一度攻上318元歷史新高，近期股價向下修正，單日成交量也跌回千張以下，短線支撐點在263元，本益比已接近同業，流通性又轉低，雖有基本面支撐，但介入宜慎。永豐金證券發表最新報告建議「中立」，預估今明兩年每股稅後純益各為15.4元和17.7元，陞泰雖為國內安控類股龍頭廠商，明年業績仍可望成長三成，但股價已反映利多，目標價283元。"
  From Google Translate: "Shengtai once hit a record high of 318 yuan this year. Recently, the stock price has been revised downwards, and the daily trading volume has also fallen below 1,000. The short-term support point is 263 yuan. Surface support, but intervention should be cautious. SinoPac Securities released the latest report recommending "neutral". It is estimated that the net profit per share after tax will be 15.4 yuan and 17.7 yuan in the next two years. But the stock price has already reflected the bullish trend, with a target price of 283 yuan."
11. Chen, Zhiping 陳志平 (2010-10-07). "陞泰科技爆醜聞監視器窺女外勞外勞控訴：監視器大廠浴廁窺視畫面列印主管傳閱" . United Evening News (in Chinese). p. A1.
  The article notes: "生產高科技監視器的陞泰科技公司，爆發以自家生產監視器24小時監視女外勞的醜聞。 ... 陞泰科技是生產高科技監視器排名世界前20的股票上市公司，10名出面控訴的外勞，目前都已被安置，"
  From Google Translate: "Shengtai Technology Co., Ltd., which produces high-tech monitors, broke out the scandal of using its own monitors to monitor female foreign workers 24 hours a day. ... Shengtai Technology is a listed company that produces high-tech monitors and ranks among the top 20 in the world."
12. Xu, Jiajia 許佳佳 (2010-10-08). "陞泰安控業全球前廿大" . United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A2.
  The article notes: "監視器大廠陞泰科技在一九九九年到兩千零八年，連十年創下每年每股盈餘超過十元的佳績，除了穩坐台灣安控產業的「第一把交椅」外，在全球也擠進前廿大。陞泰科技成立於一九九六年，同業稱它「市場拳王」，因為它經常出奇不意地給競爭對手「一記重拳」 "
  From Google Translate: "From 1999 to 2008, a major monitor manufacturer, Shengtai Technology achieved an annual profit of more than 10 yuan per share for ten consecutive years. It also ranks among the top 20 in the world. Founded in 1996, Shengtai Technology was called the "market champion" by its peers because it often gave competitors a "heavy punch" by surprise."
13. Huang, Fuqi 黃福其; Tang, Yawen 湯雅雯; Zheng, Hongbin 鄭宏斌; Yang, Junjie 楊竣傑 (2010-12-17). "烏龍爆料？認定不公？企業偷窺女外勞查無實據不罰" . United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A10.
  The article notes: "上市公司陞泰科技被指控以監視器全天候窺視菲律賓女外勞，主管除監看女外勞的出浴畫面，還列印出來品頭論足；北縣勞工局認為查無實據，裁定陞泰未違反兩性工作平等法，免罰。 ... 勞工局兩度召開就業歧視委員會，都查無實據。"
  From Google Translate: "The listed company Shengtai Technology was accused of spying on Filipino female foreign workers with monitors around the clock. The County Labor Bureau believed that the investigation was groundless and ruled that Shengtai did not violate the Gender Equality in Work Act and was exempted from punishment. ... The Labor Bureau convened the Employment Discrimination Committee twice, but found no evidence."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AVTECH Corporation (traditional Chinese: 陞泰科技股份有限公司; simplified Chinese: 升泰科技股份有限公司; pinyin: Shēngtài Kējì Gǔfèn Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī) to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Despite the above, this is a company therefore GNG/NCORP applies and that means we need content that isn't simply regurgitated company info. Some of the selections above are puzzling - for example there is several that extract a sentence which appears sandwiched between quotes from the founder/chairman (e.g. GVM.com. It is obvious that these articles are merely regurgitating company info and there is no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing 20:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: AVTECH Corporation passes Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.
AVTECH Corporation is a publicly listed corporation. Chen 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChen2007 (help) verifies that Bank SinoPac's SinoPac Securities division has issued multiple analyst reports about the company.
AVTECH Corporation received significant coverage in Xu 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFXu2010 (help) and Wu 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWu2005 (help), articles that do not include any interviews with people affiliated with the company.
AVTECH Corporation received negative coverage in Chen 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChen2010 (help) and Huang et al. 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHuangTangZhengYang2010 (help) about accusations that the Taiwanese company spied on Filipino female workers.
The company has been covered in the Taiwanese media for nearly a decade.
Here are more sources about the subject:
1. Wagstaff, Jeremy; Wu, J.R. (2016-11-08). "RPT-After cyber attacks, Internet of Things wrestles with making smart devices safer". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-04-20. Retrieved 2023-04-20.
  The article notes: "For a sense of that challenge, take AV Tech Corp, a once proud giant among CCTV camera makers whose 1990s building in a Taipei suburb hints at the gap it must overcome between hardware factories of a decade ago and those of today. AV Tech, which made the 2008 Forbes list of companies to watch, has seen competition from China shrink its profits to about a tenth of what they were then. Like its peers, AV Tech has moved its products online, connecting its cameras and the digital video recorders that store the footage on to the Internet so users can access them remotely.
  The article further notes: "While researchers have not found any AV Tech devices in a botnet, they have pointed to lapses that make them vulnerable. In a blog post, confirmed by his company, Gergely Eberhardt of Hungarian security firm Search-Lab said he spent a year trying to alert AV Tech to 14 security holes in its products. He got no response, and last month released his findings.
2. Kovacs, Eduard (2016-10-11). "Serious Flaws Expose AVTECH Devices to IoT Botnets". SecurityWeek. Archived from the original on 2023-04-20. Retrieved 2023-04-20.
  The article notes: "Taiwan-based AVTECH offers a wide range of IP cameras, CCTV equipment and network recorders. AVTECH is said to be one of the world's largest video surveillance product manufacturers. It should be noted that the firm whose products are vulnerable has no connection to US-based AVTECH, which provides environment monitoring solutions. According to Search-Lab researcher Gergely Eberhardt, all AVTECH devices and all firmware versions are plagued by security holes, including flaws that could allow attackers to take complete control of vulnerable cameras and recorders."
There is more than enough significant independent coverage for the company to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.
Cunard (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Response Not even close. To date, there is zero significant independent coverage of *the company* which meets our criteria for establishing notability. I'll mention that I can usually access analyst reports but I am unable to find anything appropriate for this company - if someone can provide a reference for a particular report from a particular firm, I should be able to access. Otherwise note that not all listed companies meet our criteria for notability. Looking at the sources:
  - You've plucked three sentences from the first article which is about the totality of the content about the company in the article. It is barely more than a mere mention-in-passing, not even a proper description of the company, and it is not in-depth information about the company. CORPDEPTH says the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered and also that Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The subject is the *company*, not the products, not botnet attacks on IP cameras which may or may not be made by the company and which may or may not be vulnerable.
  - You've similarly plucked 4 sentences from the SecurityWeek article, the opening couple of paragraphs, which like the other article is barely a mention-in-passing and has no in-depth information about the company. Same flaws as above once you understand that the subject is the company and it is this subject that requires in-depth Independent Content.

I don't see anything here that meets our criteria. HighKing 11:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Bank SinoPac's SinoPac Securities division published an analyst report about AVTECH Corporation in September 2007.
In my previous comment, I said that Xu 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFXu2010 (help) and Wu 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWu2005 (help) provide significant independent coverage about the company. I further said that Chen 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChen2010 (help) and Huang et al. 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHuangTangZhengYang2010 (help) covered criticism about the company's labor practices. These sources meet Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.
I disagree with the description of Wagstaff & Wu 2016 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWagstaffWu2016 (help) and Kovacs 2016 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKovacs2016 (help) as not providing significant coverage of the company: Coverage about the security flaws in AVTECH's devices is negative coverage of AVTECH's work and practices as a company. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Coverage about the products is just that - about the product. Security flaws in products do not reflect work and practices about the company, that's WP:SYNTH. HighKing 20:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that these sources are about the product. But even when excluding those two sources, there is significant independent coverage about the company in sources like the September 2007 analyst report from the Bank SinoPac's SinoPac Securities division as well as coverage in the Taiwanese sources Xu 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFXu2010 (help), Wu 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWu2005 (help), Chen 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChen2010 (help), and Huang et al. 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHuangTangZhengYang2010 (help). Cunard (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Cunard analyst reports are gold so long as it isn't simply reguritated financial reporting from an annual report - can you post a link to the Sept 2007 analyst report so I can check? I've already commented on the other sources here. None meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 16:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep Wtf! Clearly notable as a major technology company. Above sources found by Cunard are significant coverages. So passes WP:GNG. (Redacted.) 49.237.39.216 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the sources. I agree that there is significant coverage, especially in the many years of coverage in the offline Taiwanese sources I provided, which strongly establishes notability. I've redacted part of your comment since there is no evidence for the statement. Cunard (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per HighKing eval. Sources are company profiles, mentions, promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 09:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 19:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete As per HighKing's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Darshan (2004 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN film UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. There are not many sources covering Kannada films of the early 2000s as shown by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Annavru (2003 film) (which was nominated for deletion by me). Regarding the broken Deccan Herald review link, remember per Misplaced Pages:V, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. Most sources presented are coverage of the film, not passing mentions (like this). @Kataariveera:@Kailash29792: Please share your opinion. DareshMohan (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:TOI. The Times of India is not regarded as a WP:RS. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Its not that clear cut, it is between no consensus and unreliable and during the RSN discussion it was not refuted that non-controversial content such as film reviews were still acceptable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep: It could benefit from just a few more sources added. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bruxton (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Not to mention that many listed in "Cast" are notable people. Shankargb (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Noncommutative geometry and/or Alain Connes. Consensus to merge the article was clear, where to merge it less so, but that doesn't have to be decided at AfD. – Joe (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Connes connection

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Returned without improvement. The JAMS article is a good source, but the other two are primary. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 10:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep: The notability seems clear, mainly because A Connes is a very prominent mathematician and thus what he touches more or less is always notable. This seems to be the case the notability gets inherited. The Cuntz and Quillen reference is certainly a secondary source. I have also just added one. It seems there are enough refernces for me (but I am sure more can be added if necessary). In any case, I don’t see a need for the deletion. —- Taku (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think Connes connection might be possible to merge into Noncommutative geometry. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The noncommutative geometry article is about a general topic and so the detailed discussion of connections would be too distracting. It makes sense to isolate technical stuff from a general article. —- Taku (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
If it's too distracting, it is possible that create the Connection (noncommutative geometry) by splitting it from the noncommutative geometry and include "the connection in the sense of Connes" in that article. By the way, wikipedia has a Connection (algebraic framework). --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about Connection (algebraic framework). The article is mainly about the commutative case although it has a section that discusses Connes connections in the simplest case (without a reference to cyclic homology). I don't think that article is a good place to discuss a connections in noncommutative geometry, though (quite distracting to those who are interested in the commutative case). -- Taku (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to noncommutative geometry. This notion might well be notable (though that does not seem at all obvious to me) but in any case there is currently no content in the article so until someone cares to add some it might as well be a one-line mention+references in that article. jraimbau (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a stub so obviously the assumption it can be developed further. In fact, I have just added definition. -- Taku (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this makes much of a difference from before, it's just a formal definition without context. Keeping the stub might be useful if there was some substantial content, but as there is a natural target for a redirect which in addition provides a better context, this seems like a much better option. jraimbau (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
There are more substantial stuff that can be added. I don't think the redirect is actually useful: someone is interested in the definition of a Connes connection cannot find it there (and like said above, I don't think it's a good idea to add such materials to a overview article). Keeping the stub is useful to add more substantial stuff later, since such stuff is inappropriate in the noncommutative geo article. -- Taku (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Why would it be a bad idea to add the briefest content about this extremely niche notion to the more general article, instead of keeping an essentially empty stub? jraimbau (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
First, my apology for a late reply (was busy in real life). To answer, as I said above, the materials look rather technical. The references cited in the stub have some discussion of, for example, relation to projective modules. That type of materials looks quite out of place to put in the non-commutative geo article. Just because some articles are short, that doesn’t mean the short articles should be merged into some longer articles. It’s like some small niche battle should not be discussed in the history of Japan article, while that battle itself may be sufficiently notable for it to have a Misplaced Pages article. —- Taku (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 02:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep. Stub articles serve as seeds from which new articles can grow. The growth that occurs is more natural, and leads to better articles, than trying to take one giant article, and splitting it into pieces. How do I know? Once upon a time, more than ten years ago, I made the mistake of splitting a good, but much too long article on projective geometry. It seemed like a good idea, but I am ashamed of the result to this day. It was butchery. The elegant flow and coherent development was converted into factoid pieces-parts, sterile flotsam and jetsam of mathematics. Stubs are seeds. Plant them. Let them grow. It might take a decade or two. That's OK. I've been here for 18 years. Taku has been here almost that long. Don't let WP turn into an old-growth forest, stately and majestic, but with nothing new growing. It's all good. It will work out in the end.

(Oh, full disclosure, as I am posting as an anon: I've created and edited a dozen or two articles about the more basic aspects of connections. This includes revising and expanding articles created by Taku. Although this article might seem "specialized", I don't see non-commutative geometry going away or being sidelined. It's been growing for decades, and will continue to.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep or Merge to Alain Connes. // Timothy :: talk 12:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What merge target is best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep, don't merge, for reasons given above. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Guerillero - looking at the options, the best merge target would be Alain Connes.Onel5969 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment 2: I think the notion of Connes connection meets the WP:GNG, but I wonder if it is common to call it a Connes connection (WP:COMMONNAME). So, that's why I call this notion: "connection in the sense of Connes", also I think that's why jraimbau says who needs to add some context. Next, I think that Taku is saying that since Connes is a very prominent mathematician, so it's okay to call this notion a Connes connection. So, I don't think the merge target for this article is Alain Connes.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that regarding a merge target the best one would be noncommutative geometry (i think notability of the concept is at least unclear in the present form of the article). jraimbau (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge to noncommutative geometry. I think this article provides the best context for the text. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

R. L. V. Ramakrishnan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

R. L. V. Ramakrishnan

Inadequately sourced stub biography of a living person of an Indian actor and dancer. The one reference is neither reliable, because it is Times of India or independent, because it is an interview. There is also a draft, which has slightly more information but is still insufficient, which was in article space before it was (correctly) moved to draft space by User:Onel5969. This article only states that he exists. The draft states that he is an actor, but does not prove acting notability. The draft should be left alone for improvement, and this stub should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Film, and Kerala. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The subject is a renowned dancer from the state of Kerala and winner of Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award, one of the state's top art awards. I could find significant coverage on a google search 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I also found an academic paper "Men in Mohiniyattam: an ethnographic study on gender binaries", which quotes the subject multiple times. I can make slight improvements on the article based on the information from the draft and from the Malayalam Misplaced Pages article. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep: I have expanded the article from one sentence. He is notable as a Mohiniyattam dancer who won Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award. The article is now better sourced and passes WP:GNG. He also meets WP:ANYBIO because he received a well-known and significant award. Thilsebatti (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Still doesn't appear notable, the acting parts appear minor. Dancing isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: He is a winner of the state's highest art prize and he is notable as the first famous male exponent of the art form as cited in multiple references. His work is cited and covered in academic journals including one paper I mentioned earlier titled "Men in Mohiniyattam: an ethnographic study on gender binaries". Malayala Sahityam (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Oaktree b, did you go through the sources, particularly the one from The Hindu ? He is not known as an actor, but as the first notable male exponent in Mohiniyattam from Kerala. Most importantly he is the recipient of Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award. Comfortably passes two criteria listed in WP:ANYBIO.
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times (winner of Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Award)

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field (The journal Men in Mohiniyattam: an ethnographic study on gender binaries has a detailed study on his contribution to Mohiniyattam).Thilsebatti (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Before dismissing the award as "only a state award" remember that Kerala has a larger population than, say, Australia or the Netherlands. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 19:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

KEEP: per Malayala Sahityam and Thilsebatti. Kerala Sahitya Academy Award is a major award so he certainly meets ANYBIO criteria. 103.165.167.187 (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY. It has been improved enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep as a recipient of a major award, and the improvements to the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Although the quality of the article can certainly be improved (as it currently used the same source for two separate citations, lacks infobox, etc.), its notability is pretty well established with the cited sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Probably in no small part due to lengthy argumentation from the primary authors of the article discouraging participation by uninvolved editors. – Joe (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Idiopathic chronic fatigue

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. CFS activists have tried for years to characterise CFS as myalgic encephalomyelitis, because they reject outright any suggestion of anything other than a purely physical cause. Medical consensus is that etiology is unknown. There is no ICD code distinguishing the two conditions. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge to "chronic fatigue". It's basically the same thing, not meeting enough "check boxes" to be officially diagnosed as the main disease state. There are no medical journals that differentiate the two; patients seem to want it to be it's own disease, but it isn't, as far as the medical community sees it. This can change of course, at present, it's still lumped together. ---- Oaktree b (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

*Delete The fake ICD and WHO references to resources that never use the term speak volumes. If there is anything worth wile it can be added to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random person no 362478479 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please mark up/highlight these references.- Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Amousey Sorry for the late response, I did not get a notification. I'm referring to the fact that the ICD and WHO references talk about "fatigue", not "idiopathic chronic fatigue". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

See below for my changed vote. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - See Idiopathic chronic fatigue#Differential diagnosis from chronic fatigue syndrome - New section added to clarify]. Requester's info on ICD being the same codesis not correct when I checked the footer templates. ICD-11 ICF is MG22 (Signs and symptoms category) but CFS/ME/Postviral Fatigue Syndrome all share 8E49 in Neurological - 8E49 which states ICF is excluded, ICD-10 codes were in the R category for ICF and G for CFS, ICD-9 codes also in different categories. CDC Fukuda 1994 defines ICF and CFS separately with different criteria stating ICF is diagnosed only when CFS criteria are not met. There's nothing on the talk page about concerns. No reverts have been placed for POV, and multiple different editors have been working on this over several years so I can't see why this is an AfD. Multiple sources in new section include exercise testimg differences See :Talk:Idiopathic_chronic_fatigue, source from Nature, Cochrane trial, and others state different prevalence, different criteria, TNF-alpha differences, and different diagnostic codes. Diagram on CDC Fukuda1994 (pdf) might be useful, co-authors imclude Simon Wessely and Michael Sharpe. Keep separate due to the different ICD codes, and different diagnostic criteria, very different prevalence, different age at onset, very different recovery rates and the number of editors separately editing.. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment The ICD references do clearly indicate that certain other fatigues, including CFS, are classified elsewhere; but that's not the claim they are being used to support within the article—with neither of the linked conditions actually stating idiopathic chronic fatigue at those codes. CFS has a specific index trail: syndrome, fatigue, chronic and the tabular entry explicitly states chronic fatigue syndrome at G93.3 (in the case of ICD-10). ICF, on the other hand, does not. Nor are there essential modifiers at the fatigue index term for chronic or idiopathic. However, I don't see how any argument relying on the ICD alone to keep ICF separate from CFS, wouldn't be accidentally arguing for the target of a merge/redirect to be Fatigue instead. Little pob (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge to article Fatigue. The present Idiopathic chronic fatigue article cites adequate sources that state "chronic fatigue" and "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" are differential diagnosises from Chronic fatigue syndrome. Therefore the proper place to merge the material would be in a subcategory to the article on "fatigue". Ward20 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - See Amousey‘s comment above. As he notes, the Idiopathic chronic fatigue#Differential diagnosis from chronic fatigue syndrome section addresses differential diagnosis from CFS which was laid out in CDC’s 1994 Fukuda CFS and ICF case definitions. The suggestion to merge with CFS is a non-starter. Merging with fatigue#chronic, a two sentence subsection of Fatigue doesn’t make sense because ICF (1) is too big a topic and will bloat the fatigue article if this separate article isn’t maintained. And (2) it’s very important to maintain clarity about distinctions between the various terms as they are so easily confused as is shown in the OP and others’ conflation of CFS and ICF. ICF is an extremely common syndrome/cluster of syndromes and Total illness burden is immense. It’s extremely important as an entity in order to timely diagnose those who fit in the category of ICF AND also extremely important to be aware of for differential diagnosis of ME/CFS and the very many other serious illnesses which include prominent fatigue as a symptom. If this page were removed, the understanding of those learning about ME/CFS would be impacted and would almost certainly very negatively impact the large numbers of people who have ICF and don’t see it and thus will probably continue to be unaware of its existence. The article could use some work and I have edited it a bit recently and plan to edit a bit more. Some more WP:MEDRS cites would help. Another editor Amousey has recently been making a lot of edits to the page.JustinReilly (talk) 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Still opposed Further info: User:Ward20 suggested a merge with another page. I added neurasthenia differences which may have been what the OP was thinking of (neurasthenia vs CFS coding being a previous controversy but not on the Controversies about chronic fatigue syndrome page. I added clarification that ICF is physical (neurasthenia was classified as psychological but was deprecated). To ICD classification raised by
But you can't get round the fact that this is a term coined by militant "ME, never CFS" activists, promulgated by them in an attempt to erect a distinction that the medical community does not make, and not appearing in medical texts. When you google the term, the first hit is Misplaced Pages, followed by the ME Association and MEPedia, both "ME, never CFS" activist websites.

This is a WP:POVFORK, written entirely by you and Justito, both long-term proponents of the "ME-never-CFS" agenda on Misplaced Pages.

In fact, Google lists only 103 unique hits for this subject in the decade or so since it first appears, mostly from activists, quacks or in predatory journals.

It is not Misplaced Pages's job to blaze the trail in changing public perceptions of medical subjects, however outraged you might be by the slowness of the medical profession to reflect your viewpoint. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This is definitely not a POV-fork and the term ICF was not coined by activists, AFAIK. The POV is neutral and consistent with that of relevant articles such as that on CFS. As we’ve noted CDC’s ICF case definition was drafted and published by its Fukuda committee which in the same paper debuted CDC’s Fukuda CFS definition, by far the most used CFS definition until CDC released its latest definition, IIRC, in 2017. Keiji Fukuda was hardly a fringe activist, later serving as WHO’s “flu chief” and assistant director-general.

Yes, @Amousey wrote this article 3 years ago and I am the only other person who’s added substantially to it, beginning recently. I don’t know anything about Amousey, so can’t speak for him, but I am not a “long-term proponent of the ‘ME-never-CFS’ agenda on Misplaced Pages.” Off of Misplaced Pages, I am a proponent of using the term ‘ME’ and not using the term ‘CFS,’ as are the vast majority of patients. On Misplaced Pages I don’t think I’ve ever taken this position. If I have it would have only been many years ago when starting and not knowing the Misplaced Pages guidelines well. On these two threads on the name change I have strongly supported a change to “ME/CFS.” I do not support a change to any term that does not include “CFS,” since that is not currently nor has it ever (except prior to around 1986) been supported by the sources indicated in the relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines; so, on Misplaced Pages my position is hardly “ME-never-CFS.”

The ME Association is a pretty conservative, mainstream organization which has historically been unpopular with many patients for not being activist enough. It’s a British organization and in Britain the term “ME” is in much more common usage than in the US as historically “ME” has been the term most used there, including among non-patient laypeople and the media.

The article is not a POV fork. CFS is a particular syndrome characterized by a particular constellation of signs and symptoms. There is consensus that it is an organic, not a psychiatric illness as National Academy of Medicine strongly emphasized in the 2015 report.

