Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 08	March 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Sweeney

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One bare profile link attached as a source, fails WP:GNG. AmshitBalcon (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Manning

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not ready in its current form. No real sources or info were posted.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one bare profile link attached as a source. Quick Google search reveals no in-depth secondary sources. AmshitBalcon (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Only reference in the article is a sports database entry which is insufficient per WP:SPORTCRIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- could not find reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by LocomotiveEngine (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Less Unless (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Napierała

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

Promotional article written by the article subject as User:TAlbinoni (Napierała's Youtube account name is albinoni9, e openly admits to being Napierała on Polish Wikipedia [1]). With h-index of only 2 [2] WP:NPROF is unlikely to be met. All article's citations are to Napierała's Youtube channel (thus self-published). I don't see any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. NicolausPrime (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: h-index is not a reliable method of determining notability, BUT: The article doesn't seem to have any good sources other than that one of his books was reviewed (which does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC), Google Scholar and Search don't turn up any more sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesnt pass WP:NPROF and doesnt seem to pass WP:NAUTHOR either as I can find no reviews of his books, academic or otherwise. The article fails to clearly display what lasting impact he has had in the field he works in. --hroest 19:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not starting a deletion at pl wiki as he meets pl wiki NPROF equivalent due to habilitation. I know this is not enough for en wiki, so for now I am just making a comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Napierała doesn't have habilitation. When did that change? NicolausPrime (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. You are right, I misread the pl wiki article, he was denied a habilitaiton. This may be worth perusing: pl:Dyskusja:Piotr Napierała. FIVE pl wiki AfD equivalents, first two (2011, 2012) closed as keep, last three as no consensus (2019, 2020, 2022). In the last one I was leaning towards deletion, but clearly there was no consensus (long discussion if anyone cares to read, it should be easy to machine translate it to English). Anyway, I don't think we are seeing anyone arguing "keep" here for now, so it's a bit of a moot point. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that his work has as significant influence on the public or academic discourse in Poland? Are there any reviews of his books in Polish? Generally even 2 reviews would pass WP:NAUTHOR but I could not find anything in JSTOR.

Also, in de-wiki there is a question whether the books he published are with a regular publisher or whether they are self-published - could you comment on the "Libron-Filip Lohner" publisher, it does look reputable to me but I dont speak Polish. --hroest 17:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst Regarding Libron-Filip Lohner, their about here (which can be easily one click machine translated to English) suggests some reliability, they mention they adhere to COPE standards, for example. They claim to collaborate with academic institutions, and that some of their books received various awards. As for reviews of his work, I found [3] and another one, by Tomasz Flasiński, collected in [4]. I hope that helps, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With these two reviews, I think he basically fulfills WP:NAUTHOR per "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". These are in-depth discussions of his work of 5 and 10 pages however of the same book about Japan. --hroest 18:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am not sure if two book reviews are enough given WP:NOTINHERITED, but I'll abstain from casting my vote here, this is a borderline case. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lecturer is almost never considered notable per WP:PROF. Even with millions of viewers, we have deleted some YouTubers' articles. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Less Unless (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acera School

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Existing refs are primary sources or local newspaper articles that only acknowledge it existing. No significant coverage in independent sources. Grk1011 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Grk1011 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Grk1011 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some sources and updated some defunct sources, and it now has enough reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG. One concern: the infobox says it's a K-11 school, but I haven't yet confirmed that. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: While enrollment through grade 11 does not seem to be reported in secondary sources, the school has listed tuition costs though grade 11 for the current academic year. I added that info with a primary source citation. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the newly added sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Vastly improved since 23 February. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn; Significant coverage found during discussion. (non-admin closure) Lenny Marks (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merman (album)

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

Article is essentially just a track list that lacks wp:SIGCOV and, I believe, fails notability per wp:NALBUM. Since it does not deserve a stand alone article, I believe it should either be deleted or merged into Emilíana Torrini discography (though that article also has verifiability issues), but I was hoping to get community input. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emilíana_Torrini_discography#Studio_albums: Found no coverage. Discography page is lacking but unless you're starting an AfD on it now then it's the most appropriate target. QuietHere (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added several sources of significant coverage from the Icelandic media.Um víðan völl (Morgunblaðið), Emilíana og Hafsveinninn (Dagblaðið Vísir) and Léttur og mjúkur "marbendill" (Dagur-Tíminn). It was also the highest selling album in Iceland per this article in Alþýðublaðið. Alvaldi (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't read the sources in Icelandic, but unless they provide in-depth discussion of the album itself, as opposed to it's existence, then I would support @QuietHere's suggestion that it be merged into Emilíana Torrini discography#Studio albums. As I understand it, WP:NALBUM only warrants standalone articles when the have enough info for detailed contentment, rather than just track listings as this seems to be. Perhaps you could comment on the content of the foreign language sources?