On the other hand ICF is chronic fatigue of unknown cause- it’s etiology is unknown and it is not caused by any disease or syndrome including CFS. Almost all syndromes (and even some diseases) do not have known etiology (ie root cause). For example, we do not know the etiology of MS or ALS. Fatigue is a symptom of both diseases and is prominent in MS. This does not mean that MS and ALS are synonymous with ICF; quite the contrary. Thus, contrary to what @JzG claims, it does NOT matter that the etiology of CFS is unknown or whether the etiology is psychological or physical. The existence and recognition of ICF implies NOTHING about the etiology of CFS including whether it is physical or psychological and nothing in the ICF article does either. It simply says there are some cases of chronic fatigue that neither the etiology is known nor are caused by any recognized disease or syndrome, including CFS and the thousands of other syndromes and diseases which feature chronic fatigue, some with unknown etiology (root causes). Thus, @JzG’s central reason for deletion is entirely without merit.

I do not know how widely the term is used in medicine or by whom the term was coined or if it was ever championed by patient activists- not to my knowledge and I was pretty highly aware of what’s going on in the patient community for quite a while- probably a total of about 15 years.

I am certainly open to hearing arguments about it not being in wide enough usage. I will look into what you are saying about that, but I will not be able to do that until around May 20th. I’d ask that the discussion be left open until the end of the month so I can get a chance to check this out and respond (though even now, without being able to look into it, I still Oppose deletion). JustinReilly (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@JzG And holding that ME should be used to the exclusion of CFS is not the mark of an activist patient; as noted earlier, it’s by far the most mainstream position among patients.

A survey by The MEAction Network in 2016 found that the majority of patients prefer the name myalgic encephalomyelitis (69% said “ME” was an acceptable name) to other names including ME/CFS (28% said acceptable) and chronic fatigue syndrome (only 6% found acceptable).

See p. 27:

https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/mecfs/rfi-patient-organizations.pdf

Most ME NGOs use “ME” only in their names (66 (53%) of 125 total ME orgs worldwide by my count) including almost all of the major ME orgs. Some ME orgs use ME/CFS (38 (30%)) and a few use CFS (10 (8%): most are relatively small Italian or Spanish orgs). A few more use CFS/ME (5 (4%)), CFIDS (3 (2%)) or Neuro-Immune Disease (3 (2%)). None use SEID or CF. JustinReilly (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In light of @Ward20’s excellent comment of May 2, below, I take back my request for more time to review @JzG’s claims re origin of the term and prevalence of use in the medical literature. @Ward20’s Google Scholar search showing 1,140 results shows that “ICF” is clearly in wide enough usage in medicine to merit an article. JustinReilly (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 19:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't care anymoreMerge into Fatigue The article has been improved, questionable information has been amended and further references added. Based on this I no longer vote "delete". I think merging the important information into Fatigue would be appropriate. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply to Guy: That doesn't seem to correlate when I look at WP:MEDRS sources on Google, Google Scholar and PubMed.

The earliest source I found using "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" was published in January 1988, by Ed Byrne (neuroscientist). He used?, coined?, "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" apparently before "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" was defined or named in March 1988. He wasn't a "militant "ME, never CFS" activist" by any means.

After the three most popular hits for "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" from Google, there is a long list of about 95 sources for "Idiopathic chronic fatigue", mostly medical journal articles. But that search is for the most relevant results. Repeating the search with the "omitted results included" link at the bottom of the page displays many more. Many articles are dups, but I don't know how to separate them. A Google Scholar search shows About 1,140 results.

It seems a bit unfair to call the ME Association a "ME, never CFS" activist website" when it was founded in 1976 when the nomenclature for the illness was ME.

Seaching for "Idiopathic chronic fatigue" in PubMed gives about 60 journal results (I don't know why this differs from Google Scholar), and browsing review sources, a good comparison is: "Fatigue is a commonly experienced symptom, but not all patients with fatigue can be diagnosed as having CFS. A proportion of patients with fatigue have chronic fatigue. A sub-proportion of these patients have idiopathic chronic fatigue, i.e. when there are no psychiatric or medical disorders to explain the chronic fatigue. CFS comprises an even smaller part of these patients in whom fatigue is associated with other symptoms characteristic of the disorder."

A 1997 article, authored by Simon Wessely, states very much the same: We have employed three definitions of chronic fatigue as follows: (1) Chronic fatigue(CF) was defined as all cases of fatigue exceeding the predetermined cut-off with a duration of 6 months or more. It thus included all cases of idiopathic chronic fatigue and CFS. (2) Idiopathic chronic fatigue(ICF) was defined as chronic fatigue failing to meet the criteria for CFS. (3) Chronic fatigue syndrome(CFS) was defined according to the operational criteria."

From the literature review, it is my understanding that fatigue, chronic fatigue, idiopathic chronic fatigue and Chronic fatigue syndrome are all defined differently, and "ME activists" were and are not involved in how these definitions are used in the medical literature. Many of these studies go back to early reseach and may not use the present ME/CFS nomenclature used by CDC, NHS and other medical sources. Ward20 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's used occasionally in the literature, yes, as I noted above. But rarely, as per the tiny number of unique hits. It is a term that the ME-Never-CFS community are trying to push. They may succeed, they haven't yet, and it's very much not our job to help them. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't care anymore Comment I don't know what this ME/CFS debate is about, but I don't see the relevance to this article. The problem with the article is that ICF is neither an illness, nor a syndrome. It's just an isolated symptom that lasts over six months. There is no need to list dozens of conditions that have to be excluded for ICF. All known conditions have to be excluded. That's the definition of "idiopathic". Seriously anyone who understands the words "idiopathic", "chronic", and "fatigue" knows practically everything that is to know. Add some information about epidemiology and that it is sometimes treated with counselling or antidepressants. Voila, that's it. All the relevant information can be merged into the Fatigue article. There is no justification for a stand-alone article. If you take out the unnecessary information it boils down to this:

Idiopathic chronic fatigue (ICF) is fatigue with no known cause that lasts at least six consecutive months and is not accompanied by connected symptoms. There is no approved drug therefore treatment options are typically limited to counseling or antidepressant medication. Between 30% and 50% of patients recover within one year. ICF affects between 2.4% and 6.4% of patients, with females more likely to be affected than men. Onset is typically over 50 years of age.

~~That's not an article, that's barely a stub. Therefore delete the article add relevant information to Fatigue. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)~~ -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments: I don't see any consensus, either from a medical perspective or the Misplaced Pages community. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. There are some dodgy arguments here: subscriber numbers on a social media service aren't, by themselves, an indicator of anything, and even for notable entertainers we still need enough secondary sources to write an article. That said, there also appears to be legitimate disagreement about some of the media sources provided. Although the "delete" arguments are marginally stronger, in my view, there isn't enough of a tilt either way to constitute consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Brett Cooper (commentator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. Zero independent third-party RS biographical coverage that I could find; total third-party cites are two questionable collections of gossip. There just isn't enough here to sustain the existence of a WP:BLP on the site. PROD removed without action to address the issues. David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Politics, United States of America, California, and Washington. David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Conservatism. Spiderone 11:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep looks like there's a decent split between RS commentary on her as a child actress in TN , , , and others covering her in the context of her more recent advocacy , , , , . Note that I've filtered out anything from any source Cooper has worked for, so while some of these are clearly partisan sources, at least a couple of them clearly cover Cooper in a critical manner. If this isn't kept, it's an odd case of TOOSOON, as this individual appears to be gaining prominence. I suppose a merge to The Daily Wire might be appropriate as an ATD, but that isn't the only thing she's known for. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

MMFA, opinion pieces and Fox aren't usable for notability, Insider and The Week is passing mentions - so there isn't more than the bare fact about her present career. But that's more NACTOR than I could find, thank you - is it enough to swing WP:NFILM? Not sure it passes, but are there any more of the solid RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Keep looks bit young, but with a billion youtube views in very quick time, maybe just a blind spot for the old timers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi Ho Kora (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG, BIO. Sources found in BEFORE and already in the article: Source eval:

Youtube comments section :: 1. "About The Comments Section with Brett Cooper". YouTube.
Fails IS, "About the Author" page with linked articles :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Brett Cooper | People". Foundation for Economic Education. 2015-08-07. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
Who is style promo :: 3. ^ "Who Is Brett Cooper Daily Wire? Age, Misplaced Pages Explored | Business Guide Africa". 2022-03-29. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
Who is style promo :: 4. ^ Peake, Amber (2022-03-24). "Who is Brett Cooper, the Daily Wire host with a 'younger perspective'?". HITC. Retrieved 2023-03-23.

David Gerard addresses the sources above, none of them are IS RS with SIGCOV.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: It has multiple issues to resolve this. CastJared (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep She is a prominent YouTuber and commentator for The Daily Wire. --rogerd (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- But do we have the RSes to say anything about her? And where's the RS evidence that she's "prominent" as you claim per WP:ENT? - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep She's rather famous, and is gaining in popularity. She also works for a very prominent news organization (The Daily Wire) --AnonymousEditor95 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 02:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep I'd vote to keep because her channel has over two million subscribers. Besides, she seems to be a rising star as an actress. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and User:TimothyBlue above, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:JOURNALIST. The three short posts above for keeping all appear to hinge on:
- the notability of her employer (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED on Misplaced Pages)
- her YouTube subscriber count (but see WP:NYOUTUBER, as prior consensus is that this also doesn't confer notability).

She could become notable eventually, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. No objection to User:Jclemens' suggestion of a merge to Daily Wire as an ATD, and a tag of redirect with possibilities. Uncle Spock (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge with the Dailywire article. She seems to be a rising star and may become notable eventually. But for now, she doesn't seem to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. So for now, in my opinion, the best thing to do with her article is to merge with DailyWire, where she works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashik Rahik (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge with Dailywire, no need to say WP:ILIKEIT. CastJared (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2023‎ (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist die to the late merge arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 19:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete I can't see the need for the merge, she's not well known enough, based on the limited coverage of her in RS. She's not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep Brett Cooper runs a YouTube channel with over two million subscribers. She's affiliated with the media conglomerate The Daily Wire, and she is an actress who still books roles today. Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Dswitz10734 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
But she fails to satisfy notability under WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. Number of YouTube subscribers, affiliation with any network, doing acting, not strong reasons to keep, since there's no reliable sources to back her notability. Ashik Rahik (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Now have enough notability. CastJared (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep - sources indicate notability per WP:GNG. Prominent Youtuber with 2+ million subscribers. Of course the article needs some improvements. But no reason for deletion:BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources that are intellectually independent of her and each other, so she passes WP:NBASIC. These include the sources about her acting career provided by Jclemens, and this doesn't appear to be a BLP1E situation. That being said, the article needs significant work to recenter it around the things that she is notable for and to actually incorporate the sources described in this AfD; the current state of the article is well below our sourcing standards for living people. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete - I am open to reconsidering my !vote if significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources that are intellectually independent of her and each other are found, but my attempts to find sources with sufficient quality and depth to support notability under any guideline have not been successful. I do not think interviews with her and her mother, e.g. in Chattanooga Times Free Press (2010), Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012), and what appears to be a press release/announcement Chattanoogan.com (2012), as well as an interview with her and her employers Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012) while Cooper was a child actress that have been identified in this discussion are sufficient to support a standalone article. Similarly, a brief mention of "creators Insider spoke with" describing her as an example of a "rage-baiter" and a basic description of her as a "conservative talking head for The Daily Wire with her own TikTok channel" (Insider, 2022), and The Week stating "A new show starring former child actress Brett Cooper aims to capture a Gen Z audience on TikTok and YouTube" (2022) does not appear to provide substantial support for WP:BASIC notability. The MMFA source (2023) has slightly, but not much more detail, noting only that she replayed another commentator's statements on her show, and was one of several commentators who "promoted their anti-trans brand of chocolate." Due to the lack of significant coverage about her in independent and reliable sources, it is not clear if the 2021 FoxNews coverage is about her, but it is also a brief report about one video, and would be limited support for notability. Her own opinion article published on HuntingtonNews.net also does not support notability. This article appears to be WP:PROMO and an advertisement masquerading as an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Which all of them are removed, including the birth date per WP:DOB. CastJared (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This article appears to be a means of promotion because there does not appear to be significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources that are intellectually independent of her and each other. According to WP:NOT policy, "Misplaced Pages articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Um, the !votes of Keep, Delete, and Merge are crashed. This caused a severe dispute. CastJared (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep - sources indicate notability per WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The citations are the following:
- Chattanooga Times Free Press (2010)
- Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012)
- Chattanoogan.com (2012)
- Chattanooga Times Free Press (2012)
- Insider,
- 2022
- MMFA source
- 2021 FoxNews
- HuntingtonNews.net
But some are not reliable. CastJared (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete As per source analysis by Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Merging with The Daily Wire article is suggested for me. But delete is just an opinion. CastJared (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete Sources don't pass GNG and I can't find anything better. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Having a large YouTube fanbase doesn't necessarily fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The currently cited sources are pretty questionable on reliability, and not much else can be found about the subject other than trivial mentions. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Bir Uttam Shaheed Samad School and College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article by a single purpose account has been sent to draft several times, but as far as I can tell in a WP:BEFORE search it fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Uncle Spock (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Uncle Spock (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment article creator has now admitted paid editing at their talk page. Uncle Spock (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Spirit Lost

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. I was able to find where one scholar covered this film twice in her works, but unfortunately wasn't able to find much more. I was hoping I could save this one, as I remember seeing this on the shelves of my local video stores all the time and it made me a bit nostalgic for those days. Ah well. If someone can find more, I'm open to changing my mind. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the excellent work by Cunard! Well done! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ to Nancy Thayer - No clue why the current source for 1944 movie is in article, but in Thayer's article I found a mention of a source that mentions the book being adapted to this movie (Contemporary authors. Volume 155 p.400). There is more on next page about the book and it mentions and quotes specifically a review of book in Kirkus Reviews . If we can find more reliable sources, could perhaps be an article for both the book and/or movie. Noticed the two book sources added as I was writing this, but as mention same author. WikiVirusC 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Noticed a review in Neema Barnette's article, from Indianapolis Recorder - "`Spirit Lost' a low-down psychological thriller" June 10, 1995 . Saw other articles that mention film, mostly in context of Tim Reid producing it, a fact which never seemed to make into this or his article. A few described it as erotic film although these were before or while it was in production. Without additional reviews I'll still lean redirect. WikiVirusC 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep - With the additional sources and reviews found by Cunard, I will switch over from redirect. WikiVirusC 12:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep. Sources added to the page or mentioned above by ReaderofthePack and WikiVirusC attest a certain notability.— MY, OH, MY! 08:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Spirit Lost Reviews". TV Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.
  The film review provides 439 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "Pokily directed, the script is so talky that viewers will feel as if they've been possessed by the spirit of a flock of magpies. Instead of a sexy ghost saga, viewers get characters who do nothing but moan, surmise, and postulate endlessly; the scenes of supernatural copulation are a bust, mainly because leading man Leon brings little to this ghost-fete except a solid physique. Amateurishly acted by a cast defeated by a flimsy script and zombie-esque direction, Spirit Lost delivers the zing of an infomercial about the best way to rid your home of pesky poltergeists."
2. Books authored or co-authored by Robin R. Means Coleman:
  1. Means Coleman, Robin R. (2011). Horror Noire: Blacks in American Horror Films from the 1890s to Present. New York: Routledge. pp. 182–183. ISBN 978-0-415-88019-0. Retrieved 2023-04-27.
    The book notes: "Spirit Lost (1997), like Embalmer, was no blockbuster. However, it was the rare horror film that was nearly an all-female affair. Spirit Lost is based on a book of the same title by Nancy Thayer. ... The screenplay was written by Joyce Lewis, who changed the New England location to Catch Hook Island, presumably much farther south. The independent straight-to-video "Black horror" film was directed by Neema Barnette, the rare (Black) female horror film director, who has an extensive television-directing portfolio. Spirit is interesting in that it moves "Black horror" out of the urban to the seaside while recuperating out-of-the-Caribbean Voodoo myths."
  2. Means Coleman, Robin R.; Harris, Mark H. (2023). The Black Guy Dies First: Black Horror Cinema from Fodder to Oscar. New York: Saga Press. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-1-9821-8653-1. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "With a significantly smaller budget and a greater reliance on soft-focus lenses, Neema Barnette’s Spirit Lost (1996) likewise is a supernatural drama in which the protagonist becomes entwined in a codependent relationship with a ghostly presence. In this instance, the victim is an aspiring painter named John (Leon. Just Leon.) who moves with his wife, Willy (Regina Taylor), to a small coastal town to focus on his art. What he ends up focusing on, though, is the thirsty, oft-naked woman in his attic. Turns out she’s the lovelorn spirit of a slave woman named Arabella (Cynda Williams), who was spurned by her White owner/lover in favor of a “proper English woman?” She died of a broken heart—or possibly rickets, since vitamin D supplements were hard to come by in the eighteenth century."
3. "Spirit Lost (Live, 96) D Neema Barnette, S Joyce Renee Lewis, P Tim Reid". Psychotronic Video. No. 25. 1997. p. 11. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Internet Archive.
  The film review provides 128 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "John (Leon), a painter, and his wife (Regina Taylor) move into an old house on an island. The seductive widow ghost of Arabella (Cynda Williams) shows up in mirrors, windows and in John's dreams and nightmares. She eventually lures him into moving into his attic studio while she tries to scare his now unhappy and pregnant wife away. Williams has nude scenes, but the sex is mostly undercover. The Black Entertainment Network Production (based on a novel) is more concerned with black women supporting each other, so don't expect the usual exploitation. With Juanita Jennings as a Jamaican nurse and James Avery. It was made in Virginia. The producer was Venus Flytrap on WKRP. "
4. "'Spirit Lost' to be shot in Neck: Errotic horror movie set in White Stone". Richmond Times-Dispatch. 1995-04-16. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""Spirit Lost," an erotic horror film, is scheduled to begin filming in White Stone on May 1, said film publicist Kenneth Reynolds. No cast has been announced yet. ... The story involves an art dealer and his wife who move to a new house -- shot in White Stone, though the town will be fictional. A beautiful ghost inhabits the attic studio and initiates an affair with the man, which leads to dire consequences."
5. "Video Review: 'Spirit Lost'". Entertainment Weekly. 1997-04-04. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.
  The film review provides 86 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "hough Spirit attempts to satiate — combining a beautiful black couple, an exotic island locale, obsession, African-American folklore, and even the requisite spirit-meets-human sex scene — blah acting by Leon and Cynda Williams and a contrived ending prevent this gumbo from bubbling beyond a simmer. C-"
6. Mustazza, Leonard (2006). The Literary Filmography: 6,200 Adaptations of Books, Short Stories and Other Nondramatic Works. Vol. 2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 521. ISBN 0-7864-2471-0. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "4221. (Nancy Thayer, 1988). A painter and his pregnant wife move from an apartment in Boston to an old house on Nantucket island, where the ghost of a beautiful woman tries to lure him from his wife. Adaptation: Spirit Lost (Live Entertainment, 1996). Dir: Neema Barnette. Scr: Joyce Renee Lewis. Cast: Regina Taylor (Willy), J. Michael Hunter (Harrison), Cynda Williams (Arabella). DVD, VHS."
7. Nowlan, Robert A.; Nolan, Gwendolyn L. (2001). The Films of the Nineties: A Complete, Qualitative Filmography of Over 3000 Feature-length English Language Films, Theatrical and Video-only, Released Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1999. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 510. ISBN 0-7864-0974-6. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Robinson quits his job and moves with his wife Taylor to a remote seaside house where he can pursue a career as a painter. After discovering she is pregnant, Taylor begins to see apparitions of Williams, a 200-year-old spirit. The latter entices Robinson into a sexual relationship and seeks to get rid of Taylor."
8. "'Spirit Lost' a low-down psychological thriller". Indianapolis Recorder. 1995-06-10. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Hoosier State Chronicles.
  The article notes: ""Spirit Lost" is the third feature film to be produced by veteran actor Tim Reid, his United Entertainment and BET Films. ... "Spirit Lost" is the story of a "brother" who is caught between two women, one of whom happens to be a ghost. Directed by Neema Barnette, the film stars Regina Taylor of "I'll Fly Away" and Leon from "The Five Heartbeats." It is based on a novel by Nancy Thayer."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spirit Lost to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I therefore withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to All TV. History remains should there eventually be enough to spin out Star Mississippi 13:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

All TV News

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Unsourced except for Facebook page. // Timothy :: talk 17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect until such time as there is sufficient need for a standalone article. When All TV starts a news service, it can be a subsection of our article on it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Draftify for now, move to draft until proper sources are added. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Arise (Sepultura album). Star Mississippi 13:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Under Siege (Regnum Irae)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NSONG. No objection to redirect to Arise (Sepultura album). // Timothy :: talk 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. Spiderone 20:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to Arise (Sepultura album): Article has zero sources and I found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Salvio 20:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Reál Sangria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an old article that never cited any independent reliable sources. The only citation was to a company website that appears to have been taken over by a Chinese spam site, and that link was just removed. The product does exist, and there are articles that mention it, but I am not seeing anything complying with WP:Golden Rule or WP:GNG standards. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, and Spain. Spiderone 20:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete - Spam with no citations. Blatant advertising. Reál Sangria is a specific brand. Products section tells you the various sizes and types you can purchase. Distribution sections lists the retailers where you can purchase the product. — Maile (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete Promotional material of a non-notable brank of drink. No citations included. Alan Islas (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Shooting of Kinsley White

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SBST and WP:GNG. While the shooting is sad and unfortunate, it also is a WP:INHERENT concern due to the event happening around the Shooting of Ralph Yarl, which it has received coverage alongside. Unless it gains substantially more notability, it should be removed for now. Wikicontributor93 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 26. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG at this point.BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. For clear reasons in nomination. I'm by nature an inclusionst, but this is a no from me. Moncrief (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF but this is 100% as notable as the Shooting of Ralph Yarl with similar circumstances and similar national coverage. I'm literally following that article as a template. It makes no sense that one is notable and the other is not. --FlameRetardant (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Or the Shooting of Payton Washington. In all three cases it's a non-fatal shooting of a civilian by another civilian. In the case of Yarl and Washington the information about the suspect was allowed to be included. In those two cases there is no attempt to delete the article. Can someone tell me the difference between Ralph Yarl, Payton Washington and Kinsley White that only the article about White has garnered so much hostility? Please? --FlameRetardant (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Similar circumstances doesn't determine notability. Searching Google News: shooting of Kinsley gets ~300 hits, Washington and Yarl get ~3000 hits each. So it is not similar coverage at all, its 10x less there for example. WikiVirusC 13:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Where are the minimums specified? Is 3000 a lot? The minimum? Is 30 the minimum? If so, 300 would be 10x the minimum. Just trying to get a sense of how this works. --FlameRetardant (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no minimums or set numbers. I only gave those numbers as you compared it to those two as if it was outlandish that those weren't nominated for deletion, when they both have a very noticeable difference in coverage compared to this. WikiVirusC 12:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete - not enough coverage for WP:GNG. WikiVirusC 13:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete, also note that User:FlameRetardant who created the page was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and POV pushing. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 17:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Gary Roberts (radio broadcaster)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was written heavily as advertisement. The main reason for this proposal is that the main contributor has made extensive edits almost entirely and only on Australian radio pages and especially those that are included in this page. This may lead to speculations about serious violations of terms of use, including possibly paid contributions. Chiserc (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 20:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTINHERITED. Much of the page is a mess, which concerns who is bosses were, and how much they paid for the stations. I'm confused by what would remain. Did he work the highly sough-after drive time slot? Bearian (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete I see coverage in non-independent sources like Mediaweek. But nothing to push him over the line for WP:BIO. Possible WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Thomas Dekker (actor). ✗plicit 12:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Whore (2008 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except ImDb and its mirrors, I can not find any source except one of dubious quality (see page TP) -- the only one actually stating they saw the film); or a simple mention of the title on a fan site, or in a listing of Megan Fox's worst films. Is this a ~~real~~ project that never came to be finished/released ~~or even to start~~? Is this a mere hoax? A bit of both? The promotional poster that has spread on the Internet and alleged cast and content do not seem to fit together and I came to believe this could be a hoax taking advantage of the existence of the work of a much earlier Thomas Dekker, The Honest Whore. The page was created before ~~supposed~~ filming was over; that was in April 2008 by User:Tabercil, who is still the main contributor to the page so far. — MY, OH, MY! 16:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — MY, OH, MY! 16:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete: OK... I found the following:

A a 2008 article from The Hollywood Reporter that mentions that Dekker is working on the film and it'll released in October.
A September 2008 Boston Herald article that briefly mentions filming wrapped. It's paywalled, but the Google preview mentioned this movie.
Gawker. Obviously not a RS, but it's also from 2008
Videogum/Stereogum, also from 2008.

The general gist I got from this was that it exists, but was never actually released. There were plans on releasing it via film festivals in October 2008, but I can't find any mention beyond the above announcements that the film exists. I suppose it's possible that Dekker and company released this to a small film festival, where it went unnoticed, but it's highly unlikely. There are enough "big name" people involved to where someone would have at least mentioned it was screening. Megan Fox had just released Transformers the year before and Dekker was on several well known TV shows AND it would have been Dekker's first film, so any film festival coordinator worth their salt would have hyped that up pretty solidly. It's more likely that Dekker chose not to release it for one reason or another.

So, not a hoax but also not a notable film. At best it could be listed on Dekker's page, but it doesn't need its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Apparently Netflix has an entry for this movie , whether it was ever available in any region or was just a placeholder, I don't know. Also found Variety article covering Dekker, where he talks about the film. Ellwood, Gregory. Oct 2, 2008. Right now I'm between delete and redirect to Thomas Dekker (actor). WikiVirusC 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirect seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Co-production (approach). Salvio 19:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Co-production (society)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page content has been merged into Co-production (approach), page needs to be deleted and redirected to that location. The page has been very muddled for a long time, with two articles covering very similar/over-lapping concepts, the merged article is now much neater. This has been proposed on the talk pages of both articles for some time. Mountaincirque 14:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to the merged article. Attribution is required for the content that was merged into Co-production (approach).
Snow Redirect – Why do we even need an AfD for this? small jars tc 16:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It was PRODed 15 years ago so an admin told me I had to AfD. Mountaincirque 09:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Social science, and Technology. Spiderone 20:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Commment to @Mountaincirque: Just clarifying that the merge is complete? If so, I'll close this discussion and help with tidying up attributions. Joyous! Noise! 04:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great, I have merged the content and references from here into Co-production (approach), though that article will need a bit of tidying and improvement. Mountaincirque 08:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Redirect per above. // Timothy :: talk 20:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad Salih Bengali

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few references, and they only mention this person very briefly. Notability is not inherited, so who his predecessors and successors were does not denote his notability. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, I tried my best to find anything about this scholar in Nuzhat al-Khawatir as claimed in the article that he has been mentioned by Abd al-Hayy Hasani, I did not find anything in any of the six volumes (quite possible that it is in the later two volumes). I then tried searching in this book, but I couldn't locate anything. I would appreciate any help. Ishaq Bhatti gives a paragraph to our subject here and refers back to two sources, of which I analyzed six volumes of the one. I will return back with a deeper search. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete as per the nomination fails WP:GNG, and no significant coverage. বাক্যবাগীশ (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Let me know if something is found. // Timothy :: talk 22:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of House episodes#Season 5 (2008–09). ✗plicit 14:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Lucky Thirteen (House)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect: No sources state its notability. Worth keeping the link as a redirect to List of House episodes Season 5 LemonberryPie (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to List of House episodes#Season 5 (2008–09). Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 22:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Ray Cappo but without prejudice against merging some of the material, nor against revisiting the independent notability of the subject at a later time. Arbitrarily0 08:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Better Than a Thousand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Started a PROD saying there was no usable coverage, and to be fair to the editor who removed it, that was a mistake. Between the six other-language Wiki articles, there is a collection of some coverage. You've got this article about some album reissues, this PunkNews review, this Visions review, and an AllMusic bio. Now I know that the second and fourth of those are considered reliable, though I'm not familiar with the other two. No Echo does have multiple writers but not much else I can find that would suggest definite reliability. There's a German-language article for Visions which seems to suggest it should be reliable, but no guarantees. Now I posted that PROD a few days ago so I don't remember what I saw in my BEFORE search, but clearly it wasn't anything beyond this, and this looks like the bare minimum. I think it also meets WP:NBAND#5, but that's still a pretty weak case in my mind. Personally, I'm not convinced this is enough. Perhaps it would serve better merged into a section of Ray Cappo's page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington, D.C.. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete for lack of sourcing. I suppose we could !merge if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Weak Keep as per the AllMusic staff written bio and the Punknews review linked in the nominator's statement. Not opposed to a merge to Ray Cappo, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Art Muscle Magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the article flags, also just doesn't seem to be notable. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Wisconsin. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

JKFZ Cambridge International School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient secondary sources in English to fulfil WP:NSCHOOL requirements. Page has previously been nominated for CSD. There are no sources given on the page, with the exception of a link to the official school website at the bottom of the page in external links, which appears to be no longer available. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Insufficient secondary sources in English – is this meant to imply that there are sufficient non-English secondary sources? If so then keep. small jars tc 18:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
"Insufficient secondary sources in English" was bad wording on my part and was not meant to imply sufficient non-English sources. Nonetheless, a search using the schools Chinese name "江科附中" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), yielded largely links to marketing sites and blogs, with almost no results when searching Google News. 33ABGirl (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete: Fails GNG. Ping me if independent (not government) reliable (not promotional) sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 11:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to The Sylvers. ✗plicit 14:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely insignificant song from largely insignificant group. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to The Sylvers. Despite what the nomination says, this is an album and not a song. The article has a link to AllMusic, but that is just a bare listing page and not a pro review of the type that is necessary here. I managed to find a few results in Google Books for tomes that list the album as something released in 1984, and it is briefly mentioned in a book called A Touch of Classic Soul 2: The Late 1970s as an unsuccessful late release by a group that had been more popular in the previous decade. That's not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and I can find no other informative coverage of the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to The Sylvers as an alternative to deletion. // Timothy :: talk 22:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to United Malays National Organisation leadership elections. Salvio 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

1978 United Malays National Organisation leadership election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't cite any sources, unfinished article. Move to draft? JJLiu112 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Malaysia. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
That seems to be the case for 1975 United Malays National Organisation leadership election, 1984 United Malays National Organisation leadership election, and others. I'd suggest redirect all to United Malays National Organisation leadership elections where the results are/can be summarized in prose. The exact number of votes seems less notable. Reywas92 18:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Arab Media Watch

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much zilch sourcing or sign of significant coverage in independent reliable media sources. Seems to pretty obviously fail WP:CORP. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United Kingdom. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete - whilst there are mentions, even in academic journals, of this organisation I am not seeing the comprehensiveness needed to meet the GNG. There are a fair number of bits and pieces about Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi so maybe a section on that page should be fleshed out a bit and possibly have a redirect. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Dal Khalsa UK

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:POVFORK to portray Dal Khalsa (International) as a freedom struggle. It has nothing unique that warrants a new page. I suggest to delete this page and merge whatever information we can find a source for (this povfork is also virtually unsourced). >>> Extorc.talk 14:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sikhism, and Punjab. Spiderone 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. The most decisive argument is that the organization, insofar as it exists, has no notability outside of the article in which it is already treated. Significant coverage of the organization itself has yet to be demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 13:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Holy Jihad Brigades

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage outside of news reports on a 2006 kidnapping, which itself has a pretty dubious WP:SUSTAINED case. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: In hindsight, I suppose a redirect to 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping would be just as valid and potentially more useful than deletion here.Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:THREE notability is not temporary, subject made international news, , , . Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 22:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@TimothyBlue: So the kidnapping itself has coverage at 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping - the question is more if any of the sources about that cover Holy Jihad Brigades itself as an organization above and beyond just trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Would you consider reconsidering based on the WP:ORGCRIT failings here? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. There are not multiple reliable sources establishing notability. So this unambiguously fails WP:ORGCRIT. As a matter of fact there is only one source in this article, which is WP:1E and from 20 years ago. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 08:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep: Multiple BBC articles on this incident. Meets SIGCOV. WP:NTEMP. Jack4576 (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the one incident, which has its own page: 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. That's why it's a bit of a WP:1E-type issue. None of the sources really discuss the organization itself in-depth, per WP:CORPDEPTH, only trivially re: the event. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that page. Withdrawing Keep vote. Jack4576 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

My bad possibly - might have been an idea to include that link in the opening comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete - The organisation is known only for this incident and therefore all coverage on this page is a duplication of the coverage at 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. In reality, as is often the case where a previously-unknown terrorist organisation comes to light, it appears to have been a front organisation (in this case for the Army of Islam) and therefore likely doesn't exist. Coverage in the references appears to be of the incident, not of the organisation. Indeed the organisation is only mentioned in passing in these articles meaning it lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep per this, this, this, this, this, and this. Enough sources available to meet the notability criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
These are all one sentence mentions. These are all the very definition of trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree - these are all passing mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Ultimately there is a significant question-mark over whether this group even exists - there was only ever this one incident (which we already have an article about), and the US claims it was just a front for another organisation (which we already have an article about). That makes this article a potential WP:V-fail. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a name so generic that it could easily have been a mistranslation or translation error that simply got replicated across sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, throw in WP:NOTNEWS as well: we're getting on 20 years from when the last ever known event that this potentially-non-existent group was ever linked to occurred, and there's no long-term coverage. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep per TimothyBlue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. No notability outside this context. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clear. If other articles need to be deleted, feel free to raise them. Star Mississippi 14:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Bangkok

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Just a bunch of routes with no reason why they are notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, Asia, and Thailand. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep NOTDIR doesn't mean NOTLIST. Meets WP:NLIST since multiple of it's sources cover the group as a whole. Otherwise transwiki to Wikivoyage as an ATD. small jars tc 17:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Another argument in favour keeping: the lede can demonstrate the notability of bus routes in Bangkok on it's own. You could blank the entirity of the list content and deletion would still not be justified. small jars tc 11:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. WP:NOTDIR applies as there is only one bus route that has its own article. Most of the sourcing is primary sources (timetables) and there is a good amount of sourcing from what appears to be self-published sources (I can't view these references). Wikivoyage is the place for lists of this kind. Ajf773 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
About the lack of independent articles, consider the advice of WP:BUSOUTCOMES: Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable; recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common. Having lists of bus routes without their own articles appears to be standard practice. small jars tc 12:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
BUSOUTCOMES is not policy. WP:NOT is policy, which contains reasons defined in this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:OUTCOMES is a well maintained explanatory essay that indicates that your interpretation of NOTDIR is not standard. You seem to think that lists exist for solely navigational purposes. small jars tc 11:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe that they exist for "solely navigational purposes." Actually, my problem is also not notability. This falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL and would fit much better on Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Having read the policy, I see no relevance of NOTTRAVEL to this case beyond the name of the shortcut. It describes the context of an article about a place, not a list, and what it prohibits is subjective recommendations, not just anything which might be useful for getting around. small jars tc 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe a better page to use here is WP:ITSUSEFUL. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"It is useful" is an argument to avoid, not in itself a grounds for deletion. If you treat it as such, it would seem you have reached the bizarre point of arguing against keeping an article on the grounds that the article might be used by someone. small jars tc 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not arguing that it should be deleted per WP:ITSUSEFUL. I am arguing that it does not meet WP:LISTN, and reads a lot like a travel guide, therefore it also falls under WP:NOT and should probably be transwikied to Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we're going round in circles:
You don't have a problem with notability, but you do with NOT: Actually, my problem is also not notability. This falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL

You don't have a problem with NOT anymore, so you cite ITISUSEFUL: Maybe a better page to use here is WP:ITSUSEFUL

You don't actually have a problem with ITISUSEFUL, but you do have one with notability: I am not arguing that it should be deleted per WP:ITSUSEFUL. I am arguing that it does not meet WP:LISTN

small jars tc 20:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
My problem lies with WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. If you can prove this passes both, I will be impressed. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I have already explained that NOTTRAVEL is irrelevant, and that the article has enough RS covering the set to pass LISTN, and each time you seemed to agree with me until you didn't. As for NOTDIR, it's essentially another way of describing a non-notable list, so it's the same argument as LISTN. small jars tc 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, most are primary, and two are from the local city newspaper, which is really only worth one point for WP:GNG. And judging by the fact that bangkokbusclub.com has "wiki" in the url, it is almost certainly unreliable. This leaves 2 notability points, which is not enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES, offers really only inferential information about the outcome for AfD's. It's not policy and it has no value in discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
It has value in that I have used it to infer that your argument relies on a distorted interpretation of NOTDIR, and that keeping lists is a standard alternative to having tons of semi-notable bus route stubs. If non-policy pages had no value in AfD discussions, we wouldn't keep them as subpages of WP:AFD. small jars tc 10:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

On top of sources like the BMTA website that list individual buses, it's easy to discover that there is enough news coverage of Bangkok bus routes to pass GNG and even some academic coverage . small jars tc 08:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think this reads like one, I have to ask: have you ever read a travel guide? small jars tc 20:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep It's actively maintained and properly referenced. No other English sources out there are as accurate as this. Bus routes in Bangkok should be a notable topic on its own. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Bangkokbusclub.com has all the hallmarks of being a fansite. I couldn't even view those webpages either way. Lots of the other sources are just timetable links. Ajf773 (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
It's bad practice to decide that a source has all the hallmarks of being a fansite when you can't even view it. I suspect the reason it's unavailable is that we're in the wrong region, but wayback machine works none the less. It looks like it might be at least partly wiki based, but it's not the most important source in terms of NLIST anyway. What matters is the notability of the set, not the items. small jars tc 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Notability is determined by the presence of reliable, independent, secondary sources. Wiki's are self-published and therefore none of those. And it is a big verifibility issue if a source is cited but cannot be reached any longer. Ajf773 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
If we actually acted in accordance with the idea that sources some people can't access aren't usable, we'd have to ruin countless articles relying on paywalled academic sources. This source is not key to demonstrating to notability of the set anyway. small jars tc 11:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The "no other English sources" part of your argument is WP:ITSUSEFUL, and you are more than welcome to write one on Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't the core of their argument but you're still using it to attack them. God forbid we mention that an article is actually worth reading when considering whether or not to delete it! In fact, it seems that happening be useful for a practical purpose like travel is treated as a reason for deletion in its own right. I imagine that an list of ant species in Bangkok would have an easier time, since such a purely academic concern would remove suspicions that the article might be read out of anything other than an armchair. small jars tc 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I would probably nominate a "list of ant species in Bangkok" as that fails WP:LISTN, and I do not have any bias against buses. Properly referenced, actively maintained, those are good for an article, but do not make it meet WP:LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Properly referenced" is the only factor in making a list LISTN! small jars tc 16:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You can have all of the entries in a list be verified, but that does not make the overall list meet WP:LISTN. For an example, see here. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

As I have said, it is the references to sources covering the group as a whole that matter. The entries do not contribute to notability. small jars tc 20:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Contributors to this and other recent discussions about bus route lists should be aware of previous mass AfD for bus routes that was closed as keep. small jars tc 12:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
They should also be aware that several bus route lists, including some of the ones in that mass AfD, have been deleted. The main reason the mass AfD failed is because they tried to delete too many at once. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Every article needs to be assessed on its own merits. Most recently the List of bus routes in Lahore was deleted in another discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Looking at Talk:List of bus routes in Bangkok, this appears to be a valid split from Bangkok Mass Transit Authority. Garuda3 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe that this should be covered here or at Bangkok Mass Transit Authority. It is unencyclopedic information better suited for Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Not every related bus routes in any city (Examples: Singapore, New York City, and Los Angeles), can have a separate article for bus routes. CastJared (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused by your argument. Both List of bus routes in New York City and List of bus routes in Singapore exist. Garuda3 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait, why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Why not them? CastJared (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Why not them? small jars tc 15:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Valid spinoff of the previous levels and parent of the next level, that currently only has bus 8. For the others the hierarchy stops here and folks correctly pointed out: most individual lines are not notable. List is referenced and upkept. It provides important context and detail. ~~The fact that Singapore is both a large city and a country does not hurt either.~~ gidonb (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The same applies to List of bus routes in London. However, see the same reason for London Buses route 969. CastJared (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

CastJared, London is of course not a country yet is an even larger city. Both lists are very valid entries! gidonb (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Even New York City as well. CastJared (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. All of the above! gidonb (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Guys, this is for Bangkok, not Singapore. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Bangkok is even larger! gidonb (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and due to weak sourcing. The majority of the citations are to the website of Bangkok Mass Transit Authority which operates or contracts other companies to operate many of these buses (not an independent source). The next most common source is Bangkokbusclub.com, which appears to be a bus fansite (according to the archived versions I have seen, as access appears to be currently forbidden) and has not been shown to be a reliable source. Yes, Misplaced Pages does have lists of bus routes in some other cities, but lists of bus routes in yet other cities have been deleted at AfD as well, because some of those lists have not been worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete: fails both NLIST, there are not IS RS discussing this as a group; and fails CLN/AOAL, there is not navigation purpose served by the article. // Timothy :: talk 11:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ben Phillips (rugby union)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not seeing any indication that this player meets either WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG; no significant coverage outside of stats and hiring announcements as would be expected of a popular sport. Of course, he might be getting drowned out by a (popular?) YouTuber of the same name, from the same damn city... which is why I'm going with AFD instead of PROD to get some more eyes on it. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, United Kingdom, and Wales. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't seem to be enough here for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - also not seeing enough for GNG Spiderone 13:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Not enough coverage.

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Abu Abdo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to Misplaced Pages:Notability.-- فيصل (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. فيصل (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brennan, James (2020-11-17). "'Aleppo: A Taste of the City That Was' by James Brennan". Fine Dining Lovers. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  From https://www.finedininglovers.com/who-we-are, "Fine Dining Lovers is an international digital platform, supported by S.Pellegrino and Acqua Panna, the waters accompanying the best dining experiences around the world. ... Launched in 2011, we are a multimedia magazine publishing original videos, podcasts, long-form articles and more. ... The magazine’s editorial staff is based in Milan. Stories are also written by a freelance network of more than 50 people covering the globe."
  "The article notes: "Down a dusty lane, a few people had gathered outside a signless cafeteria. It was Al- Fawwal, and the man behind the counter was Abu Abdo. He was making ful medammes, which wasn’t a great surprise. Because that’s all he had ever made. Every day, from 3am to just gone noon, for the best part of 50 years. ... Abu Abdo’s ful medammes consists of large fava beans, slowly simmered in copper urns until soft and mushy, served with red chilli paste, garlic and a choice of either lemon juice or tahini. That’s it, no alternatives. You either like lemon or tahini or you don’t like Abu Abdo’s ful. Watching him work is to see a man truly in his element, like Steve McQueen behind the wheel of a Shelby Mustang. Fluid, graceful, elegant. His body moves like mercury as he goes from tahini, to beans, to chilli paste to olive oil. Splashing them into bowls or plastic bags in a flowing, liquid ballet of functional movement. You worry that if he stops he’ll seize up and crumble into a billion pieces. He’s as much a part of his restaurant as the dented worktops and the big blue gas canisters that fire up his ful. Take away Abu Abdo and the walls would crack and the heavy wooden shutters would bang themselves closed in resistance."
  The article notes: "Abu Abdo’s really is one of the last true bespoke dining experiences - you know exactly what you are going to get, you know who’s going to cook it, and you know you can’t quite get it like that anywhere else. It’s been in the community for 150 years, handed down from father to son with a responsibility to keep on doing what they’ve always done."
2. Dryef, Zineb (2016-12-30). "C'était au temps où Alep vivait… Des souks à s'y perdre, une cuisine raffinée, des communautés cohabitant dans une relative harmonie… Ainsi allait la vie à Alep, avant les bombes. Une ville riche et vivante qui n'était pas pour autant une cité idéale" . Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Haj Abu Abdo Al-Fawal only served one dish, ful moudammas. Dried beans that he cooked overnight in large copper pots, seasoned with lemon, sesame cream, a drizzle of olive oil and Aleppo red pepper flakes. The best foul moudammas in the world. Behind the counter of the eatery founded by his grandfather in 1885 in the Christian quarter of Jdeideh, he poured generous ladles of this creamy white puree from seven o'clock in the morning to an uninterrupted procession of Alepps who left with the preparation in a plastic bag. ... This stopover at Abu Abdo's, like the peaceful evenings, the boring mornings, the simple life, without fearing for oneself or for his family, is now only a pre-war memory. From Aleppo before the deluge of fire. "It was exquisite," recalls Anissa Helou, a Lebanese-Syrian cookbook author."
3. Datian, Christine Vartanian (2023-02-16). "Recipe Corner: Memories of Aleppo's Favorite Foul (or fūl)". The Armenian Mirror-Spectator. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes: "Aleppo’s Abu Abdo, for example, is a ful parlor specializing in ful, a typical breakfast meal: fava bean soup with a splash of olive oil, lemon juice and Aleppo’s red peppers. This family business has been open for over 70 years. “On a recent day, the owner ladles ful into plastic bags for the to-go crowd — workers as well as businessmen — because it’s the best in town. Abu Abdo has become a kind of trademark for the ful in Aleppo,” says Samir Akkad, a regular customer and a native of the city.”"
4. Brennan, James (2010-09-01). "Syria seen through the eyes of a foodie". Gulf News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes: "It's 6.30am in Aleppo, and the cobbled backstreets of the Christian neighbourhood of Al Jdeideh are all but deserted. The morning's first rays of sunshine are blearily spreading across shuttered shopfronts, which remain firmly shut. Except for one. Hajj Abdo Al Fawwal is a tiny restaurant that's been feeding the same dish to Aleppo's early risers every day for the last 150 years. And a small crowd is gathering in anticipation of today's fix. The dish is ful medames, a traditional Syrian favourite of soft-boiled fava beans, served either with tahini or lemon juice and drizzled with red pepper paste and olive oil. But it isn't just the locals who start to clamour for one of the few tables in the cramped dining room - a few inquisitive tourists have joined the ranks to experience one of Aleppo's legendary dining institutions. In the 55 years that Abu Abdo has been serving his famous ful, he's never quite seen so much interest from foreigners. "
5. Amos, Deborah (2010-01-05). "Food Lovers Discover The Joys Of Aleppo". NPR. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes: "One, known as Abu Abdo, specializes in ful, a typical breakfast meal: fava bean soup with a splash of olive oil, lemon juice and Aleppo's red peppers. The family business has been open for more than 70 years. On a recent day, the owner ladles ful into plastic bags for the to-go crowd — workers as well as businessmen — because it's the best in town. Abu Abdo has become a kind of "trademark" for the ful in Aleppo, says Samir Akkad, a regular customer and a native of the city."
6. Azzam, Itab; Mousawi, Dina (2017). Our Syria: Recipes from Home. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-9053-0. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Abu Abdo's, the ful maker's shop in Aleppo, is a landmark that is more than a century old. Abu Abdo himself passed away a long time ago, but generations of his children and grandchildren have passed on the secrets of the trade and kept the business going. Before the war, if you wanted a takeout, Abu Abdo poured the ful into a plastic bag and tied it up, but we won't judge you if you use Tupperware!"
7. Allen, Brooke (2011). The Other Side of the Mirror: An American Travels through Syria. Philadelphia: Paul Dry Books. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-58988-068-9. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The working-class neighborhoods have their own delicacies, and Aleppo even boasts a Seinfeldian Soup Nazi: Abu Abdo, where people line up first thing in the morning with their own plastic containers to take away portions of the restaurant's wildly popular ful, fava bean soup."
8. Helou, Anissa (2010). Heddings, Kate (ed.). Food & Wine annual cookbook 2010: an entire year of recipes. New York: American Express Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-60320-120-9. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "One of Anissa's favorites is Abu Abdo's in the Christian quarter. "Abu works nonstop from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., deftly ladling ful from a large copper jar into bowls or plastic bags," she says." This is her adaptation."
9. ""حج عبدو الفوال" لم ترحمه آلة الحرب في سورية فمضى بأطباقه إلى مصر" . Alraddar (in Arabic). 2013-02-06. Archived from the original on 2013-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes from Google Translate: ""Hajj Abdo Al-Fawal" was not spared by the war machine in Syria, so he went with his dishes to Egypt "Abu Abdel-Fawal" intends to open tomorrow, Thursday, a bean shop in Egypt, after the destruction of his famous shop in the Al-Jadida neighborhood of Aleppo during the clashes that took place months ago last year between members of the Syrian Arab Army and militants opposition."
10. Oughton, Julie, ed. (2011). Ultimate Food Journeys: The World's Best Dishes and Where to Eat Them. London: DK. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7566-8600-0. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "... for one of the city's most traditional and heartwarming experiences, have a breakfast of ful medames at Abu Abdo's tiny restaurant in Jdeideh. The old man has been serving the same dish of fava beans, tahini, lemon juice, and red pepper paste for around 50 years, and he's a legendary character in the city."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Abu Abdo to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per Cunard and WP:HEY. gidonb (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Vladyslav Vlasiuk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every third-level staffer working under Zelenskyy is encyclopedically notable. Biruitorul 12:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Can someone please do a source review? I need to know about the Ukrainian language sources before I can decide. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment It is a mystery to me why a Misplaced Pages editor would invest its time in creating a Misplaced Pages article about this (I agree, indeed) third-level staffer when the current (top level function) Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Serhiy Lysak (since 7 February 2023) does not have his own Misplaced Pages article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