--Lenny Marks (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenny Marks The three first sources are discussing the album and the songs in it in detail. The fourth one from Alþýðublaðið is about the top selling albums of 1996 and a sizable chunk of it is about the Merman album. This article from Helgarpósturinn is a feature of musician Jón Ólafsson who co-produced and co-wrote the album, its mostly interview (i.e. primary) but there is quite a bite of prose there about the album and his involvement in it (the whole lead of the article is almost all about the album). Here is also another article, title translated to Emilíana's merman from Dagblaðið Vísir that discusses the album. Alvaldi (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do share in Lenny's dilemma of not being able to read Icelandic. However, just from looking at the size of those articles, they do appear to be in depth, and I don't see any reason to doubt that you're correct about their value. Changing vote to keep. QuietHere (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Alvaldi, it seems like these are examples of wp:SIGCOV. It would be good to expand the prose of the article to reflect the coverage, but I will withdraw my nomination. Thanks again for your work, I would not have found Icelandic-language sources myself. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 23:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lake (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fourth top scorer of his country's national team with 20 goals in 46 goals: Saint Kitts and Nevis national football team#Player records. Would be a shame for the article to be deleted. Robby.is.on (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could a redirect be of some use, in that case? SmackJam (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't find any in depth coverage of Lake, which is strange since he played professionally in Malaysia (but there's only trivial stuff like this online). I'll take another look later. Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked all Malaysian and Trinidadian sources I could find and there is no significant coverage; there is only match previews, match reports and database entries. Jogurney (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is a trivial squad list mention such as SKN Vibes Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharda Rani Trivedi

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

No refs on the page for many years. Whilst I have no reason to doubt the claims on the page, I can't find any RS to verify anything. JMWt (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. JMWt (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely someone with such an illustrious career would have at least some coverage? I can't find anything either. Perhaps this Hindustan Times is a mention of her but it could be a namesake. If sources can't be found during the course of this AfD, we need to delete this article really. WP:V is policy after all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of basic ability to verify the facts of a biography. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:V so best option is to delete. Please ping me if this issue is resolved. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom could not find sources fails WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. First AfD close (usually toy around RfD), but consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benchball

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Reliable, secondary coverage are limited to mentions in primary education documents. Largely promotional with many primary sourced sections and references about university play of which no secondary WP:DUE coverage can be found. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: what we need to see for the GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have here a variety of sources, some of which give us exactly that and are enough for notability, while others do not help with that but still provide relevant facts. The best sources seem to be A Dictionary of Sports Studies (Oxford University Press, 2010) and A Year of Primary PE (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022). Neither is a "primary education document" – some help with the meaning of primary in this context is at primary source. I do not see any sources that have only "mentions" in them, but that would not matter, so long as notability is already there. Moonraker (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with @Moonraker that notability is likely already established. I believe there is also sufficient coverage in news outlets to remove any doubt remaining here, I will try and make an edit to the article reflecting this. Regarding the other concern, there had been some more recent edits adding much of the promotional and unsourced content. I have already made an edit addressing this and hopefully removing primary sourced information. GSDiracula (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Robotics unmanned vehicles

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

Article is almost entirely WP:SELFSOURCE and makes no attempt to establish notability and instead simply lists the different types of vehicles and their specifications. Google search for news and articles related to the vehicles turns up nothing.

Article was PFD by User:RovingPersonalityConstruct but was reversed by User:TimothyBlue who requested more discussion. Pinging both so they can chime in if they like SpookyTwenty (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SpookyTwenty (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable topic yet. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company itself is notable, I found two news articles completely about the company ([5][6]) and two articles which mention the company rather briefly ([7][8]). However, the news profiles don't go into the specifics about each of their vehicle models, so the vehicles themselves are not notable. So, I will vote delete. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Bahmanipour