PS (to avoid being called a hypocrite) I made a start with the article on Serhiy Lysak; although this is not the best use of my time today... real life issues and whatnot... Obviously some help for the Misplaced Pages page for Serhiy Lysak is really welcome... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

PS2 Governor of Odesa Oblast Borys Voloshenkov and Governor of Zaporizhzhia Oblast Yuriy Malashko (also) do not have there own English language Misplaced Pages page... These people are encyclopedically notable while the encyclopedically notablility of Vladyslav Vlasiuk is a lot more questionable... Actually I find that someone took the time to create a Misplaced Pages article about Vladyslav Vlasiuk while ignoring the fact that 3 Ukrainian governors had no English language Misplaced Pages pages absurdity in motion... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment At least two sources come from notable Ukrainian newspapers. Much of the article mentions sanctions against Russia and other war-related stuff, so the article needs some cleaning up. It could be kept as a stub or transferred to the Ukrainian version.--Bexaendos (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- The Kyiv Post article, at least, doesn’t establish notability. It’s a human-interest story about an up-and-coming young lawyer, of the type that every newspaper runs all the time, without that translating into notability. — Biruitorul 04:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  - Question time Is Senior Advisor to the President of the United States Mike Donilon not just as much a third-level staffer as Vladyslav Vlasiuk? Why has Mr. Donilon establish notability (his talk page does not talk of a request to delete his page) and Vlasiuk not? I know that the USA is worldwide more important then Ukraine and that this is the Misplaced Pages for the English speaking world. Has Donilon does have a page here on English Misplaced Pages because he lives in the English speaking world and thus should not have a page on Ukrainian Misplaced Pages while Vlasiuk should have a page on Ukrainian Misplaced Pages? Or do you get a page as a Senior Advisor to the President if this President is of a mayor world player? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    - This guy isn’t even adviser to the President of Ukraine; he’s adviser to his adviser. — Biruitorul 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    - Yes, you are right... I was not very attentive... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete, this person is not noteworthy enough. As Biruitorul points out here above an adviser to an adviser of a President is not noteworthy and the rest of Vlasiuk life and career is also not making him interesting enough for his own Misplaced Pages article (although a translation and move to Ukrainian Misplaced Pages might be, as Bexaendos sugested earlier here, a good idea). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Angelo Agrizzi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Meets BLP1E. There does not appear to be an article about the event, but his 1E relates to Zondo Commission#Angelo Agrizzi where they have an entry already. Unneeded CFORK for BLP1E where the information is already in another established article. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 02:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose deletion, but I wrote it, so naturally! In my view this is not WP:BLP1E. In particular, Agrizzi is not a low-profile individual. He is certainly notable primarily because of his testimony to the Zondo Commission, but the whole thing has always been quite personalised e.g. . Additionally, there are "spin-offs" in several directions, notably one criminal trial involving four Bosasa directors and Linda Mti and another in which Agrizzi alone is accused of bribing an MP . It makes sense to me that we might cover these events in separate articles (testimony in commission article, trial one in Bosasa and Mti articles, trial two in the MP's article). However, having read each of those articles, many people will ask who this Angelo Agrizzi guy is. And in precisely that vein, at this point public interest in Agrizzi transcends his testimony (and even the Bosasa corruption) and extends to his life and personality, e.g. . Basically, for the last five years, there is an Agrizzi article in every third newspaper you read in South Africa, and that's exactly the kind of situation in which I think an encyclopaedia entry would be helpful, if only to tie it all together. However, I also see the opposing argument and acknowledge that the article right now is a straightforward content fork (I just wanted to get the ball rolling with a stub). Jlalbion (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Yet again we have an article at AfD because of bias towards our newspapers. Sites like news24.com, timeslive, etc are our equivalent of the NY Times et al. They are reliable sources. I can understand why this could look like a BLP1E but I think the sheer amount of coverage trumps that Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Timeslive is the online version of the Sunday Times and there is also plenty of coverage in the Mail & Guardian and Daily Maverick, the other top papers. News24 is not a newspaper but is probably the most reputable news agency in the country at the moment. As SAns have pointed out in these threads before, if these sources are not judged to be high-quality then there is no prospect for Wiki to cover contemporary South African politics at all. Jlalbion (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Just reiterating that the sources listed above: News24, Mail and Guardian, Times Live and others are WP:RS. Park3r (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, and South Africa. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per Gbawden. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep - Sources indicate notability per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per the above. A very notable figure in recent political history of South Africa, and citeed repeatedly in every major news source in South Africa in that time. Zaian (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Coralline

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No valid entries for this alleged disambiguation page, only three partial matches/adjectives and an entry whose linked article doesn't even mention the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Retarget to Coral, which should discuss all of the topics currently on the page, if it does not already. BD2412 T 23:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Guys, not everything that looks like a partial match is a partial match. As evident from the article Coralline algae (whose topic, by the way, is unrelated to corals), the term "coralline" is used as a noun (most often in the plural) to refer to algae in this group. So that's one valid entry. Other meanings can be verified from, among others, the Oxford English Dictionary, which has two relevant pages: and . "Corraline" can mean 'resembling coral' or 'coral in colour'. As a noun, it can further refer to the rock that coral reefs are made from (which is unrelated to Coralline rock), and (in a usage that is probably outdated now) to organisms that resemble corals, like bryozoans. – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep if Coralline Rock and Coralline Algae are partial matches, then what isn't a partial match with them? The words "algae" and "rock"? Some of these may be adjectives but there's nothing else to disambiguate the articles by. This is therefore helpful. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep A useful disambig between the rock and the algae- "between a rock and a squishy place" perhaps? :) 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 13:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Madhur Sharma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. Hitro talk 09:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable singer, article almost seems like a vanity page. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Damien Lagrange

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, and France. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. There may be coverage in French sources that I'm not finding, but unless someone finds anything, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Article and BEFORE showed nothing but promo, database, and routine sports news, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Rune Sovndahl

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NBUSINESSPERSON and NAUTHOR. The first, eleventh, and eighteenth sources are from beststartup.co.uk, a for-profit WP:SPONSORED website, which is certainly unreliable. Fancy Refrigerator 11:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Fancy Refrigerator 11:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment This was deleted following WP:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur), along with a speedy and two prods. Its current incarnation was started at Rune Hoy Sovndahl, in what looks like a second attempt at flying under the radar of watchlists. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Services (2nd nomination). The creator of both articles has been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and this one is similarly promotional.

That said, I'm on the fence about notability at the moment, as it's got substantial profiles from the BBC and Money Week. The Financial Times and Guardian sources are also substantial, but both are interviews so not secondary sources. Uncle Spock (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the subject inherits notability from his company Fantastic Services. Much of the sources focus on his company and not the man himself. Fancy Refrigerator 12:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Blatant promotion of a non-notable businessman. May need salting. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete and salt: Fails GNG, repeatedly deleted and recreated, main editor (MediaWatch) blocked for WP:UPE. Flip Format (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete and salt, not notable and keeps coming back. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete + Salt - Completely fails GNG, and yet repeatedly recreated. Also seems to have a veiled promotional angle towards his company as well. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Rachid Aliaoui

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aliaoui fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage about him. Dougal18 (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Violates WP:GNG and is a database entry, which is not allowed. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- It wasn't a database entry, there was a reference on the page...--Ortizesp (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; unfortunately someone introduced misleading information (and an inaccurate reference to the article) recently but there is no significant coverage of Rachid Aliaoui (born 1986 in Arles). There is plenty of coverage of Rachid Alioui (born 1992 in La Rochelle), and the Le Télégramme reference covers that footballer. I couldn't find anything useful at all on the Aliaoui born in 1986. Jogurney (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

James Loxton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rugby player. I am not seeing anything to indicate he passes WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG, with the only coverage being either signing info, match reports, and stats pages. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, Germany, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Wales. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep. My own WP:BEFORE has thrown up quite a bit of coverage of the eligibility debate (between the WRU, IRFU and IRB) which is at least contributory under a form of WP:LASTING. I've updated the article with the refs/etc. Not cut-and-dried (hence "weak keep"). But, when in a grey area, I'd lean towards a keep... Guliolopez (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep I'd go keep on this one given what Guliolopez has been able to find. Seems to be enough there (albeit just) for the article to be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Guliolopez found a good amount of coverage, particularly due to the IRB eligibility situation.

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hinaki Eel Trap Bridge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable landmark or structure. A quick search shows little in coverage outside of local government sources. The article is mostly promotional in tone for the company that design it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Zealand, Transportation, Architecture, and Engineering. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete There are no reliable sources showing that this is even somewhat notable. LinkedIn is not a reliable source. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ Delete merged some into Oakley Creek. Nothing else worth keeping. NealeWellington (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Promotional article for company, editor wrote nothing before or since

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Guram Kavtidze

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player, even by the somewhat more lax standards of the old WP:NSPORT (and definitely not by the new). Not finding any significant coverage to demonstrate WP:GNG being met. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, France, and Georgia (country). Primefac (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. I'm not really seeing enough to suggest a pass, although there may be coverage in French sources that I've not seen. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Le Progres might help with notability if anyone can access it, that is. I'm not really seeing much else, though. Spiderone 11:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source in article is database record, source above is about a game. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Parkrun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Misplaced Pages is not a means of promotion. Excessively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles. Refbombed with primary sources to detail the minutia of running events, promoting awards and achievements. TNT it and allow the creation of a non advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep: A quick glance at the article shows multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable and major news sources including BBC News, the Guardian and Reuters plus academic papers. The article could be improved. It leans too heavily on primary sources, I don't think there's any need for a list of Parkrun events _{and "stylised as" notes for branding are a personal pet peeve} but it's not an AfD candidate to me as it clearly meets WP:GNG. Even nom says it needs to be "rewritten" so I'm unclear as to why it's here at AfD. Flip Format (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Spiderone 09:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep: I was surprised to see this nomination, as this is a well-known organised pursuit in recent times, as well as being one whose restrictions during Covid attracted controversy (e.g. , ). The article text includes references to independent studies of Parkrun and its impact. While I agree that articles should be trimmed of minutiae, that is a matter for normal editing; the present article looks far from requiring WP:TNT. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Strong keep. A worldwide weekly participation event that has attracted WP:SIGCOV clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Agreed, there are too many primary sources (one would question whether many aspects actually need to be referenced at all!), but no less than 50 of the current 117 references are cited to reliable secondary sources, including the BBC, Reuters, running and sports sites, government sources, and medical journals. Bastun 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep - Very obviously meets GNG. A quick glace at the sources in the article includes , , , . Concerns about promotional tone can be resolved by anyone who wants to - but we're nowhere near TNT territory. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The topic is notable. Not all the content belongs in here though as the nominator has expressed there is some promotional elements in it. This can be fixed by consensus in the talk page. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Nom should be aware that notability is established by reliable sources IN THE WORLD: there is no requirement for the sources to be already in the article, though in this case there are certainly plenty there too. The BEFORE search should be external, and a nominator should be convinced that good sources cannot be found. The case is rather the reverse here. This applies even if the article is short, unstructured, badly-written, contains irrelevant material, is unillustrated, and poorly formatted: which this article isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: It looks like Duffbeerforme tried to get this deleted under WP:CSD G11 on March 20 and again on April 6. I'm not sure what the user has against this article but they seem determined to get it deleted. Flip Format (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well if neither CSD nor AfD worked, they're speedily running out of options for attacking it that won't get them blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Funny how so many editors attack anyone who tries to get rid of advertising. Actually it was deleted by CSD. It was then userfied to allow editors to address the over the top promotional nature but of course no one did anything. They just restored it unchanged. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
If you think there’s a problem nothing is stopping you from improving the article yourself. Garuda3 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know there is a problem so I'm trying to improve the situation by getting this advert deleted so an actual encyclopedia article can replace it. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn’t have to be deleted for it to be rewritten. Instead of letting many hours of volunteer effort go to waste, why not try improving the existing article? Garuda3 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, show us your draft replacement article? You do have one? Right? Bastun 11:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, what now? There have been over 30 non-minor edits to the page since restoration. We're volunteers, and there is no deadline. Bastun 09:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the dif showing what has been changed. I was wrong, there was ONE change towards fixing the problems, the removal of the Poland list. Otherwise purely superficial. Moving a few words around, more primary sourcing, technical fixes. The only other positive change was the Barkrun note but the cruft, the overly self serving reliance on parkrun sourcing, the how-to nature, etc remains untouched. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Purely superficial - apart from this change, and that removal, and the new expansion, and the use of additional non-primary sources, and... you really don't like it, do you? 🤣 Bastun 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That's right little kid, I don't like it. It's not the only thing I don't like. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Plenty of reliable sources, including media coverage and academic papers. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep needs tidying up and more third party refs, but there’s no shortage of those. Mccapra (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep no shortage of sources on parkrun. Garuda3 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Strong Keep I didn't even have to finish the reflist before I could tell this was notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly notable topic with encyclopedic content in the article. If some content is not encyclopedic, then that and only that should be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per WP:snow. Not sure why we're having this discussion. ResonantDis_tortion 15:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes please keep. It is very informative 2605:A601:A38F:A500:DD50:8DCB:DB99:D8C4 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Came to the page wanting info and found it. Let's improve, not discard. --Travelite088 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Côme Ferrand

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Not eligible for BLP PROD as contains two external links in the infobox. Already exists in draft at Draft:Come so sending to draft again would be pointless. Due to the notability concerns, I request deletion of the article. Spiderone 08:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, France, and Poland. Spiderone 08:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This is in French, that's wrong language regardless of other issues. This qualifies for WP:SPEEDY I am sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can only tag for WP:A2 if the article exists in a similar form on another Wikimedia project already. Spiderone 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Other than in cases meeting WP:A2, you're incorrect. The treatment of pages posted in a language other than English is discussed at WP:Pages needing translation to English. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Even if this was machine-translated, it's an article about a non-notable influencer that just has no place here. Nate • (chatter) 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability: the only "references" are to his Instagram and TikTok pages, and the latter leads to a 404. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete I find no sources associating "côme ferrand" or "come.frnd" with "Touch pas à mon poste" and scant sources, on social media/wikis only, mentioning either name in conjunction with "Kev Adams" or with "TikTok". If there are no useful sources associating this person with the main claims to fame being made for him, then it isn't surprising that I'm unable to find anything useful about this person when searching simply on those names, among sources that are about people other than him. Not notable. Largoplazo (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. There is clear consensus against a standalone article; the merge suggestion didn't get further support, but if anyone wishes to work on a merger they may request a draftspace copy. I can see the argument for a general discussion about area code articles, but I don't see the need for such a discussion invalidating the consensus evident here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

01489

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stumbled across this article when looking for something else, and I can't see any reason it needs to exist - it contains several pieces of apparent WP:OR. We have a List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom and I don't know why this WP:MILL area code needs its own specific article - the article itself doesn't explain why this code is notable. Flip Format (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. See also Special:Contributions/Sigma714. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep pending a broader discussion. The article format here is nearly identical to the others in Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom, and contains the sort of information I would expect to find in an encyclopaedia article, e.g. the full history, not just a description of the present. Rather than singling out this example article, I think it would be much better to have a broader discussion about what is and is not encyclopaedic and what level of coverage we want in Misplaced Pages, and only after that comparing each article against that standard. The articles in the category seem to have been started by and worked on by a variety of different people so aren't just one person's pet project the rest of the world doesn't care about. I will give a courtesy ping to MRSC who has edits to most of the articles in the category (but not this one). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I don't think there's a blanket "area codes are never notable" rule. Most (all?) US area codes have articles, and there are some clearly notable area codes such as 020 which has generated WP:SIGCOV over time simply because it covers so many people. I'm not sure this area code is notable - and the article doesn't specify why it would be notable over and above all the other little codes that cover one or more small towns.

Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom is odd - we have nine articles out of however many hundred area codes exist, and they are a seemingly random selection, with minor towns like Redditch and Romford covered but no article for major city and region codes, eg. 0161 or 028. I freely admit I'm not an expert in the field of area codes, though, so perhaps there is something special about this batch. Flip Format (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I was puzzled at the selection too, but equally I'm no expert either. Personally I think I'd prefer an article about Telephone numbers in London or something rather than 020 but I've not read the article in detail nor looked to see what the arguments against that might be. The articles about US phone codes are something I look up occasionally when I want to know what part of the country they cover, and anecdotally I've never found one without an article - and it is another reason why I think we should discuss the set first. If some codes are notable and some aren't then such a discussion would be the best way to get consensus about what things do and don't convey notability. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. This is an absurd level of detail for a very small part of the UK phone system, and even if it's verifiable it's not encyclopedic. I could understand having an article about telephone numbers in London or another large city, but I've barely heard of any of the places covered here and I live about fifty miles away. Nor does the article cite any reliable sources, instead it's entirely sourced to self-published web pages by people who are apparently very interested in UK phone numbers. Hut 8.5 18:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
My point is that there appears to have been no discussion to determine what area codes in the UK are and are not encyclopaedic in general, but this article (if verifiable) would appear to be equivalent to e.g. Area code 802 and Area code 925 (picked at random) which seem to have been determined as encyclopaedic with a similar scope. That may or may not be a problem, but it is something I think should be first addressed on a systematic level before keeping or deleting individual articles. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact we haven't had a general RfC on whether these are encyclopedic doesn't mean we can't delete this one for being unencyclopedic. I don't agree that this article is comparable to US area codes, for two reasons:

US area codes tend to cover a much larger area than UK ones. The 802 area code you linked to covers the entire state of Vermont, which has a population of about 650,000. I added up the population of the villages listed as comprising this area code and got a figure of about 58,000. So the US one is more than ten times as big.
Area codes also tend to have a different status in US culture. The article on the 802 code says (with a source) that it "has become a source of pride in the state". I don't see any indication that anything like that has happened here.

And even if that wasn't the case we expect that articles are based on reliable sources (WP:V, WP:GNG) rather than self-published web pages. Hut 8.5 12:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've re-looked at this article, and if you take out the WP:OR (such as the stuff in the lede about what "residents" "refer to" the area code as) and the stuff that is sourced to (or "deduced from", more OR) one guy's website (like all the historical numbers) then you are left with an article that says "01489 is the area code covering town Z and town A", which is prime WP:NOTDIR territory.

Even articles for area codes covering major UK cities are really thinly sourced, because there's just not that much written about area codes. The article for 0191 also contains heaps of OR, phrases like "it is believed that" (by whom?) and what is sourced comes from things like a supermarket store locator, a random company website and a church yearbook, apparently to "prove" little more than that these places have a certain telephone number. I also feel like we're in WP:IINFO land with this stuff. Flip Format (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Flip Format and Hut 8.5. We need to work against WP:BIAS in favour of anorak interests, and this article is a particularly egregious example. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- BIAS is best countered by increasing the quality and quantity of our articles about poorly-covered subjects often neglected by mainstream sources for POV (e.g. only relevant to Africa), etc reasons than by deletion of articles about subjects that mainstream sources often neglect due to POV (e.g. only relevant to anoraks), etc reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete - unless someone can show significant third party references which show that the UK area numbers have individual notability the assumption should clearly be IMO that they are not notable. Other area codes in other countries may or may not be notable, that's got nothing to do with this. JMWt (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Why should we assume UK area numbers have or do not have individual notability before we have examined any of the evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge into Botley, Hampshire. It's weird to let a village in UK to have an article on this code, while it could represent other things elsewhere (say, post code for some other locations). The contents can be used to create a whole dialing code section for the article of the village. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

William F. Roy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV - other than a paragraph on his bicycle accident in the Canberra Times, the article is mostly sourced to primary sources and draws heavily on and williamfrancisroy.blogspot.com and IndyMediaAustralia. Neither of these are reliable and the latter appears to be associated with the sovereign citizen movement. Searches return no other coverage of the conspiracy theory included in the article. ITBF (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ITBF (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete as per nom's reasoning. He doesn't get reliable sources for claims to notability. Not sure why Nielsen and Huckstepp's article link here (and vice versa), he doesn't appear to have had any role with them. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:TNT - this is a scare job wrapped into a conspiracy theory. What a mess. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Thorpe Park. Three weeks. Time to call it. Courcelles (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Phantom Fantasia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The ride is the subject, it has mentions, but nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject - the ride - directly and indepth. Most of the article is OR, but no objection to a redirect to Thorpe Park#Former attractions. // Timothy :: talk 06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and England. Spiderone 08:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

redirect is fine. I don't find any sourcing about the ride. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Programmable matter with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Only one editor has provided a policy-based reason for a standalone article, and that isn't enough for a different result. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Claytronics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mildly promotional article supported with only primary references, none more recent than 2009, to the work of a team at Carnegie Mellon University and Intel known as the Claytronics Project whose most recent publication was in 2014. (Though it is not likely COI-created, as most of the current content was added in 2010 by an IP from the University of Wisconsin–Madison as part of a class project.) The topic probably fails WP:GNG, but it is nonetheless synonymous with Self-reconfiguring modular robot and may be suitable for a redirect. The user who added the {{Primary sources}} tag in February 2021 noted:

While I don't doubt that the DARPA grant CMU & Intel team who worked on this (and wrote every source used on this page) knows what they're doing, we need some kind of third party review of this... especially given the apparent lack of new developments in this area. Then again, the sudden lack of new public papers after a certain point could mean DARPA decided they liked it and is blowing a few hundred billion to develop some vomit-inducing new form of weapon in which case it's probably classified and nobody can review it anyway.
— User:A Shortfall Of Gravitas 14:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Pennsylvania. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong KEEP for my money. The citations may be mostly to primary sources, but that's nit-picking. There are plenty of citations and from reputable sources. That the citations are not newer than 2009 is not really relevant to anything. Sprhodes (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect. Either to Self-reconfiguring modular robot or Programmable matter. The article as it stands presents it as a general concept but it's actually the name of a specific research project/group. The other two articles are the general concept. Some of the material could be merged into one of them. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 05:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete mildly promotional, most sources are primary, but I would support a redirect if consensus was in favour of redirecting. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge/redirect: A google scholar search does yield some results from after 2022, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's an active field of study anymore. As for non-primary sources, I was able to find this tech-radar article, and not much else. Based on my search, I think the more common term for this concept is programmable matter, for which we already have a decent article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Just because it's not an active field of development any more doesn't seem like a reason for deletion. It does present a historical view of some interesting and novel work. Treat it like a history article, rather than a hot-new-breaking-cool-stuff thing. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep A well-written article with multiple sources. Presents good explanatory and historical information (as noted in the iVote above) that would be difficult to incorporate into the more general articles mentioned. Also, this research effort doesn't appear to be currently very active, but that may change. Alan Islas (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Redirect: to programmable matter I'm not seeing enough of a difference in the topics to support a fork. // Timothy :: talk 23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to programmable matter, to prevent WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge to programmable matter, no need for a separate article on this particular form of programmable matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. While there is some concern that bus routes violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY the consensus among participating editors is that there is enough coverage of this particular bus route to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

London Buses route 5

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence of notability and goes against WP:NOT 1keyhole (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep, multiple book sources are evidence for notability. Have you looked at and evaluated these? As for NOT, you’re going to have to expand on that. Garuda3 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
In addition to those in the article, this book likely has WP:SIGCOV. Garuda3 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone 08:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't delete. I haven't evaluated the sources presented, but if this is not individually notable it should be merged and redirected to List of bus routes in London. Everything here verifies that this is a member of a notable set (bus routes in London) and consensus is that at least some members of that set are individually notable, so every member is a plausible search term that should be a blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I think also worth bearing in mind that the list of bus routes in London page is very long already, and so it makes sense to split content out into individual pages rather than try to cram more in. I think the best solution is to keep this as a separate article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I don’t see anything in those guidelines that prohibits articles on bus routes. Garuda3 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sitting on the fence on this article, but NOTDIR doesn't apply in this case, as it's got nothing in it that resembles a directory, and NOTTRAVEL applies mostly to content (in this case, there's not a lot of stuff pertaining to be a travel guide - bar the list of destinations which is common across all other London bus routes). So the real question is does it satisfy WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR specifies that "Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed" which this article trips over. A bus route by itself isn't notable. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
How does it trip over? You could use that vague argument to delete anything you don’t like. Garuda3 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheInsatiableOne: A topic is notable in the Misplaced Pages sense if it has been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There is no reason an individual bus route cannot be notable, indeed from memory AfDs in the past have concluded that some routes are. While you are entitled to have opinions about bus routes in general they are not at all relevant - you need to explain why this bus route is or is not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

A bus route by itself isn't notable. - That is not necessarily correct. While it is true that bus routes aren't automatically notable, and that many or even most bus routes might not pass GNG, there's no specific carve-out to the GNG that says "bus routes are never notable". WP:NOTDIR does not allow, among other things, "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit", but it does allow an explanation of such information that is supported by reliable secondary sources. If the bus route article were merely a listing of stop locations or a schedule of bus departures, that would be a violation of NOTDIR, but this isn't the case here, either. Similarly, WP:NOTTRAVEL refers mostly to how articles should be structured. NOTTRAVEL does not allow information that may be better suited for a travel guide, but it does allow information about transportation. if it can be presented neutrally in an encyclopedic way. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I second what @Epicgenius: has said. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep enough independent sources to meet the WP:GNG threshold.. Morteinmeil (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to List of bus routes in London, clearly not notable in its own right. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This vote reads as opinion as you have provided no reasoning. Garuda3 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep There are enough sources in the article to pass WP:GNG, and it seems to have plenty of WP:SIGCOV as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep. Just about enough here on the route's history per the sources to justify a Misplaced Pages article. Don't think the article falls foul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL as there is more than a mere listing of the route's destinations and timetable. Rupples (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep There are enough sources in the article to pass WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. As is evident from the references, this bus line meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a bus route. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would be interested to see some source analysis --
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 10:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: It's quite difficult to do a source analysis as the relister wished, since many of the cited sources don't have free online samples (And honestly I don't want to buy books or sign up for subscription just for Misplaced Pages). However, I'll still list my opinions of the sources for future editors to reference:

Source ＃	Evaluation	Link
1 & 2	Undetermined. The sources need subscriptions to be viewed. If it's any help, the source dated 5 February 1954 has a word count of 449. The one dated 14 May 1954 has a word count of 99 (per the BNA). Rupples (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)	WLO 1954/02/05 WLO 1954/05/14
3	Undetermined. Did not find online version	Google Books link
4	Undetermined. The article cited it for an event in 1971, which is not in the Google Books' preview.	Google Books link
5	Announcemant of extention, seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE.	Webarchive link
6	Undetermined. The citation said page 182, but the book does not seem to have page numbers. It seems to focus on individual buses instead of the route as a whole.	Google Books link
7	Undetermined. Subscription required.	CWB archive
8	Undetermined. Did not find online copy.	N/A
9	Route change, seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE.	Webarchive link
10	Includes "bus route 5" in the "River Road" section. Trivial mention.	Source link
11	Route map. Since It's published by Transport for London, it should be viewed as a primary source. Nothing wrong about citing it, but doesn't prove notability just by itself.	Source link

With the sources that I can currently access, there doesn't seem to be a strong case for keep. I don't think further discussion would be productive unless some editors are willing to purchase the books and subscriptions to verify the sources, or find other sources that other editors can verify. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Undortunately I don’t have access to the books either. However, the book “London bus Routes One by One :1-100” will almost certainly discuss this route, helping establish notability. Also, WP:ROUTINE is part of the events notability guideline and thus doesn’t apply here. Garuda3 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment. While the bus route itself is clearly not an event, any change to the route is an event or happening/occurence and hence WP:EVENTS may be used to evaluate whether the sources relating to the route change help with establishing notability of the route.

For example, the announcement of a change to a bus route that attracts no comment in reliable, secondary sources is likely routine. However, a change that attracts protests and comment could be considered non-routine, and be an indication of the route's notability.

With regard to the source table; no. 5 is an announcement by the route operator of the change and clearly doesn't count towards notability. Source 9 may indicate notability especially if the consultation referred to attracted comment/debate in the press, and/or protests, even if local. Nonetheless, how sustained any coverage was should also be considered under WP:NOTNEWS. There's coverage of the route change here and here . The change attracted the attention of Margaret Hodge, the MP for Barking. There's also a snippet on the speed of the route here . Rupples (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep. While I voted to redirect in the last discussion, based on lack of references, the article has been expanded since then. While I can't verify most of the new references (as mentioned above), many appear to be independent references (more than just routine coverage) and may open up a fair amount of history about this route. Given the routes low route number and has been in existence for over 60 years, and has been used in previous locations, it's probably notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep, per the discussion so far (sources do exist, and a bus route can be notable). BTW in general I don't like to see 2nd, 3rd, 4th AFDs; bus routes seem to be a good target for such, and where they seem kneejerk because they're bus routes, they should be opposed. Ping User:Andrew Davidson who commented in one of the listed previous discussions (the one on bus route 53, commenting about route 53) that "I ordered a copy of The Motorbus in Central London which has now arrived and so I can confirm that it is an excellent source for this historic bus route, containing pages of detail about it. I also see good coverage in other works such as Motor Omnibus Routes in London and the Routemaster Omnibus and so it is clear that the topic passes the WP:GNG. There will be no difficulty in expanding the topic; we just need to get this disruptive discussion terminated so that work can commence. Andrew D. (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2016" Andrew, can you comment about that source re route 5? (Note there was a lot of conflict in the bus route 53 AFD about selective notifications / wp:CANVAS; here I am just pinging the one person I notice in the previous AFDs who went ahead and bought one of the prominent candidates for significant sources.) --Doncram (talk,contribs)
What made you think it was a good idea to ping someone who's literally topic banned from AfD??? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings, I don't know about that. I explained why I pinged them. Now, I don't know the terms of whatever ban you refer to, and/or whether they could provide information directly or indirectly. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just being willfully ignorant. I spelled it out for you, Andrew Davidson is topic banned from AfD. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to List of bus routes in London, based on the results of the source analysis above which doesn't show a GNG pass. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The source analysis is not conclusive, as it notes consulting the sources is needed. I suggested consulting one of the sources just above, and you just point to a difficulty about that. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The source analysis shows far more than you have (nothing). I don't know what "and you just point to a difficulty about that" is supposed to mean, but I never said anything of the sort. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Shahram ebrahimi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources all appear to be about a film, only mentioning the article subject in passing. I would draftify this with the hopes that more sources could be found, but that has already been done twice. – bradv 03:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Hello, I know Farsi. The person is famous and the sources are independent and reliable enough. best regards. Shahnam (Talk) 14:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahnamk (talk • contribs)
Delete. I would also say to draftify this, but if that isn't working, then deletion is likely the only option. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep The article has enough sources. I do not know the reason for the deletion. خاچی (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keeps provide no sources. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview primary	1. "Shahram Ebrahimi's narration of his first filmmaking experience" . Art online .
Database record	2. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi" . Son Art .
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject.	3. ^ "Mahrokh's house shines at Russian film festival". mehrnews.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject.	4. ^ "FILM BY IRANIAN DIRECTOR NAMED BEST AT SPIRIT OF FIRE FILM FESTIVAL". russkiymir.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject.	5. ^ "Iranian movie wins main prize at Spirit of Fire film festival in Russia's Khanty-Mansiysk". tass.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject.	6. ^ ""Parallax" named best at Spirit of Fire film festival". tehrantimes.
Database record	7. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi (Shahrkord)" . Iran Theater
Database record	8. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi" . Filimo .
Database record	9. ^ "Shahram Ebrahimi" . imdb .
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject.	10. ^ "'Wolf Cubs of Apple Valley' to compete in SCHLiNGEL Fest". honaronline.
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject.	11. ^ "The main prize of the festival "Spirit of Fire" in Khanty-Mansiysk was received by a director from Iran" . iz.ru. _
About a film, no SIGCOV about subject.	12. ^ "'Wolf Cubs of Apple Valley' to take part in SCHLiNGEL Fest". en.mehrnews.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 23:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Timothy fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Salvio 19:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Chung (footballer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep. We should look for sources first, or put it into draftspace, before deleting anything. RossEvans18 (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2023 (BST)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per RossEvans18. I also found besides the sources in the article. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval (article and above):

Nothing about subject :: 1. "南區或再提拔青年軍復賽班底戰新季". Apple Daily. Archived from the original on 18 October 2020. Retrieved 17 October 2020. (in Chinese)
Database record :: 2. ^ "Christopher Jhen-hoong Chung". HKFA. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
Database record :: 3. ^ Christopher Chung at Soccerway
:: Above
Interview with subject, fails IS RS :: https://www.offside.hk/interview/interview-with-chris-chung-the-hkpl-deserves-more-attention-then-it-gets/

BEFORE showed nothing but promo and database records.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 00:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 05:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete - Offside does not provide any detailed analysis of the subject from a third party and there is nothing else to suggest he might meet GNG. Spiderone 08:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pere Egbi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pere Egbi

Actor who does not satisfy general notability or acting notability. Acting notability requires two major roles. He has had one in The Perfect Arrangement. His other roles have not been major. One of the references is blocked by antimalware software, and so was not checked, but can be inferred to be unreliable. Two of the references are reviews of the movie in which he acted. They are significant as to the film, but not as to him. One of the references is a vanity site that displays celebrity biographies.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	legit.ng	A celebrity bio web site	Probably not	Yes	?	No
2	ideaslane.com	Online community for students, may be providing biography hosting	Probably not	Yes	?	No
3	www.thefamousnaija.com	Blocked by antimalware software	?	?	No	No
4	premiumtimesng.com	Review of The Perfect Arrangement (film)	Yes	Not about the subject	Yes	Yes
5	www.pulse.ng	Another review of The Perfect Arrangement	Yes	Not about the subject	Yes	Yes
6	pmnewsnigeria.com	Announcement of nomination for an award	Probably not	Yes	Yes	No

There is also a draft that is the same as this article. The draft can be left alone and possibly improved. The article can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Ice hockey, Nigeria, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. He has only starred in one notable film and I do not think that alone is enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Versace1608 16:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete: Baedeker on nom source evaluation. Sources in article and before showed nothing with sigcov. // Timothy :: talk 20:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 15:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sara Gurpal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Popularity and fame does not equal notability. Lots of promo, but nothing that shows N. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Unreviewed at NPP for years, probably due to volume of promo sourcing. Here is the previous deletion history.. This AfD should resolve the matter one way or the other.

I really thought there would be something on this subject but nothing from IS, RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth found in article or BEFORE.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
"Meet Bigg Boss Season 14 contestant Sara Gurpal" promotional	1. "Meet Bigg Boss Season 14 contestant Sara Gurpal". The Indian Express. 2020-10-03. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"All you need to know about the Punjabi kudi" promotional	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Bigg Boss 14 contestant Sara Gurpal: All you need to know about the Punjabi kudi". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"I can't do TV shows because I need time to do several things", promotional	3. ^ Nijher, Jaspreet. "I can't do TV shows because I need time to do several things: Sara Gurpal". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"All you need to know..." promotional	4. ^ "Bigg Boss Season 14 Contestant Sara Gurpal: All you need to know about the Punjabi actress-singer". English Jagran. 2020-10-04. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
" film features six actresses of the Punjabi film industry, namely Neeru Bajwa, Himanshi Khurana, Payal Rajput, Tanu Grewal, Surilie Gautam, and Sara Gurpal, with a sweet cameo of Yami Gautam.", name simply listed in article, fails SIGCOV	5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Shava Ni Girdhari Lal review: A snooze fest by Gippy Grewal that is adapted from Raj Kapoor's classic Mera Naam Joker". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Database record, not SIGCOV	Filmfare Awards". filmfare.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"A Look At Lesser-Known Facts Of This Punjabi 'Kudi'", promo list	7. ^ "Early Life". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
" Sara Gurpal, who rose to fame with Bigg Boss 14, features in the song too. She is the personification of the rifle. Unfortunately, for Sara fans, there is not much for her to do." not SIGCOV	8. ^ Jump up to:a b "Me and My Girlfriend: Sidhu Moose Wala's new song is about his love affair with a rifle". The Indian Express. 2021-06-08. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"Shot in just six hours with his iPhone 11 pro, Jassie shared the new song which also features Sara Gurpal." Not SIGCOV	India.com". www.india.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"Valentine's Special: Watch Popular Punjabi Song Music Video", promotional	10. ^ Jump up to:a b "Valentine's Special: Watch Popular Punjabi Song Music Video - 'Dil' Sung By Ninja Featuring Sara Gurpal". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
"Pics From Ex-Bigg Boss 14 Contestant Sara Gurpal's Birthday Celebrations Are Lit" promo photo spread	11. ^ "Pics From Ex-Bigg Boss 14 Contestant Sara Gurpal's Birthday Celebrations Are Lit". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Movie review, Named in list	12. ^ "Dangar Doctor Jelly- Movie Review". Ghaint Punjab. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
"For the first time Kuljinder Sidhu and Sara Gurpal to share screen space together with this film." Not SIGCOV	SpotboyE". www.spotboye.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Routine entertainment news	14. ^ "Sara Gurpal gets eliminated from Bigg Boss Season 14". The Indian Express. 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Movie review, Named in list	15. ^ "Shava Ni Girdhari Lal Movie Review : Gippy Grewal's most ambitious film exemplifies love as it should be- sweet and simple". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
Promo, name mentioned.	16. ^ Jump up to:a b "Yaar Mera Titliaan Warga: Gippy Grewal, Tanu Grewal's most-awaited film's trailer to release on..." PTC Punjabi. 2022-08-07. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
Promo, name mentioned.	17. ^ Jump up to:a b "The knight rises: 'Ghoda Dhai Kadam' promises suspenseful drama". The Indian Express. 2023-01-26. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
"SARA GURPAL STUNS WITH HER KILLER LOOKS", Promo	18. ^ Jump up to:a b "SARA GURPAL STUNS WITH HER KILLER LOOKS IN SONG 'SLOW MOTION'". PTC Punjabi. 2017-12-11. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Youtube video	Music JSL Singh \| Latest Punjabi Song 2015, retrieved 2023-04-02
Youtube video	Dilpreet Dhillon \| Meenakshi Choudhary \| New Punjabi Song, retrieved 2023-04-02
Photo spread, promo	21. ^ "Sara Gurpal as 'Seerat' in 'Gurmukh' will steal your heart". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
"and will feature popular Punjabi actors Sara Gurpal, BN Sharma, Hardeep Gill, Nancy Arora, Kaimj Singh ", named in list, no SIGCOV	22. ^ "शहर के छोरे ने बनाई पंजाबी फिल्म 'हुन तां भोग ही पैंगे'". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). Retrieved 2023-04-18.
I'm not sure what this is, but its not SIGCOV	23. ^ "Singga: ਸਿੰਗਾ ਦੀ ਫਿਲਮ 'ਮਾਈਨਿੰਗ ਰੇਤੇ ਤੇ ਕਬਜ਼ਾ' ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੋਰ ਕਈ ਭਾਸ਼ਾਵਾਂ 'ਚ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ ਰਿਲੀਜ਼". punjabi.abplive.com. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Youtube video	Dilpreet Dhillon \| Latest Punjabi Songs 2014 \| Speed Records, retrieved 2023-04-18
"The video of the song features the singer and Punjabi actress-model Sara Gurpal.", no SIGCOV	SpotboyE". www.spotboye.com. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Promo interview	26. ^ "Sara Gurpal Enacting On 'Mai Badhiya Tu Bhi Badiya' Is All About Wedding Dance". PTC Punjabi. 2018-08-11. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
"Turn up your speakers", promo	27. ^ "Turn up your speakers' volume for Gippy Grewal and Afsana Khan's 'Vailpuna'". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Youtube video	28. ^ JAAN - Happy Raikoti ( Official Video ) - Sara Gurpal - New Punjabi Songs, retrieved 2023-04-18
Promo	29. ^ "Pratik Sehajpal: 'Jhooth' is all for those people nurturing a broken heart". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
Youtube video	Michael \| New Punjabi Songs 2021, retrieved 2023-04-18
"Know the full story here!" "Sharing the poster Dilpreet Dhillon has also mention beautiful Sara Gurpal in the post which means we can see her featuring in the song alongside Karan Aujla and Dilpreet Dhillon.", not SIGCOV	31. ^ "Karan Aujla, Dilpreet Dhillon and Desi Crew are coming together with something new. Know the full story here!". PTC Punjabi. 2021-02-17. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Youtube video	Yaari (Official Song) Punjabi Superhit Songs \| Maninder Buttar Songs, retrieved 2023-04-18
Youtube video	Amrit Maan \| Sara Gurpal \| SanB \| TejiSandhu \| Sidhu Moose Wala, retrieved 2023-04-18
Youtube video	T-Series Apnapunjab, retrieved 2023-04-18

BEFORE showed lots of promo, interviews, mentions, nothing with SIGCOV for IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, India, and Haryana. Spiderone 08:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the chart above, it's all passing mentions or celebrity fluff articles. I can't find anything extra for sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment I am not agree with chart above, first of all she has noted credits in notable projects like Manje Bistre, Shava Ni Girdhari Lal, Yaar Mera Titliaan Warga and Bigg Boss Season 14, Passes WP:NACTOR. And fact is that none of her news articles seems promotional. Her articles in Indian Express, Times of India and Dainik Jagran have enough details for passing WP:GNG. Also she has nomination in Filmfare Awards. Also, i just checked on google she has many more reliable sources on google in English here , in Hindi and in Punjabi .

Distrocaste (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep I saw it got coverage on I think a lot of international news, and this model as well as an actress who has worked in many films India TV Zee News The Indian Express PTC Punjabi ABP News And in many award-winning songs, she worked as a female model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimidar (talk • contribs) 06:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions. ✗plicit 06:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Fireball (roller coaster)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. There are ROUTINE announcement and promo for the ride, but nothing from WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the ride) directly and indepth. No objection to a redirect or selecrtive merge to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions. // Timothy :: talk 05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and New York. Spiderone 08:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions. There is no WP:SIGCOV of this roller coaster at the moment; it has little standalone notability. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge to Adventureland (New York)#Rides and attractions. No SIGCOV, fails GNG by far. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Cordaid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. Sources comprise a press release and routine business reporting, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. One of the major Dutch charities. After a quick look for sources (aided by LexisNexis), I found the following:

Gedreven helpers: a book about the organization and its predecessors written by a Tilburg University professor and published by nl:Verloren Uitgeverij.
A merger with another charity received coverage from major national publications: Trouw, NOS, Nederlands Dagblad, Reformatorisch Dagblad. Using LexisNexis to see behind the paywalls shows coverage about Cordaid's activities and history.
More than passing coverage in the articles Een opgeschud bed and "Condoom splijt de katholieke missie", Omroep Brabant, 5 October 2000 (not online)
Article about jubilee by Reformatorisch Dagblad, also containing background about the charity (also covered by NOS)

Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep as per arguments presented by User:Tristan Surtel. Cordaid works with Nationale Postcode Loterij since 1996. In 2021 Cordaid merged with ICCO. See also this article . Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Tristan Surtel. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Medable

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plenty of sources, but nothing in the article meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNBC is a list of companies they are included in, Forbes in a contributor article, AP looks good until you click the link and see its a press release, everything else is a press release, routine announcement, or unreliable source. A WP:BEFORE found this and this which are the only two references that would come close to ORGCRIT in my opinion. There is an article in Inc. but that is not independent as the info was supplied by the founder. CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Residential High School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Andhra Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. FXBeats21 (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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 04:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete - No evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. WJ94 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Love of My Life (Japanese TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. Nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2012.