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

WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for artists. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test doesn't hinge on simply using galleries' own self-published websites to verify the presence of her work in those galleries, it hinges on the extent to which her work has or hasn't been validated as significant by third-party media sources and books writing about it analytically.
But this is referenced almost entirely to gallery catalogues, and the only two footnotes representing anything like a third-party source are a blog and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which aren't GNG-clinching sources either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Also year of birth is extrapolated, and may not be accurate. Fails WP:Artist. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artist without a notable track record. Iraniangal777 (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I can not find any sources not already in the article. No Instagram, no use of common hashtags. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Colyar

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test does not hinge on the extent to which they've been the author of coverage of other things, it hinges on the extent to which they've been the subject of coverage authored by other people.
But the only notability claim being attempted here is that Brock Colyar exists, and the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of getting them over WP:GNG: three of the eight footnotes are pieces of their bylined journalism, four more are Q&A interviews in which they're answering questions about themselves in the first person, and the only one that actually represents third-party coverage is just a university student newspaper covering them only in the context of launching a local magazine, which is not enough coverage to pass GNG all by itself if none of the other sources represent what's required.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy media hit. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . No indication of significant coverage of this person. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing enough coverage. Maybe it's there (and maybe not), but more information would help.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough significant or in-depth coverage, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Also the article sounds more like an "about me" page than a neutral encyclopedic article. AmshitBalcon (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Less Unless (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 36 Crazy Fists

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged for notbility.

PROD removed with "Deprodded, feat. J. Chan", but notability isn't inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Martial arts, China, and Hong Kong. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a Jackie Chan movie doesn't make it inherently notable WP:NOTINHERITED Nswix (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that it is a J. Chan curiosity is a plus. Found this review that underlines the originality of the fillm. — MY OH MY! 18:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NFILM. Having Jackie Chan appear in the prologue doesn't show WP notability nor does a single review by an unknown author on a site of dubious reliability where anyone can submit an article. Also, there's no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the Chinese sources and the English ones do not convince me of notability (some are about the band), but Cunard's efforts are enough to convince me that it might meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chinese-language sources:
  1. "三十六迷形拳: 影片介绍" [The 36 Crazy Fists: film introduction]. Shin Min Daily News (in Chinese). 1980-08-09. p. 9. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  2. "二十六迷形拳" [The 36 Crazy Fists]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 1980-08-08. p. 36. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  3. "卅六迷形拳" [The 36 Crazy Fists]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 1990-08-19. p. 32. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  4. "三十六迷形拳" [The 36 Crazy Fists]. Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). 1990-08-08. p. 25. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
2. English-language sources:
  1. Valentin, Albert (2004). "The 36 Crazy Fists: Chan Teams With Brothers of Legendary Stars". In Cooper, Richard (ed.). More 100% Jackie Chan: The Essential Companion Volume 2. London: Titan Books. pp. 27–29. ISBN 978-1-84023-888-4. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via Internet Archive.
    The book provides three pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Despite fans avoiding the film because it is not a Jackie Chan picture, the fights show some of that Chan-esque comedy that would be seen in his later and earlier work. The cast of fighters, from Tony Leung Siu-hung to Yen Shi-kwan were not good in acting, but their fighting skills made up for it. Ku Feng even provided some of the comedy that would be like Chan in films like Young Master and Dragon Lord. Despite what the cover says, Jackie did not direct the film. He was only the Kung-fu Director. Furthermore, he wasn't the star. Nevertheless, the film is still an enjoyable film to watch in my opinion, if you want to see some early work from Chan and his stars, Tony Leung Siu-hung and Jimmy Liu Chia-yung.
  2. Humes, Pete (2004-08-19). "Public-Service Announcement". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
    The article notes: "First of all, "36 Crazy Fists" is a 1977 martial-arts movie about a son avenging his father's death at the hands of evil gangsters. Though Jackie Chan is featured on the cover of the DVD, he is not in the movie (he was only the fight coordinator). 36 Crazy Fists also happens to be the name of a hard-core band from Portland, Ore."
  3. Baret, Nathalie (2008-02-29). "36 Crazyfists comes out of the wilds of frigid Alaska". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
    The article notes: "Drawing from their surroundings, members of the four-piece hardcore band, which named themselves after the Jackie Chan movie "The 36 Crazy Fists" when it formed in 1994, don't make music that typically fits into today's metal scene."
  4. Karnick, S.T. (2000-06-26). "Chan's Noodle Western". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
    The article notes: "Such ingenuity is typical of Chan's films. His 1980 directorial debut, The 36 Crazy Fists, was the first martial-arts film to combine action and comedy effectively, and Chan's incredible inventiveness with action scenes long ago earned him the nickname "the Buster Keaton of martial arts.""
  5. Witterstaetter, Renée (1997). Dying for Action: The Life and Films of Jackie Chan. New York: Warner Books. ISBN 978-0-446-57003-9. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The 36 Crazy Fists (1979). Choreographer. Note that a poor-quality "documentary" exists of a chain-smoking Jackie choreographing this movie. Not worth your time if there is money involved. If you can view it for free, go for it."
  6. Corcoran, John (2003). The Unauthorized Jackie Chan Encyclopedia: From Project A to Shanghai Noon and Beyond. New York: McGraw Hill Education. p. 136. ISBN 0-07-138899-0. Retrieved 2023-03-13 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes that the alternate titles are Blood Pact, Jackie Chan's Bloodpact (U.S.), and Master and the Boxer. The book notes that the genre is martial arts comedy and partial documentary (The Making of 36 Crazy Fists). The book notes that the year of release is 1979; the cast is Cha-Yung Liu, Feng Ku, and Pei Chin; the director is Chi-Hwa Chen; the JC Credit is stunt coordinator; and the location is Hong Kong.
    The book notes: "JC only choreographed the action for this forgettable movie about an orphaned youth who learns kung-fu from monks to avenge his father's death. Without JC's permission, the unscrupulous producers compiled a behind-the-scenes documentary about the making of this movie and released it as a "Jackie Chan" film.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The 36 Crazy Fists (Chinese: 三十六迷形拳) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above including a book source that has 3 pages about the film so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amor de mis amores