PROD removed with "deprod; notable cast; not uncontroversial; take to AfD", but WP:NOTINHERITED applies to the "notable cast" comment. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Once again, I would point out that prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only! Its misuse is getting wearing. AfD is the appropriate forum for discussing articles that may well be notable (as this clearly may well be). If anything looks like it might be notable (which includes a notable cast, a long-running series, etc) then do not prod it but instead take it straight to AfD! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Similarly, the last time I saw one of these was a few weeks ago at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kekkon Dekinai Otoko, which was kept. WP:BEFORE directs us to "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead." I understand that this is not practical for all editors, but there is always the option to ask someone (say at the article's talk page, or at WT:JAPAN, etc.) before taking something like this to AfD. In this case we have a nationally-televised series from the 2000s with a double-digit audience share. How did you go about checking for sources? Did you find, say, this or this or do any searches in Japanese? Dekimasuよ! 12:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep Found some coverage in The Yomiuri Shimbun via Newsbank. "Flashback to an '80s favorite" (October 21, 2006) had the most significant coverage. There also were several sources that reported on when the series was being released on Hulu and reaired. . The third one says(via Google Translate): A masterpiece drama that attracted a great deal of attention. Based on this and available sources I would say some of that attention was most likely in other reliable sources back then as well. WikiVirusC 14:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. There appear to be plausible sources introduced to the discussion at the last minute. Normally I'd re-list so these could be discussed, but listing and AfD discussion for a fourth week generally isn't best practice. Therefore I'd invite the participants to look carefully and objectively at these sources, and if it is felt that enough of these sources are not independent or reliable or in-depth, then another discussion should occur. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

In the Womb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines. Tagged since 2020. Nothing in a BEFORE. Another editor endorsed the PROD, however, the PROD was removed with the rationale "found sources such as abcnews", but no sources were added to prove this statement. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Health and fitness, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment your BEFORE-fu is lacking. wasn't hard at all to find. Most of the hits I'm getting are from a subsequent show on the same topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Kudos for the wiki-fu reference. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep with that's two independent RS'es non-trivially covering this subject. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete The first source is an interview with the videographers, the second is from the Womb Project Encyclopedia, neither of which is acceptable. The second in particular appears to be a non-RS. I can't find any reviews of the television show. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Weak Delete - The ABCBNews source does not seem to be an interview with the videographers, as Oaktree claims (although I might be wrong about this). My issue with this source is more to do with the significance of its coverage - the source seems more to discuss the process of having triplets and the fact that the particular couple interviewed happened to be on this documentary only really gets a passing mention. I'm not sure whether the Embryo Project Encyclopedia is a reliable source but I can't see any obvious reason to doubt that it is; it appears to be a peer-reviewed encyclopedia with a reliable looking editorial team - but this isn't my area of expertise to again happy to be corrected. I'd say this is an edge case regarding GNG: one reliable source with significant coverage and one reliable source where coverage and independence are unclear; in this case I'm inclined towards delete. WJ94 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The second source was written by Inbar Maayan who received a grant from National Geographic (who broadcast the documentary) in 2018 (). So not an entirely independent source (although not the strongest connection to the subject either). WJ94 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge to List of programs broadcast by National Geographic Channel - seems the best compromise. Ritchie333 15:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep per JClemens, and I found these sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to The World of David the Gnome. ✗plicit 03:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wisdom of the Gnomes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2021

PROD removed with "deprod; ran for 26 episodes; not an uncontroversial deletion", but nothing added to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Spain. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to The World of David the Gnome. Would be ideal as a section there. Hiding T 12:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to The World of David the Gnome. Unneeded CFORK that lacks sources to meet GNG. // Timothy :: talk 00:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Magic (TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2019

PROD removed with "deprod; may well be notable; not an uncontroversial deletion" but nothing added to suggest that it is notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment WP:NTVNATL would suggest this is likely notable, so deprodding was reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Once again, I would point out that prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only! Its misuse is getting wearing. AfD is the appropriate forum for discussing articles that may well be notable (as this clearly may well be). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete: Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. No source in article which is a translation of an article, which is also unsourced. BEFORE showed listings and promo, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Let me know if something is found. // Timothy :: talk 00:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Soundhog

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. This piece in North Wales Live is the only piece of non-SPS coverage I can find and does not demonstrate notability. An AfD in 2004 demonstrated a consensus to delete (IMO) but was never closed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Wales. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete: I found this piece also, but it doesn't look altogether independent and notability doesn't appear established Jack4576 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete: Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are promotional. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 23:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Earth Goddess of the World

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

awkward WP:SYNTH. There is no such thing as "Earth Goddess of the World" . Of course there are a bunch of goddesses of Earth, listede in List of earth deities. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

no redirect : new article , unplausible search term. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - This is textbook WP:SYNTH --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Africa, and Greece. Spiderone 08:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Agree that this is WP:SYNTH; there are no reliable sources to support this combination of sourced material. Oppose redirection as an implausible search term (especially with this capitalisation). WJ94 (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete huh? What? This sounds like it’s a made up New Age religion and not a WP:SYNTH mess about various goddesses of the Earth. Dronebogus (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete. For what this article is supposed to be, see the existing article List of earth deities and articles linked from there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Mega Long Mall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet GNG or WP:ORG. Just another mall. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:SIGCOV --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete No notability shown, it is just a mall that got sued once. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

KWorld

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huang, Feihong 黃飛紅 (2020-09-24). "天候變幻莫測廣寰科、上緯投控、桂盟風起雲湧" . Money Weekly 理財周刊 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-20.
  The article provides 263 words of coverage about the subject when I translated the text from Chinese to English. The article notes from Google Translate: "KWorld is a digital home multimedia audio-visual entertainment related application product factory. It focuses on the research and development and sales of "PC-TV multimedia". It has its own brand "KWorld" and OEM OEM business. It also masters hardware circuit design, driver program development, Software programs and other research and development technologies. ... In recent years, affected by the development trend of Internet TV applications, consumers' demand for KWorld's video-related products has dropped significantly, resulting in a decline in the company's revenue. However, KWorld has gradually withdrawn from the traditional multimedia application product market in recent years, focusing on earphone products At the same time, it is also actively involved in the development of iOS/Android mobile phone system software platform related streaming application technology. The legal entity estimates KWorld's annual EPS to be one yuan."
2. Du, Nianlu 杜念魯 (2008-01-16). "360°科技：廣寰" . DigiTimes (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-20. Retrieved 2023-04-20.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "KWorld was founded in 1999. It is one of the main manufacturers of TV cards in Taiwan. The proportion of TV cards is about 93%. The main competitors are AVerMedia and Yuan High-Tech. However, in terms of positioning, the three companies are different."
3. Economic Daily News sources:
  1. Huang, Yixin 黃依歆; Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2009-06-18). "廣寰網站內容不實罰" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. D3.
    The article notes: "電視卡廠商廣寰科技因在自家網站刊登內容不實的媒體報導資訊，昨（17）日遭到公平會裁罰20萬元。"
    From Google Translate: "TV card manufacturer KWorld was fined 200,000 yuan by the fair yesterday (17th) for publishing false media reports on its website."
  2. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2008-12-16). "廣寰科獲TIPS認證全台首例" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. D7.
    The article notes: "廣寰科技 (3287)獲台灣智慧財產管理規範（TIPS）認證，該公司昨(15)日表示，廣寰以台灣精品形象行銷80餘個國家，如今獲得TIPS認證，為全國第一家、也是唯一通過此認證的多媒體視訊廠商。"
    From Google Translate: "KWorld (3287) has been certified by Taiwan Intellectual Property Management Standards (TIPS). The company said yesterday (15) that KWorld has been marketed in more than 80 countries with the image of Taiwan's high-quality products. Now it has obtained TIPS certification. The only multimedia video vendor that has passed this certification."
  3. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2008-11-11). "廣寰科推藍寶堅尼造型電視棒" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. D7.
    The article notes: "廣寰科技（3287）電視棒與知名的義大利賽車藍寶堅尼異業結盟，推出藍寶堅尼賽車造型的電視棒，第一批接獲3,500支訂單，未來一年全球出貨達60萬支。"
    From Google Translate: "KWorld (3287) TV stick has formed an alliance with the famous Italian racing car Lamborghini to launch a TV stick in the shape of a Lamborghini racing car. The first batch of orders has received 3,500 pieces, and the global shipment will reach 60 in the next year. Ten thousand sticks."
  4. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2008-01-19). "廣寰自有品牌卡進全球三大" . Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. B3.
    The article notes: "電視卡大廠廣寰科技（3287）總經理王忠傑昨（18）日指出，去年廣寰在自有品牌市場，打入全球前三大，僅次於Pinnacle及Hauppauge。今年廣寰的自有品牌出貨量可成長三至四成，在全球排名將坐二望一。"
    From Google Translate: "Wang Zhongjie, general manager of TV card manufacturer KWorld (3287), pointed out yesterday (18th) that last year KWorld entered the top three in the world in its own brand market, second only to Pinnacle and Hauppauge. This year, KWorld's self-owned brand shipments may grow by 30% to 40%, ranking second in the world."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow KWorld (traditional Chinese: 廣寰科技股份有限公司; simplified Chinese: 广寰科技股份有限公司) to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reslisting for discussion of sources found. If unchallenged, consensus would be keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep It's a listed company and it's getting some ongoing independent reputable press coverage even if that's probably driven by company-provided info like press releases and financial results. There's a product review cited, which I don't think counts for much.

The one exception, and it is a genuine exception, is the Money Weekly story. That is a 2-page bylined article that talks about the company's economic woes and its pivot to new technologies. It's possible this is coming off a press release, but I can't see evidence of that.

I don't see a lot of discussion of their products, which may reflect a decline in this kind of video cards as online news became more prevalent. Here's a google search that turned up 4 reviews, all from 2013 or earlier, and none from what I can identify as major sites.. Even in Chinese, there aren't a lot of reviews. Interestingly, in Google Scholar the hits are researchers who disclose their interfaces as part of their testing apparatus. Oblivy (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to The Verge. Star Mississippi 13:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WinRumors

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Believe it Dosen't meet WP:NWEB 1keyhole (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Technology, and Websites. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge with The Verge. Blog by current The Verge journalist Tom Warren operated for 2 years. Gets some mentions by reliable sources for its reports on Microsoft, but not seeing enough context for an article. IgelRM (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Redirect suffices.IgelRM (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any other opinions about the suggested Merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete: An article about a blog which was operated by an industry journalist during 2010-11. While reports by a journalist reporting on a major firm's changing business plans are bound to get some traction, I don't see them or the Blog's award nomination as sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. I also don't see a merge with the article about The Verge, its author's later employer, as feasible: Warren is not mentioned in that article and any content merge would be WP:UNDUE. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

2015 National Conference League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft moved back without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 10:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Important: A discussion is already taking place regarding the presence of an article for individuals season of the National Conference League and can be found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2019 National Conference League. There is no point starting another discussion about the same topic. Mn1548 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Aticle was restored from draft space as discussions linked above has not concluded! Mn1548 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Competition gets significant coverage from various media across the North of England, and is considered notable enough for the league table to be published on the BBC website. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 02:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sprudge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm on the fence on this one, and you might even count me as neutral unless I'm convinced otherwise, but the included sources for this article don't pass WP:SIGCOV on their own, excepting perhaps the coverage of the event involving Bitter Barista, which seems to be referenced a few times in association with Sprudge. The reason I am not sure is that although I haven't found very convincing sigcov sources, I have found several instances where other news orgs have referenced Sprudge, lending them at least a degree of credibility: eater 1 eater 2 capitol hill seattle robb report tasting table the verge fox news

I was nearly going to just remove the notability tag but I know the requirement for significant coverage needs to be met, so I figured it's worth at least testing here. ASUKITE 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, Websites, United States of America, and Oregon. ASUKITE 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Comments - I am inclined to delete due to poor sourcing and formatting, but I am open-minded. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Subject by sources seems to be the doxing of "The Bitter Barista", what about a topic change? "2017 Webby Award Honoree" (for what it's worth) might influence Notability (web). IgelRM (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 02:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see strong arguments for either Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep, based on coverage and recognition received, plus use by Eater and other other media outlets. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 11:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Delete. Noms source assessment is correct, there are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep This argument relies on some good faith, but the use of Sprudge by various media outlets suggests that it is a significant website for the industry. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep - a source can be unreliable itself, yet still be notable. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean above, but can you post links the three best sources you found, I'll take a second look. // Timothy :: talk 13:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep The most reliable sources all appear to be about the firing, rather than directly about the subject itself. But it's use by other sources within its topic area, are a positive. It's close to keep, of not completely there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. The delete !votes were more firmly rooted in policy, but strongest current in the discussion was that a combination of Western bias and a lack of accessible articles from the early digital age prevented proper demonstration of notability. While I accord such arguments less weight, a no consensus close is still the most accurate description of the discussion. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 00:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Siripong Siripool

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD objected, reason was there were some achievements. However the achievements does not even pass NBAD; fails GNG and BASIC too. No coverage about him found. Timothytyy (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep medalist at the top continental events such as Asian Games, Asian Cup and Southeast Asian Games. zoglophie 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep pass NBAD: 1991 Thailand Open. See also interwiki. He is also well-known as Thai national team coach. Stvbastian (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment. The Thai page on him seemed promising, and then I clicked on a reference and it was just a picture of Xi Jinping?? Another source is an announcement that Siripong was hired as a coach of... something... Google translates the lead as "The Thai chicken transport army calls Siripong Siriphul, a former national team, as a coach". The rest of the refs from the Thai page are either dead or routine passing mentions. My own search also yielded mostly quotes from him, but I did find an article announcing that he was switching political parties (or as Google says: "The political party transfer festival of political people is still not over easily"). It's not SIGCOV, and seems to have been released by the Royal Thai Army so wouldn't be independent(?), but it might indicate there are other sources in a non-sport context. Regardless, the subject's achievements hold zero weight and arguments based on them must be dismissed; the article should only be kept if GNG is demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your research, would you suggest draftifying it? Timothytyy (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- The first link mentioned is bad 404 handling by the Thai Post website, and the second is a hilarious example of how bad Google Translate can be with Thai headlines. It's about him being brought on as coach for the national badminton team. (ขนไก่, which means 'chicken feathers', is headlinese for 'badminton'. The word for 'feather' is also a homonym for 'carry' - that's how Google Translate messed it up as 'chicken transport'. And ทัพ 'army' is headlinese for 'national team'.) The third one has nothing to do with the army. กอง บก. is the website's ‘editorial team'. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  Lol! Thank you for the clarifications! Have you been able to find any SIGCOV of him in Thai sources? JoelleJay (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Google translates the lead as "The Thai chicken transport army calls Siripong Siriphul, a former national team, as a coach" – That's my new favorite sports team :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per GNG can't find any significant coverage.

1keyhole (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep I am personally convinced that this person would meet GNG if there was more internet reporting on badminton in Thailand in the early 90s... the argument I present is that the Western bias in sourcing and achievement requirements is probably at play and we should at least revisit those past discussion proposals of allowing more wiggle room for non-Western and historic subjects in some areas. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Given his achievements, he must have had ranking atleast under top 15 at that time. But that sadly doesn't count as notable due to guidelines like those. zoglophie 09:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif, in addition to the topic meeting GNG, NSPORT also requires that a reliable source containing secondary independent SIGCOV must be cited in the article to avoid deletion, regardless of sourcing difficulties (and in my experience this has actually prevented proportionally far more bios on low-level contemporary Western athletes from being made/retained than it has excluded genuinely high-level non-Western/historic competitors). JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
It has been my understanding that AfD is to decide if an article can meet notability requirements. NSPORT wants those sources in the article, AfD decides if it is possible that such sources could be put in the article, not that they must be before the discussion is decided. Of course, that isn't to say it is possible if sources are theoretical but hard to find; my !vote is not based on the restrictions being too restrictive, but I do think those discussions should be revisited. Anyway, there seems to be more enlightenment with sources further up, so I will leave it to those who can read Thai. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The intention of the NSPORT restriction and its implementation at AfD is that articles that do not contain at least one source of SIGCOV should be/are deleted. Any presumption of GNG based on sports accomplishments only comes into play once that requirement is satisfied. Draftification would be a better alternative, to allow editors to find Thai sources if they do exist. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Draftify or delete. I was not able to find SIGCOV searching his name in Thai, however, my search was limited to Thai sports news and since it looks like he may also be involved in politics draftification could provide time for others to track down sources in that context. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment The Siam Sport article clearly a SIGCOV. The article title "Thai badminton team called Siripong to lead the team to compete in the Asian Championships". The article also said that he won 4 men's doubles title in the Thailand national championships, and also 8 consecutive times in the mixed doubles. In the Thai Daily News, Siripong Siripool as the subject of the article. Stvbastian (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hiring announcements like the first link are considered ROUTINE for NSPORT (plus it only has barely more than a sentence on him), and the second link is almost exclusively quoting/restating what he has said (not independent). No one has produced any new sources to assess, and what we have so far does not clear the bar for the required sourcing at NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep, because badminton is a fairly major sport in Thailand and a national coach would meet GNG easily if he were appointed in the internet age. Explicitly not arguing for notability per NSPORTS. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
What notability guideline are you arguing? IAR? JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep. Silver at the Asian Games already fulfills WP:NATH. The article definitely needs more improvement tho. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Tutwakhamoe, NATH requires athlete subjects to meet GNG and to have at least one SIGCOV SIRS cited in the article. Without that he cannot meet NATH. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion of whether the subject does or does not pass GNG, and noting sources which may help with this, would be helpful. While the "keep" arguments are currently at a strong numerical majority, none address the assertion in the nomination that the subject does not pass GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade 01:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as per Seraphimblade's relist 8 days ago. No comments since.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, which gives us no discretion to keep when no significant coverage can be found. BilledMammal (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Asian Games medalist. This likely indicates sources (likely in Thai) exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234, I am very surprised you would make this argument given you know about the requirement that a SIGCOV source must be cited in the article for the subject to meet NATH, and that meeting any sport-specific criterion is not sufficient at AfD if no SIGCOV sources have been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete, with only two short articles being brought up here. WP:SOURCESEXIST. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete - fails the bare minimum guideline for sports figures found in WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This is clearly failed and nobody arguing for notability has managed to find even one source to take this past that first hurdle. There was a lengthy discussion here which many Wikipedians participated in and the consensus was clear that we should not have articles that do not comply with this bare minimum criterion. I understand the arguments from those saying that he probably did have some coverage but, ultimately, that is pure guesswork and, without concrete proof, we shouldn't have an article. Deleting this article means that information is still retained at places like Badminton at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's doubles and Badminton at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's doubles so we lose little other than his date of birth and his infobox. Spiderone 21:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. None of the sources in the article have IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that the BEFOREs the keep votes above showed no sources with SIGCOV. Database results and routine stories are not enough to support a BLP. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 18:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep: per Kingsif. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep - it's always hard to find articles related to athletes from last century, especially in countries where we have no online archives available. But the Daily News relating to his coaching meets SPORTCRIT. Looking at what else can be found, there's also this. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
??? The only coverage of Siripong in the Daily News article is "Coach Tong" Siripong Siriphul, badminton coach Badminton Association of Thailand under the royal patronage Mentioned Coach Tong said The other link is the one discussed extensively above. SPORTCRIT is definitely not met... JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Kriwi (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band. I removed the bands email address from the main text, and couldn't find any reliable sources about them. The one source that exists in the article is to a small defunct fan zine without an editorial board Very Average Editor (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belarus. Spiderone 08:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning keep on this. There are a lot of foreign-language Google hits that appear to demonstrate sigcov, eg. , , , , . I can't confidently assess the reliability of these sources, but I think the band is likely to be notable. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this is important, but in 1999 they were recognized as the best rock band in Belarus.--Берберов Иван (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
That award doesn't seem significant enough in itself to grant automatic assumed notability, but if you can find reliable sources reporting on Kriwi's win, that could help. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed sources would be very helpful in determining how to proceed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade 02:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Alfred Delucchi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longtime stub for a state trial court judge who presided over some notable trials, yes, but does not inherit notability from doing his job any more than does the bailiff for those cases. BD2412 T 01:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. BD2412 T 01:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep after his death in 2008 several media outlets in the area published obituaries of him, including . Passes the general notability guideline. Hut 8.5 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Misplaced Pages:JUDGE would seem he's eligible on that alone. However, presiding over the trials of Tyrone Robinson who murdered Black Panther Party co-founder Huey P. Newton, as well as presiding over the trial of Scott Peterson for the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child - these trials were big deals in coverage when they happened. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Maile66: Misplaced Pages:JUDGE has two tests, one being for "judges who have held international, national, or state/province–wide office", which this judge by definition has not, and the other for having "received significant press coverage". What significant press coverage has this subject received that is not merely mentions of their functionary role with respect to their work? BD2412 T 01:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  - Well, I'm not going to dig up the sourcing for you. But, believe me, there was much radio and TV coverage over both of these murders and subsequent trials. Huey P. Newton death and trial media coverage because of his cultural standing and significance at the time. Scott Peterson because killing his unborn son and wife was was a big media coverage situation. In trials like this, judges get more than a passing mention. You have the right to disagree with me, but I'm not changing my Keep above. — Maile (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep. Combined with the obituaries (which on their own are insufficient), here are some others: , , . With these we have enough for GNG and a short article. We also have some smaller mentions online (e.g., ) which help fill out the picture. Arbitrarily0 08:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. There are good-faith and grounded arguments for both keep and delete, and I do not find either side especially compelling (in numbers or in strength), nor do many submissions fall to be discounted for lack of policy basis. AFD has been open for a month and I do not think a further relist will achieve anything. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Valentina Bodrug-Lungu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Serious concerns about the subject’s notability have been raised at the article’s DYK nomination page. In essence, there is no real evidence that this individual passes WP:PROF. Those defending the nomination have made no case that she fulfills any of the criteria. They have pointed to her affiliation with an obscure NGO that seems to have only her as an employee; have mentioned “pioneering” work without any citations in support of the claim; and have pointed to some panel bios, press releases and boilerplate press quotes. None of this is remotely convincing. Where is the notability, as objectively defined by the relevant policy? — Biruitorul 17:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Moldova. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. I am not seeing a citation profile that suggests notability through NPROF C1, and her appointments do not meet any other NPROF criteria. The media coverage of her is trivial or non-independent, so she does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep I'm confused by the claim in the other discussion that she doesn't have coverage in Moldovan and related media. Because...she does. Here's some examples:

Floresu, Monica (November 21, 2007). "Cât inegalitate este între femei şi bărbaţi în Moldova" . BBC Romanian (in Romanian). Retrieved April 17, 2023.
Kischko, Irmgard (August 21, 2012). ""Die Sowjet-Mentalität muss aus unseren Köpfen"" . Kurier (in German). Retrieved April 17, 2023.
Barbarosie, Liliana; Cantir, Alexandru (November 25, 2010). "Impotriva violenței și a discriminării femeii în societate" . Radio Europa Liberă Moldova (in Romanian). Retrieved April 17, 2023.
"Valentina Bodrug-Lungu: Women have fewer chances in elections based on mixed system". IPN News Agency. November 27, 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2023.
"Valentina Bodrug Lungu, expertă gender, într-un interviu cu Ambasadorul UK la Chișinău" . Agora (in Romanian). March 5, 2021. Retrieved April 17, 2023.
"Carieră performantă dedicată educației pentru echitate de gen și șanse egale" . Moldova State University (in Romanian). February 24, 2021. Retrieved April 17, 2023.

She also received a medal called the Glory of Labor. I don't know the importance of that or not, so someone more knowledgeable about Moldovan awards will need to inform us on that one. Silver seren 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The last source can be dismissed on WP:PSTS grounds, the university being her employer. As for the rest, media quotes recycling a possibly baseless description of her as an “expert” and revolving around her leadership of a phantom NGO cannot substitute for legitimate evidence of notability, as defined by WP:PROF. It is not enough to simply affirm that someone is an expert, this quality must be demonstrated via impartial sources, which must deal with the subject herself, not simply parrot her views. — Biruitorul 22:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we should be judging her using WP:PROF when it's clear her work is more focused on political and governmental outreach rather than academic publications. Also, it sounds like you're using a personal claim about her NGO and coverage of her that isn't backed up with any evidence. It sounds like no source coverage would be enough for you because you'd deem them non-impartial by the mere fact that they covered her and her work. Silver seren 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Where is the coverage of her political and governmental outreach? I mean, I see her quoted with opinions on this and that topic, in a very small number of independent sources, but none actually mentions the impact of her activities, nor credits her with any political influence. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Source #1 is a routine quote/primary interview from her -- does not count towards GNG (if this was sufficient almost every single sportsman we deleted the last year would be easily refunded). #2 is her commentary as part of a panel -- does not count towards GNG as there is no SIGCOV of her. #3 is an interview with her with very little secondary coverage -- does not count towards GNG. #4 is repeating things she said with zero secondary analysis by the author -- no GNG. #5 is another interview with no secondary coverage -- no GNG. #6 is obviously out as her employer. So she definitely does not meet GNG, the only option left is NPROF C7. However, C7 requires the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. We would need quite a bit more than six quotations to get there. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Her being the subject expert for a variety of international media, along with being a subject expert on a variety of UN related media that I didn't showcase here going back 20 years, absolutely meets the requirements of C7. Silver seren 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The sources above by User:Silver seren give me the impression that she's having a real world impact as an expert, influencing media etc. Also here she is the author of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Shadow Reports several times, which (if I udnerstand correctly) are used to influence policy: https://sdgs.un.org/panelists/valentina-bodrug-lungu-46235 So I think the academic notability threshold is relevant and met. I suppose someone could counter argue that making the news a lot and writing UN reports doesn't demonstrate actual impact, it's difficult to link outputs to impact, but I think we can logically conclude that someone who is quoted by BBC and other news and the UN as an expert is notable enough for wikipedia. CT55555(talk) 02:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
C7 explicitly says a A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. It doesn't matter how prestigious the outlet quoting someone is (and of course someone who participates on UN committees will be quoted by the UN...my fellow postdoc did a stint there and is quoted several times as an expert in special reports). Being a coauthor of a report also doesn't mean anything without her being attributed (by someone completely separate from any institutions involved) specifically as a major factor in changing a particular policy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable as an academic, no depth of coverage as a public figure. This article lowers the bar of notability beyond any level I've seen. Dahn (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Updated the post on the Women in Red talk page that previously referred to the DYK Lajmmoore (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep I've added the Order of Work Glory which is for "outstanding achievements in an individual's field of work, esteemed public activity during their career, and great contributions to the development of the Moldovan cultural, scientific, socio-economic, sporting and public spheres.", from SilverSeren's source above: seems to support notability. PamD 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The problem with that argument is that around 100 people a year are given this award (in a country with a couple million people). They include retired village schoolteachers, middle school principals, high school teachers, middle school psychologists, doctors and engineers (completely random ones, that is), kindergarten directors, village mayors, choir directors and the like.
- So no, her possession of this medal really doesn’t add to a claim of notability. — Biruitorul 08:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)::

By that token, we should absolutely have an article on fellow recipient Alexandru Schițco, who manages the agricultural co-operative in Fălești. Dahn (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep: I have found significant coverage in the Moldovan press, both in Romanian and Russian. See for example , , . These are far more than just passing remarks as they present her opinions and background in some detail.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the second link, I tend to believe that your argument would be strengthened by leaving out reference to a propaganda arm of the Kremlin operating inside a Russian puppet state. — Biruitorul 09:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott: It's actually quite the opposite: these new sources are not just of dubious quality, but her opinion on this and that subject being vented there, or anywhere, is not an indication of her notability -- an article that would have her as the focus, that would include the independent opinions of others describing her as important -- that is what counts as notability, and this is explicit stated in the guideline (which notes that non-notable academics do not become notable for simply being interviewed). Moreover: WP:NOTNEWS. Dahn (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep. This scholar's work directly or indirectly has resulted in recognition and NGO appointments. The Order of Work Glory award, although derided above, is more than what most academics achieve. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- What “recognition” and what “NGO appointments” are you speaking of, and how do these translate into notability?
- As to that silly award, I suppose you are technically correct that most academics worldwide do not get a little medal from the government of Moldova, but perhaps you can understand why an award given to no less than 72 university professors (in a country not exactly bursting with them), and one given to, among other people, “Nicolai Dragan, president of the Pobeda Collective Farm, Gagauzia”, does nothing to bolster a claim of notability. — Biruitorul 15:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  If Molvova has 18 universities (assuming List of universities in Moldova is correct, and if a university tends to have about 250 professors (just my estimate) then we would estimate there to be 4,500 professors in the country. Let's not consider turnover, 4,500 is today's estimate, not the all time number, just to be conservative. So 72 of 4,5000 means 1.6% got the award. I don't think this suggest it is given out easily. I'd use the 72 number to argue the opposite, only a small fraction of professors have ever got the award, assuming my estimates are reasonable. CT55555(talk) 15:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  - My point is that this type of award can be mentioned once notability is otherwise established; it does not by itself establish or add to notability.
    
    For example, the current Prime Minister of Moldova was given the award some years ago. Should that be mentioned in his biography? I suppose. Does it add one iota to his notability? No, because the award is also freely handed out to the most ordinary, routine citizens, people very far away from any hint of notability. People like “Mihail Baban, retiree, ex-director of the middle school in Arionești village” (population 1300). — Biruitorul 16:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    You're arguing that the award must be insignificant because people you don't recognize received it. There's no reason to assume that a middle school director couldn't be notable: we have more than 250 biographies of American school principals. You also note that the current PM received the award, which only seems to support the idea that it is, in fact, a significant award. pburka (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    - One, notable people have received the award, I don’t dispute that. But they’re only a small fraction of the total recipients.
      
      Two, may I remind you of WP:BURDEN? In fact, let’s try something. I’ve made a list of ten recent recipients (recent, meaning coverage will be online), of whom, I must admit, I’ve never heard. If you can make a reasonable demonstration that even one of them is notable (I won’t be very stringent), I’ll immediately withdraw this nomination, because that would truly mean any recipient is notable.

Vasile Plăcintă, chief inspector at the Chișinău Customs Point
Galina Filipova, head of the Department of social aid and family protection, Taraclia District Council
Nicolai Odajiu, veteran worker, Chircăiești village
Ludmila Mîndru, head nurse at the Cancer Institute
Tamara Codrean, head of the MedFamily Medical Center
Andrei Meșina, locksmith and repairer at the Ionel Clothing Factory
Iraida Cușnir, doctor at the Călărași District Council
Tatiana Gutium, head of the City Maternity Hospital nr. 2
Elena Adomniței, teacher at the Zorile village middle school
Nina Rusu, secretary at the Strășeni District Council. — Biruitorul 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

- - Even in a small country, a national award is a national award. As for appointments and other NGO roles, among others, she is an organizing partner of the Women's Major Group. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    - But national awards are themselves not inherent indications of notability. At most, they correlate with it — a recipient of the Order of the Republic is likelier to be notable, but it’s not guaranteed.
      
      How exactly does the Women's Major Group link satisfy WP:PSTS? Yes, it attests she’s on the board of an NGO — but it’s the NGO itself doing the attesting. A circular feedback loop at its finest. — Biruitorul 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. As I noted on the DYK nomination page, 121 Google Scholar citations over a 20-year span does not meet the notability threshold for an academic, not by a long shot. Turgidson (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Citation counts are contextual. Articles on political science topics by authors from Moldova and Romania are cited less than 1.2 times per article Lens.org search. Articles in gender studies even less than that. Articles from social science fields are less cited than Medicine and Technology; likewise articles written in any language other than English are likely to be under-cited. Given the context, the author citation profile is respectable. Furthermore, her works are cited outside the academic literature--including GMF, UN World Food, UN FAO book. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Then where is Bodrug-Lungu's contextual citation by Romanian-speaking academic sources? Dahn (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of establishing academic notability, author origin has no bearing on whether one's research is considered impactful within a field. NPROF says For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). "Being a Moldovan academic" is not a major subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep sufficient recognition over time to meet WP:ANYBIO, criteria #2 from her UN work alone, without even mentioning her work with the EU and policy at the national level.Gale A552062928,Gale A667871008 , ,, Her notability should not be judged as an academic, but rather as a policy expert, which clearly is demonstrated by her involvement at both the national and international level, as shown by numerous sources. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources would have to show more than "involvement" in policies, they would have to include statements specifically about her contribution and contextual importance, and substantial coverage of her as a public person. This has not shown to be the case, no matter how many passing mentions are piled on here to fluff up the entry. Dahn (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Being in a UN program or working group does not make someone notable. Nor does being a member of a governmental subcommittee. Tens of thousands of people regularly take part in such UN conferences/stakeholder platforms/partnerships (the SDGS UN profile you link is for an upcoming virtual "expert group meeting" for stakeholders with voluntary commitments to SDG Goal 5; Bodrug-Lungu is one of 50+ attendees. 3 other EGMs are being held in just the next month alone, which you can register for if you have a partnership account). ANYBIO #2 says Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. We are orders of magnitude from that threshold (do we even have lay sources that describe her work, as opposed to just quoting her?). Passing mentions and brief quotes as an expert are routine for academics, especially in fields that intersect with policy/IR, and apart from a small number of invited lecture series the prestige of the venue is totally irrelevant. This is also true of being a panelist at various international fora. The other sources you cite are press announcements from orgs Bodrug-Lungu belongs to (e.g. OSCE, PGE), her name in lists of discussion participants, or quotes from her as an attendee at a forum, none of which count towards notability. If we are not judging based on NPROF, she must meet GNG, and she absolutely does not have multiple pieces of SIGCOV in SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment Also note how the entry is being promoted because of a supposed gender bias against Moldovan women, when Bodrug is in fact specialized in discussing said claim, and is exclusively quoted for that (self-referential) claim. We are not talking about someone like Diana Dumitru, also a woman, also a Moldovan, and also an associate professor, whose notability is instantly discernible from imposing and varied scholarship, also in humanities, that has been published and widely quoted by independent venues. (A similar case could be made about Moldovan scholar Svetlana Suveică, on whom we do not have an article.) Now that is notability for a scholar from Moldova, not what is being introduced here as an astounding new benchmark. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

- Or take Mihaela Miroiu from neighboring Romania — not so much our lackluster article, but a cursory Google search, will reveal immediate notability, without having to invent new standards.
- Standards such as “she shares a medal with ‘Vasile Strîmbeanu, mayor of Limbenii Vechi village’, ‘Andrei Munteanu, head of the „Miorița” Recreation Camp, Ivancea village’, ‘Oleg Ciocoi, vice director of the Society of Hunters and Fishermen of the Republic of Moldova’, or ‘Dumitru Gornostal, mechanic at Railroad car station nr. 294, Răuțel Station’”.
- By the way, did anyone have any luck finding sources on at least one of these guys? I’m sure the Moldovan Internet is positively abuzz with in-depth coverage of these village mayors, camp directors, hunting association vice directors and especially railway mechanics. — Biruitorul 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  @Biruitorul, it is totally out of pocket to belittle living people to score points on Misplaced Pages. Please find a less disparaging way to make your point. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  - My issue is not with these fine people, but with the AfD participants who claimed, in all seriousness, that their receipt of a medal made them notable.
    But yes, I’ve made my point. Still, permit me to close with four more (no names this time): driver, mechanic, bricklayer, carpenter. The very image of notability! — Biruitorul 08:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think the point is that awards and honours are a contributing factor to notability e.g. the British OBE doesn't guarantee notability, but is a contributor to a case for it
    
    Lajmmoore (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    - We are in agreement to the extent that once notability is otherwise established, awards can be mentioned. — Biruitorul 10:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
      For me, I read the guidance that they are a contributing factor to notability but (as you say) not proof by themselves. There is a difference. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure about Suveică? She is cited 193 times in Google Scholar, far less than Miroiu with her 1.6k citations and closer to the subject of this AfD.

By the way, out of curiosity I looked into some of the persons mentioned above. Strîmbeanu and Gornostal are not notable, and Andrei Munteanu has such a common name that it is hard to even find sources referring to him. Ciocoi though, is a different case. Several Moldovan newspapers mention him. Not that I can already tell he is notable though. Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

He became society president in the meantime too. Impressive. On a serious vein, there may be scope for an article on hunting in Moldova; Ciocoi, with a handful of press quotes and maybe a protest to his name, is far from meeting the notability standards, medal or not. — Biruitorul 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus -- not sure about Suveică's notability, but certainly surer than I am about Bodrug's. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete. In my opinion this is not an article of a seemingly non-notable figure at first glance, but arguments here have convinced me. Considering though that this is a living person, she may receive further coverage from reliable sources in the future. She appears to have had some relevant functions. So an article about her shouldn't be discarded forever. Though it might take years or decades for her to become notable, if she ever does. It is more likely that she will not. Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep- there's a lot to consider with the discussion above, but I still think there are grounds for her inclusion:

WP:PROF-1b says "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea" - so I would suggest that pioneering the teaching of gender studies does support this. See the initial paragraph in the UN Women article here (not the interview body) & a similar introduction from Agora here (which Internews Europe supports the reliability of. (sources I started the article with)
WP:PROF-7 "impact outside academia in their academic capacity" including syllabi redevelopment as published by the journal Studia Universitatis Moldaviae (Seria Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei) 39.9 (2010): 246-246 here (a source I started the article with)

Also, thanks to the discussion above, I think this is further supported by the BBC feature here & the introduction from Kurier here. I think the medal is a contributing factor to notability too. Her role with the Women's Major Group contributes to notability too. I'd missed this initially, but it was founded at the 1992 Earth Summit. There's this this publication where her expertise is described as "s a significant contribution in the draw up and promotion of essential documents related to gender equality in Moldova. Actively involved in creating and building capacity within the national mechanism on gender equality in Moldova, she was a member of the Governmental Committee on Gender Equality (2006 – 2008); head of the Presidential Committee on Women and Family Issues (1999-2000); member on the board of Karat Coalition, a network of women’s NGOs from CEE/CIS countries."(p.224) Looking at where her researched is discussed, it most often discussed in terms of her research into domestic violence here in a thesis, here in terms of conjugal rape, here in terms of influencing Israeli pedagoggy.
I also think that her case is interesting to debate as her notability intersects across policy, research and advocacy, so doesn't neatly fit into WP guidelines. In combination I think this makes a positive case for inclusion. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so now you cite as evidence of notability some marginal praise of her in a PhD thesis that had her as the adviser? Dahn (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The reference is a secondary source in a PhD dissertation and I don't see a guideline that precludes its inclusion. I see that you're implying that it must be biased, but I don't think that claim is automatic. Supervisees often discuss the work of their supervisors - sometimes critically, sometimes not, but just because this isn't critical doesn't mean its inclusion is warrented. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Dahn (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes I read that description too - but this reference isn't referring to the primary data in the thesis, but the assessment of a secondary source. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Then it is even more useless. Dahn (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

To add to the absurdity, the Israeli thesis, for which Bodrug served as adviser, cites Bodrug’s own doctoral thesis! — Biruitorul 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I read the guideline as different - that you can't use a PhD as a primary source - but you can use it as a secondary one. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The UN is not an independent source on Bodrug-Lungu as she belongs to several UN organizations and collaborates directly with UN Women. The Agora interview only calls her a "gender expert", which is, again, extremely routine for academics. And anyway, NPROF C1b states: Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Where are the necessary numerous academic publications discussing both the significance of promoting gender education in Moldova and her role in it?
NPROF C7: Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Nowhere have we established that her academic work is widely regarded as significant within academia. A colleague of hers writing a nice letter about her in her university's education journal, on behalf of the department she belongs to, is not an independent assessment of her academic impact. Additionally, that source only notes she "contributed to the conceptualization of "education for family life" in Moldovan secondary schools"; it doesn't say anything about any syllabi being implemented (which is irrelevant to NPROF C7 anyway).
Praise by organizations about their own members is never independent; hyping the quality/impact of their members' work is literally what they do and thus is not suggestive of notability. A one-sentence self-submitted blurb in the "About Us" section of one of the UN's SDG processes is not suggestive of notability. Bodrug-Lungu's own doctoral student discussing her research in their dissertation is obviously not independent appraisal of her academic contributions; it is not even an academic source as it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Two sentences discussing one's research in an academic article is exactly what a citation is in the humanities; the existence of citations to someone is not evidence of academic notability unless the number is well above the average for the field. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding citations: What is the field and what is the average--and what is the source of that average? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade 02:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has commented since the relist, giving it one more shot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not the first time you added a "strong" in your stance without adequately explaining why. There is a lengthy discussion above, so please refer to one of the guidelines if you really think it deserves a "strong" delete. Timothytyy (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I understand the nature of the discussion so far, I believe. Going down the Google Scholar list, I see a broad base of publications over a range of social, psychological and educational areas, quite a few not in English. The scope of the material in the article doesn't really reflect that range. In my judgement, having this article helps rather than hinders Misplaced Pages's mission. I say this as someone who works on Wikidata on topics and authors for scholarly papers, rather than someone who applies citation metrics. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument? Are you saying that, because she has published on a broad range of topics, she meets NPROF? Because that reasoning is explicitly prohibited in NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete Incredibly weak citation record. Other coverage is unexceptional and does not indicate notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Petter Rocha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer who played a few Uruguayan first division matches and one season of semi-pro football in the Spanish third division, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Aside from match reports and statistics database entries, there is very little available online. This Q&A interview is the best I could find, but it is not in-depth and most of the coverage is primary. Jogurney (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uruguay. Spiderone 08:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) House Blaster 20:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

John Yarbrough

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G14. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Two JYs, each would merit a redirect, no clear PT, so a dab page is needed.Pam D 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep it doesn't meet any of those criteria. It disambiguates two pages. Both entries meet ]. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Boleyn: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "any of those criteria." I only cited one criterion, WP:G14. The page in question "disambiguate zero extant Misplaced Pages pages." There is no Misplaced Pages article for either of the John Yarbroughs that it disambiguates. It's pretty straightforward. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Denniscabrams, there are3 parts to the G14 criteria. There are 2 extant WP pages here - it doesn't mean that they need to have their own articles, with two entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL . Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see how this disambiguation page serves the project as it doesn't link to any existing Misplaced Pages articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep I added Jon Yarbrough, American billionaire, the founder of Video Gaming Technologies. It has been my experience at DABS, that names don't have to be spelled exactly alike. That's one of the purposes of dabs, to clarify with variations on spellings of a name. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep Worthwhile disambig page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Udini Square

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 5 years ago, however I'm not convinced this shopping centre meets GNG. The Malay version of this article is poorly sourced. A look at the existing sources:

1. a routine announcement about how much of the centre is leased.
2. a dead link
3. and 6. routine announcements about a store opening
4. dead link
5. appears to be a developer's website, doesn't link specifically to info on this shopping centre.
7. and 8. public transport information

LibStar (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Companies, and Malaysia. AllyD (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Due to WP:SIGCOV and the absence of worthwhile sources. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep: WP:SIGCOV is not a requirement for assessing notability; it is just one factor in a general process that requires careful judgement. The size and location of this shopping centre, which appears to be established by the sources, suggests that this mall is a notable entity in its local area, and to enough people generally to make it worthy for inclusion. Jack4576 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"The size and location of this shopping centre" are not criteria for notability. Nor it being "notable entity in its local area". It must meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We are looking for GNG evidence that the shopping centre is a notable entity.

The sources, that show the centre is likely (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area; all suggest to me that this article merits its own article.

The issues with the references are not so defective as to prevent one from establishing the above. GNG is met. Jack4576 (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

" (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area" Again, please point to the notability guideline which gives shopping centres notability on the basis of these criteria you name. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

GNG satisfaction gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable.

It is not a requirement that subjects pass GNG to be assessed as notable.

The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people, this subject is notable, and thus it would be to Misplaced Pages's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people". Again you are inventing your own criteria for shopping centres. LibStar (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not appealing to GNG criteria, I am appealing to the meaning of notability in the colloquial sense.

As I have stated earlier, independent of the GNG guidelines (which I note, establish a presumption and are not determinative of the notability issue per se); I think there are reasons this subject are notable.

I think the observation that notability is established by:

(1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area

is inutitive, and grounded in common sense Jack4576 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

What you consider "grounded in common sense" may not align with meeting notability in Misplaced Pages. You are welcome to start your own online encyclopedia based on your "intuition". You could then include all shopping centres that are (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Also I am curious to know what are your intuitive thresholds for large by floor space area, and how many visitors makes a large number. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I have provided reasons for my notability assessment, free to disagree with them.

I do think those reasons align with the Misplaced Pages threshold for notability. I think its fairly arguable that this an important centre for a large number of people, based on my reasons provided above, based on the geography, building size, and the photographs and images that show the centre's size and location. (None of which are issues that are in dispute).

Given the above tends towards the view that Udini Square is a keep, it would seem to me it is entirely unnecessary to start another encyclopedia. The guidelines for this one are fine as it is, usually.

I have contributed my views, and my reasons, and my opinion remains keep is appropriate. Feel free to engage and provide counterarguments if you wish; but maybe it would be best to invite other editors in an RfC if consensus cannot be reached here. Jack4576 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC's are for content disputes, not deletion discussions, which are supposed to be here. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576: This is the first time I've heard this. You need to make it clear why you think this article should stay on Misplaced Pages, and article need to meet SIGCOV as a requirement to be on Misplaced Pages, which this one definitely does not. To be clear, my vote is Delete unless someone can find sources or restore the dead links. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject is notable

Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV. With respect, I think you need to re-read GNG more closely. Jack4576 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV', only true if it meets one of the accepted notability guidelines like WP:NPOL for politicians , WP:NACTOR for actors etc. There isn't a shopping centre notability guideline that gives notability for " (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area". LibStar (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Untrue. You are confusing guidelines that give rise to a presumption; they are not a requirement. This goes for all of the policies you have cited.

I accept that this shopping centre doesn't meet the guidelines so as to give rise to a presumption. Nevertheless, I think taking a step back, the evidence we have available to form a view as to what this shopping centre is; tends toward a conclusion that it is notable enough that it would be to Misplaced Pages's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't demonstrated how it meets GNG? Did you actually search for sources? Or WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I am clearly providing reasons, and so my argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE

My reason is grounded in an empathy for the persons in this local area, coupled with an intuitive judgement as to what would be notable to people and what people would reasonably expect to be in an encyclopedia.

GNG establishes a presumption that an article is notable. it is not a requirement for notability; and as I have stated above, this subject has multiple inherent characteristics that I think warrant its inclusion for notability. Feel free to disagree. Jack4576 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

But we're talking about how this article fails GNG, not about the presumption of notability? This argument makes no sense, nor does the "empathy" for people in the area, because this is a notability discussion and not about the local community, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the fact this article receives just 9 average page views daily, most of which are probably editors. Your arguments, here and on other discussion, devolve into WP:POINT votes, including on an RfA (which you, thankfully, withdrew after extensive discussion), and numerous WP:ITSNOTABLE votes. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Some of the dead link sources have been updated with archived links, and they seem to also be routine announcements of store openings. Searches of the term did not returned with sufficient coverage, and searches in Malay and Chinese only yielded trivial mentions as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. We don't have articles with tons of openings and new shoppes, interviews of the hopes and dreams of 100 shopkeepers, and the like. That's not significant coverage about the mall, and of them that are in local news or tourist authority press releases. Penang is notable, and a lovely city (I've been there, and it's one of my favorite places in the world; my alternate executor's husband was born there), but I don't see how this is any way notable. Routine coverage of businesses do not pass WP:NCORP. A southeast Asian market can be notable (see, e.g., Carbon Market), but it has to be shown to be notable. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete: per nom source eval, and Tutwakhamoe and Bearian. The keep vote above seem to be explaining why the subject doesn't really need to meet GNG, rather that providing sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and and indepth, and showing the subject does meet GNG. // Timothy :: talk 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree. The keep voter has made zero effort to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG. Or maybe he has searched and found nothing. All he has done is invent his own criteria for notable shopping centres. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete – non-SIGCOV and ROUTINE-ish sources can't prove notability. I can't seem to find any sources that significantly cover the subject online either. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Giving Assistant

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet NCORP/NPRODUCT. Only source that initially looks good from CNN is actually a paid advertisement and marked "Sponsored by Giving Assistant. When you make a purchase, CNN receives commission. CNN news staff is not involved". Otherwise, total lack of significant coverage. Editor only has 14 edits, whiffs of COI (not a ground for deletion per se, but probably why there is nothing out there to build this into a proper article and substantiate notability) MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete, PROMO. There's nothing to be found that we can use. CNN is basically a sponsored post. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete: An article on a consumer Reward website. Giving Assistant closed in 2021 but coverage of concerns about the closure (e.g. ) does not confer notability; Upright Data later acquired and revived it but there is no article here about that firm, so no WP:ATD target. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Queen's Head (Portland, Oregon)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked for notability since January. Only existed for 1 year. Could not significant coverage except in local publications. Even a search in oregonlive.com yielded nothing. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Sexuality and gender, and Oregon. Spiderone 08:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep based on the WP:RS the place is notable per WP:NTEMP. We also have no requirement that RS be national or international, just reliable. Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep interesting and substantive article, which is currently being edited for improvement, bringing its sources up to date. Definitely informative and worth keeping. — Maile (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and in my opinion, this is too much content to merge into LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep given the quickly dwindling number of gay and lesbian bars in North America, they are by and large all notable. Foxtrot620 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet NORG - there is insufficient coverage in depth from reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. The only two references within are routine coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kansas. Spiderone 08:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep I am adding more sources to the article but considering it is a local organization and one of the largest domestic abuse support groups in Kansas I believe it meets the criteria for inclusion. Des Vallee (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not satisfactory to say "it's a large domestic abuse support group" and therefore meets criteria for inclusion. You actually need to point out which sources cover the article subject in-depth. This article needs to meet NORG in order to warrant inclusion and a thorough WP:BEFORE check shows plenty of small routine coverage "hits" but this does not justify inclusion. Even a local business often will populate a number of hits in a search engine. We need evidence of sustained, indepth coverage. Not hits here and there briefly mentioning the name of the organisation. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This source for example does not count towards notability. It simply says Jessa Farmer, public policy coordinator for the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, said current Kansas statute left victims who endured years of violence to refile annually for extension of a protection order. She said the burden was on victims to navigate the court system, often without legal representation due to a shortage of attorneys in Kansas willing to take these cases.

That is the epitome of "routine" and trivial coverage. The article has nothing to do with the organisation itself. It's about domestic abuse and they've just quoted someone from this organisation. That does not substantiate a claim to notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
MaxnaCarta This source per example is entirely about the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, a quick search shows it has been mentioned at least 245 times by reliable sources. Des Vallee (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
That’s one source and not of sufficient depth to meet MNCORP. 245 hits means nothing unless the coverage is significant. Trivial mentions are not sufficient to meet NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
keep passes WP:GNG. A quick search of news articles shows a measureable number of good sources.--Paul McDonald (talk)

@Paulmcdonald: Please list the best three sources you believe are reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage so I can withdraw the nomination? MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Click the "news link and you'll see plenty.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald I did just that. I’ve acknowledged that there are hundreds of “hits”. Irrelevant. Many organisations get lots of trivial mentions. Doesn’t mean they’re sufficiently notable for a stand alone article in an encyclopaedia which requires significant coverage to be included. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a big differnece between Trivial mentions and citing the subject as an expert. For example: "According to the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, SB 180 compliance could put more than $17 million in funding to Kansas agencies at risk." from Kansas Reflector; WIBW interviewed the organization's executive director Michelle McCormick and was later quoted as an expert source in both the Lawrence Times and NPR; the previous executive director was cited as an expert by the Hays Post; another previous executive director sourced information on porn and human trafficing in the Topeka Capital-Journal back in February of 2019, over four years ago, meeting WP:SUSTAINED. These samples provided are not Trivial mentions but instead: they meet the standard of Independent sources, the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, the coverage is clerly WP:NOTROUTINE, and the coverage meets the standards set forward not only in WP:GNG but also in WP:ORG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: SIGCOV gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable. SIGCOV is not a requirement for an otherwise notable subject to be notable under GNG.

As Paul McDonald has noted, the coverage meets the standard of Independent sources, the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, and are WP:NOTROUTINE Jack4576 (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

GNG doesn’t apply. ORGCRIT applies which does require sigcov. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete - sources which are in-depth about the organization do not seem to exist. Lots of mentions, but fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 15:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 04:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete The extensive sources we need just aren't there; they likely do meet the inclusion criteria, but without proper sourcing, we can't create an article for them. I can only find trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Newspapers articles mentioning them in relation to other things, directory listings, that's about all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to recent comment about the quality of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong Keep as per Paul McDonald's comments in the thread above and my own comment in reply. Jack4576 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete People affiliated with an organization being quoted in the media doesn't amount to in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Even if that media coverage could establish the article-worthiness of the people (e.g., per academic bio criteria), notability is not inherited: not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers does not make that AFT local notable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply because there is no argument being made that any people are notable because of their attachment to an organization. I have no understanding why the academic bio criteria is mentioned as a reason to delete, that's never been brought up either. Resons to delete should be germane.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable organisation. This is the 2nd Afd in as many days with exact same kind of claim to notability, but the coverage doesn't support it. The fact that some members may be notable doesn't make organisation notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: the first two references collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
No they don’t. They aren’t sufficiently in-depth. Check NCORP/ORGCRIT. It’s a high bar for organisations and companies. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The second source only names the organisation. While quoting its staff member. Per NCORP/NORG trivial mentions include “quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources”. Not significant coverage. This is what all the coverage out there looks like. It’s not enough. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

They specifically fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep 10:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, I find that the sources not only in the article, but listed above as examples and found through basic online searches far exceed the the criteria at WP:SIRS. These are not "brief, passing mentions" but are instead the heart of many of the news articles. They are not trivial mentions, they are material sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

done commenting I think both sides have stated their points and don't want to regress into WP:WABBITSEASON. Hat tip to all!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete – mostly per XOR'easter & Onel5969. The sources provided above and in the article lack significant coverage, thus causing the organization to fail the WP:GNG. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Rick Dyer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page is unnecessary, as there are only two people who have articles named Rick Dyer. I propose deleting it and moving one of the two Rick Dyers (probably the game designer) to this title as the primary topic, while leaving a hatnote that directs to the other Rick Dyer, and a different disambiguation page for the various Richard Dyers. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep: no obvious primary topic. Page views favour the videogame designer but not overwhelmingly, and even the nominator says "probably". Just leave it as is. PamD 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Rick_Dyer shows that in March, 43 people saw the list and 24 went to the first entry (55%). I don't think this is quite sufficient to prove WP:PTOPIC status. As for the Richards, it is curious that the only outgoing link that registers at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Richard_Dyer is one of the hatnotes, so we might want to try to disambiguate that fully as well. --Joy (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep 2 valid entries, no evidence put forwardof a clear primary topic. Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per above. No evidence of a clear primary topic, so maintaining the DAB page seems best for now. CycloneYoris 04:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ping (restaurant)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage for this now closed restaurant to meet GNG. 2 of the supplied sources are primary, and this source is a 1 line mention about its closure. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ into Hung Far Low (restaurant), considering the brief writeup and existence of Ping (restaurant). Same space. Maybe under a title "Aftermath: Ping" or something of sorts. gidonb (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Gidonb: Thanks for weighing in. I have expanded the article significantly and continue to find more sources to add. I think there's clear evidence the subject has been discussed in detail by reliable sources. Can you please take another look? I'd like to see if I can change your vote to "keep". Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing to keep. My concern here was the length of the article and excessive fragmentation, not notability. Now that the text is longer a merge would create a situation of WP:UNDUE so this is no longer desirable. gidonb (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per GNG. This is yet another nomination by LibStar, who seems to be nominating Portland restaurant articles indiscriminately, or at least without doing thorough source assessments before jumping to AfD. I've asked them to slow down, or use tags/talk page comments instead of mass nominating, but here we are. I've worked to expand the article and continue to find in-depth articles specifically about Ping, published by reliable sources. The article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, Ping was a James Beard Foundation Award semifinalist. It was also included in Alan Richman's list of 10 best new restaurants in the U.S. Are we seriously debating notability? Is the nominator even trying? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep easy pass of our notability guidelines with in depth RS. Lightburst (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep re-edited and updated since this nomination. Informative article that needs to be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Redlands Terrier Marching Band

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very promotional, and while it does get some local coverage, does not pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 00:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. AllyD (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete does get some coverage but it's in very local media outlets like the Redlands Daily Facts or Redlands Community News, which I don't think is enough (and newspapers at that level probably aren't very reliable anyway). Possibly redirect to Redlands High School, which doesn't mention it but certainly could. Hut 8.5 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete The coverage is local, run of the mill, and despite the fact it has won competitions, these are run of the mill scholastic-level competitions (not sure if that's the right term). It seems a vanity page by an editor who, in general, wrote/contributed to several articles about this high school. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete Not only the coverage is not enough, but if kept it needs a whole rewrite and removal of uncited content. Pershkoviski (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Prancer (film). ✗plicit 00:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Prancer: A Christmas Tale

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one review from Common Sense Media. Article needs one more suitable and reliable review to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I added several sources. Thanks for this notice. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to Prancer (film) A lot of ITEXISTS sources, one source just talks about the actor's career (and because of his activism, criminal record) than the film, and no actual reviews or summaries of the film itself. It needs much more than this to exist as its own article. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirect as per above. Not enough material to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Recent precedent, which I am bound to apply, is that sports notability guidelines no longer provide evidence of notability where WP:GNG is met. Arguments on the basis of WP:NBAD as such must be given reduced weight, and the two WP:JVs either side of the relist must be given very little weight. After almost a month on AFD a relist is also not appropriate.

As with all my deletion decisions, I have considered this carefully before closing and will not reconsider the decision based on discussions on my talk page. If you wish to challenge this decision please proceed directly to WP:DRV; I waive all requirements to consult or discuss with me prior to doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Patiphat Chalardchaleam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong Keep medalist at Sudirman Cup, the topmost grade 1 bwf level mixed team tournament, equivalent with individual world championships. zoglophie 04:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't agree a player which did not a play a single match in the Sudirman Cup would guarantee notability. The subject only has trivial mentions in all sources, so SIGCOV still not seen. I also don't agree that a participant of a team Grade 1 championship would have notability, which is based on sources, according to WP:ROUTINE and SIGCOV. Except you can find a source which provides significant coverage for the subject. Being an individual world champion is just so different from being one of the enormous squad of a non-finalist team. Timothytyy (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep his achievement higher than NBAD. BWF World Tour is a Grade 2 of badminton tournaments, while Sudirman Cup is a Grade 1 of badminton tournament. Stvbastian (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from nominator @Zoglophie Stvbastian I suggest you two read WP:N carefully. SNG does not supercede GNG, i.e. articles that pass NBAD/players with achievements does not guarentee itself an article. The subject has absolutely zero coverage, so I don't understand why a SIGCOV failing article deserve a strong keep. Timothytyy (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

trivial mention in some secondary sources, primary sources, can also be used to "support" notability. We can extract the content from multiple secondary sources as evidence of notability. Stvbastian (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Stvbastian According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can NOT support notability. According to WP:SIGCOV, only sources that provides coverage about the subject directly and in detail can contribute to notability. Quote from SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but it cannot be a trivial mention. Timothytyy (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Pass GNG #3. Stvbastian (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That is only one of the five criteria of the definition of GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", I don't understand why you omitted all the other criteria. Do you mean that a reliable source published independently providing few or no coverage of the subject contributes to notability? Timothytyy (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup.. we can collect multiple secondary sources that mentioned about that person as evidence of notability. As long as the sources are reliable and if the person we consider notable in badminton per their achievements and ranking, we can create a standing alone article about that person. Stvbastian (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention Spiderone 22:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Spiderone is right. Any guidelines to prove your statement, Stvbastian? Or did you just make it up out of nowhere? Timothytyy (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(1, 2, 3) those articles sufficient to satisfied GNG. Stvbastian (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has commented since the first relisting, trying one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong Keep per above. CastJared (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain your stance in terms of SIGCOV? Timothytyy (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This needed more notability. CastJared (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Also I notice that you voted a lot of "strong keep/delete per above"s in AFDs that met the previous consensus, so I doubt if those were your own judgements and if you read the articles carefully yourself. Timothytyy (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, which gives us no discretion to keep when no significant coverage can be found. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Entirely discounting a single non-explained keep vote, this is numerically balanced. However, neither keep !vote covers how GNG is ultimately met (as is required with the sporting SNGs). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Kittipon Kittikul

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep 2000 Swedish Open Grand Prix champion, three time in total medalled at the Southeast Asian Games. zoglophie 04:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Achievement -> notability? Check GNG please. Timothytyy (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep pass NBAD. won IBF World Grand Prix title 2000 Swedish Open. Stvbastian (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
NBAD -> notability? Quote from NBAD's page: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. and meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Failing GNG means no notability, NBAD is just for reference if an article likely has coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - failed to find anything that would meet WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG or WP:BIO when searching in Thai (กิตติพนธ์ กิติกุล). Spiderone 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: According to new sports notability guidelines, there must be SIGCOV demonstrated, not just claims of notability. Relisting to see if Keep supporters can provide these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for any additional comments here...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Keeps haven't brought up any sourcing to back it up. Timothytyy is correct--sport achievements don't confer notability. SWinxy (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Teeranun Chiangta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete or Move to draft No significant coverage found. I can't find any reliable, secondary sources that don't just pass mention about this person. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep just because WP:NBAD doesn't include it, it doesn't mean twice medalist at the Southeast Asian Games will not have merit to have an article. I believe it should be kept as per. zoglophie 04:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep two medals in Southeast Asian Games. He reached third round at the Olympics. Stvbastian (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete - according to de.wiki his name in Thai is ธีรนันท์ เชียงทา but I'm getting no decent results when searching. If he fails WP:NBAD, WP:NOLY, WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG, which nobody seems to be disputing, then I don't see any guideline-centred reason for keeping this. Maybe redirect to Badminton at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's singles at best. Spiderone 08:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete fails to meet the notability requirements in WP:GNG

1keyhole (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Two medals in Southeast Asian Games. He reached third round at the Olympics. Florentyna (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

None of which has relevance to WP:NBAD, WP:NOLY, WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG Spiderone 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep I am personally convinced that this person would meet GNG if there was more internet reporting on badminton in Thailand in the early 90s... the argument I present is that the Western bias in sourcing and achievement requirements is probably at play and we should at least revisit those past discussion proposals of allowing more wiggle room for non-Western and historic subjects in some areas. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete Clearly fails GNG and I would be more inclined to keep if I could find more than 1 source on the wiki page. I cannot analyze only 1 source. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also this blatantly fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone 08:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete Could not find many sources for him. Heart 00:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete I tried look for material in Thai and English and couldn't find anything. Dr vulpes 05:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Touché Restaurant & Bar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find significant coverage for this now closed restaurant. This source is more about the building it was in. And this source is more about the redevelopment of the building the restaurant was in. There is also a "Touché Restaurant" in Miami https://chilledmagazine.com/must-mix-ginger-root-cocktails-from-touche-restaurant-miami/ but not sure if it still open. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep based on the WP:RS it was notable per WP:NTEMP. We also have no requirement that RS be national or international, just reliable and in depth. We are WP:NOTPAPER so we have room for such articles. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is yet another nomination by LibStar, who seems to be nominating articles by me indiscriminately, or at least without completing thorough source assessments before jumping to AfD. I've asked them to slow down, or use tags/talk page comments instead of mass nominating, but here we are. The subject has received plenty of secondary coverage in reliable sources. I could potentially see the page being moved, if editors feel the historic building is more notable than the most recent restaurant which operated there, but there's definitely a notable topic here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. No objection to reworking this to the building. Can be done after discussing on talk page. Which begs the question: why was this nominated for deletion at all. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Article covers this restaurant, previous restaurants and the historic building. Plenty of reliable, independent references. Passes GNG. Yes, could be it's the building that's more notable. The article does mention a number of previous occupiers (Develan's and Remo's) not just Touché. I'd suggest, if I may be so bold, retitling under something like Fire Station (Touché Restaurant). Also, if Misplaced Pages allows, there could be redirects for the previous restaurants, unless separate articles can be written for those. Rupples (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete‎ . Speedy deleting this as a hoax, indicated by the recent establishment of this state (two weeks ago) and the assertion of an entire administrative and military framework of governance. Liz 05:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

State of Darsah

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, pinging contester User:Kvng. Completely non-notable micronation, not a single source on this exists. Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Yemen. Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:HOAX, and CSD A11/G3 tagged as such. No, I don't care if you're not supposed to speedy tag something already at AFD, I'll also call for blocking the creator who also made the Draft:Kingdom of Boclej junk, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Reywas92 03:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete A11 per Reywas. Mccapra (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Shuri-ryū. Courcelles (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert Bowles (karate)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Unable to find any nontrivial independent coverage, or any substantiation of various claims in the Competitions section. — Moriwen (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. — Moriwen (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Weak redirect to Shuri-ryū I'm finding a lot of sources that don't quite establish notability. He has a lot of passing(ish?) coverage in this maybe-reliable magazine, and a lot of local coverage, and that's it. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

References

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9YDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12

Comment - He seems to have gotten some coverage in newspapers - https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/search/?query=%22Robert%20Bowles%22%20karate.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment My search did not find the significant independent coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Most of the coverage I found is related to the International Shuri-ryū Association that he founded. It doesn't appear to me that he qualifies for a standalone article, but he is mentioned in the Shuri-ryū article, so a redirect there seems reasonable. Admittedly, even that article is weakly sourced but that's possibly a discussion for another AfD. Papaursa (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete, per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to MrBeast. There seems to be consensus here that there should be some mention of Chris Tyson, but there's not enough to make it a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Chris Tyson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for their relationship to the YouTuber MrBeast. The only WP:SIGCOV is related to their gender transition (good for them) and the subsequent backlash, which is all recent, and doesn't indicate separate notability. The previous AfD was for a completely different person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Like some others here, I also have concerns that this article is likely to be a magnet for transphobic vandalism, as already appears to be occuring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any articles about trans people which are not? :-( DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Tita Aida doesn't seem to have had any vandalism, but she's obviously not very high profile. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak delete - Tyson appears to fail BLP1E. All the recent coverage of him is about his decision to become gender non-conforming, and that's just about the only independent coverage of him at all. Might be a news story more than anything else. However, Tyson has indeed been subject to much independent coverage surrounding their transition, and it can't all be mentioned at MrBeast and stay in accordance with WP:DUE, and much of it shouldn't be since that article is about Jimmy Donaldson and the channel, not Tyson. So, that will lead to this coverage being largely discarded because it can't be placed anywhere else. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If it's already in the news, why is it beholden to WP to cover this? If the subject can't stand on it's own it needs be deleted. Padillah (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep He has been covered prior to his transition in interviews (the Business Insider one of which is cited in this article). So it think BLP1E is not really a strong argument. But most importantly, he is the second-most prominent host of the biggest YouTube channel. He is not just known for being related a notable person (like Jimmy's brother would). So I think that NOTINHERITED does not apply at all and I wholly disagree with the OP's statement "This person is only notable for their relationship to the YouTuber MrBeast". He is not notable as MrBeast's friend (the relationship), but as a main character on the MrBeast channel.-128.6.36.153 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — 128.6.36.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Neutral There is some coverage that predates people making a big deal about Tyson's personal life but it is not huge and it is not like anybody thought to make an article about them prior to this. I also worry that this article will just be a millstone round our collective necks as it will doubtlessly be targeted by trolls to abuse both Tyson themself and Mr Beast. That's not a reason to delete but it might be a reason to make extra certain that the notability criteria are fully met before keeping. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per 128.6.36.153. I'm sure with his recent transformation and the coverage about Tyson's life prior to the transformation, this would be a decent article. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete as per the reasons given above by User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Also, the article is underdeveloped and does not contain much detail and information. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong keep - He is notable for helping create the channel and for being a big part of it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, no one’s pushing to delete GeorgeNotFound. We do not feed the trolls. WPenguin (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)— WPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and please assume good faith. ― Blaze Wolf_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral as per what User:DanielRigal said above. Deleting might not be the answer but checking the notability is a must.Justwatchmee (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per 128.6.36.153, Therealscorp1an. and DaniloDaysOfOurLives. To refute WP:BLP1E: reliable sources have covered the subject in the context of more than one event. The subject is not a low-profile individual. The subject is the co-founder of the largest YouTube channel owned by an individual (4th largest overall), and has consistently been in the public eye. The recent media coverage only reinforces the notability and solidifies the case for a standalone article. Rowing007 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong Keep I agree with the previous keeps, also don’t use the fact that the article is underdeveloped as an argument—with all the coverage he’s been getting recently it can easily be expanded. Chris is one of the founding members of an over-144 Million subscribers channel, has received coverage even before he became gnc, and the coverage on recent events would not disqualify WP:BLP1E because I would say he was well-know even before recently. I agree that he isn’t notable for being MrBeast’s friend, but for being one of the founding members of the channel “Mr Beast.” I believe the subject fulfills WP:NOTBLP1E for these reasons, as well as WP:GNG andWP:NRV.

CanO27sprite (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep Significant coverage (national) exists for him, both for his professional and personal life. Rublamb (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge with MrBeast. While there is significant coverage it is all within the auspices of MrBeast. I was able to Google the name and got several sources for the subject, all of those sources were concerned with the relationship to (or loss of relationship with) MrBeast. If the relationship disolves and the subject can maintain their own level of notability we can split the article then. Padillah (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete or otherwise support merge with MrBeast. This article is not notable enough. Compusolus (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete WP:PAGEDECIDE asks us on whether to have a standalone page Does other information provide needed context?. In this case, since the subject is only notable for their relationship to Mr. Beast, and that's the context for their notability, I don't think a standalone page makes sense with this sourcing. Even if they don't meet the strict criteria for BLP1E, WP:1E (from the notability guideline) still tells us to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. With the only significant coverage coming from the transition, this still appears like it would be a pseudo-biography.

Also, if the only significant coverage is of something personal like them transitioning, it seems like this presents WP:BLP issues. If the primary basis for an article is something personal like that, it seems like it could be invasive. per WP:DEL-REASON, a breach of WP:BLP is also grounds for deleting an article. Given the recency of significant coverage, there's also WP:SUSTAINED to consider. --Tristario (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep I disagree with User:Tristario and others saying "the subject is only notable for their relationship to Mr. Beast" He is a main presenter on the MrBeast channel. I think that alone grants him notability and that this is a confusion between MrBeast and MrBeast's channel. Also, I believe WP:SUSTAINED applies as the article as there are sources currently cited dating back more than four years ago. After a quick Google search on my hand, I strongly believe that the article, be easily improved with even more prior sourcing, given the notability of the subject. As another user mentioned here on this thread, the context around the very extensive coverage about his transition and backlash was lost on the original MrBeast page, especially its relevance to anti-LGBT rhetoric in United States media. On the original MrBeast article, the context amounted to just "it has been shown that MrBeast now supports transgender people". So this is why I think this page fits positively the WP:PAGEDECIDE criteria. 128.6.36.183 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)— 128.6.36.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep in mind, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. The fact that this has relevance to the LGBTQ+ rhetoric adds no support for notability. Padillah (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the IP addresses, both 128.6.36.183 and 128.6.36.153 (who voted above) geolocate close to Piscataway, New Jersey and have nearly identical technical information, and therefore are presumably the same person or are engaging in coordinated ediitng. Therefore they should only be counted as a single voice in the discussion (if counted at all) and not as separate votes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Piscataway is in the New York metro area, an area with more than 20 million people. I'm not too sure if those ips are socked accounts, and if you think they are you can go to Sockpuppet investagations. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually now that i am looking at it, these IPs are clearly SPAs. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The only significant coverage of the subject I can find in reliable sources is about the transition. WP:BI, the source from more than four years ago, has no consensus for its reliability. So I don't think WP:SUSTAINED is passed. In the future an article may be justified here, but I'd want more of a diversity of significant coverage than just focusing on a single personal thing like transitioning. Tristario (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge into MrBeast, or perhaps better, into a page about other MrBeast “characters” in the same way we might treat the cast of TV shows. There is no demonstrated need for a standalone page, but there is real potential for these variety of individuals to be discussed at greater length, separate to the bio-slash-channel page of MrBeast. This sort of collective page would satisfy the fans, without burdening us with a potentially increasing variety of borderline-notable personality pages for each of the cast. — HTGS (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per Tristario. Besides being in MrBeast videos, there's nothing notable about him to warrant a standalone page. Some1 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete I'd consider this to be a WP:1E + WP:NOTINHERITED (per nom). Most of the coverage is about the HRT/transgender news which would fall under one event. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from MrBeast. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob Knuth

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO; sources are lacking. The Jeff Award is local to Chicago, where he is based. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Theatre, and Illinois. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio? There seems to be language in the article (such as "Besides working as a freelance scenic and graphic designer") that was copied from other things on the internet, such as this and this -- or are those WP mirrors?. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Scheyern. Star Mississippi 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Fernhag

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is absolute nonsense. There are no reliable sources to prove it. The only accurate sentence is the first one, but it doesn't contain a lot information. And there is not really more information, even the German wikipedia hasn't an article about it. Furthermore, this village could also mentioned in the article Scheyern, which is the article for the municipality of Fernhag. 958s (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Why do I spend hours to write accurate and well researched articles that get deleted without discussion here at enwiki while nonsense like that needs to be discussed instead of the obvious speedy deletion? --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I was not sure if this article meets the criteria for speed deletion, because the first sentence is technically correct, but it doesn't contain a lot of information. 958s (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
delete The first sentence is technically correct but incomplete. The rest is unsourced POV. --MB-one (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
No POV, but obviously complete fiction. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course the nonsense should be removed, but what is left is hardly worth a redirect to Scheyern, the municipality this vollage belongs to. —Kusma (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Redirectto Scheyern, after Deleting the page. I did rm the nonsense, but it should be deleted as a hoax or attack. // Timothy :: talk 11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)