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found. Tagged for notability.

PROD removed with no improvement DonaldD23 talk to me 14:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
obvious Keep — 1 of the 2 reviews already on the page mentions a box office success in Mexico, which the page about 2014 box office hits in MX also states. Cast and director are highly notable. A brief research gives this review, or this one. — MY OH MY! 18:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable movie Christopheronthemove (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Miracleman characters. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warpsmith

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

Fictional alien race. Deleted through PROD, now recreated. Seems to fail WP:GNG. No reception, but there is a reception creation/publishing history that could be mergeable (but where?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be merged with List of Miracleman characters‎ and/or Warrior (comics) (which is on my hitlist) but was worried it would perhaps swamp the page. I did read the previous deletion; Leach's death has meant wider mentions but not many are in-depth. Will dig around a bit, and do agree that while nominally part of an independent strip the characters have been subsumed by Miracleman some time ago, and if Marvel do start doing X-Treme Warpsmiths or something we can sort it then. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comic strip Warpsmith is discussed for a paragraph here in Magic Words: The Extraordinary Life of Alan Moore, p. 99. It also has its own section in 500 Great Comic Book Action Heroes, p. 273, but unfortunately I can only see the heading. Daranios (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess when I first planned the whole Miracleman revamp thing about a month or so for whatever reason I remembered Warpsmith-the-strip having a much more independent life than actually seems to be the case but barrelled off a bit because I love a detailed fictional alien culture... There's a certain case to be made that it's a work by one of the most noted comic writers (for some reason I had also misremembered that it was Leach's baby and Moore just pitched in but it seems to be the other way around), and the fanboy in me wants to argue vehemently for it having a page to itself due to being conceived as something more important than a Miracleman sideshow (honestly if I thought it had any chance of surviving I'd have done a page on Miracledog). But truth be told I'd estimate 99% of people who've heard of Warpsmith have done so via Marvelman/Miracleman. That said my other reasoning was that Silver Age #4 hints at something *big* coming for the Warpsmiths (something beyond being Miracleman's superfriends) but a) I could be totally wrong b) we can always change that if it does.BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Miracleman characters‎. Extremely non-notable, but the character list is more likely to have evidence of notability, despite its failure of WP:LISTN right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me some hints on list notability? I created the list largely to avoid it making the main Miracleman article too long, ditto List of Miracleman story arcs. Constructive help as to how to make it fit in with LISTN would be appreciated. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, it would imply that Miracleman itself is notable. Second, the list should not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which means demonstrating the characters had an actual critical reception and impact. The "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the characters should be talked about in a sourced way. If this cannot be found, the content should probably have been trimmed, rather than split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I shall endeavour to find further sources. Though may I enquire why so many lists of characters and pages from various fictional sources do not seem to do this? It can be very difficult to follow notability and reference guidelines stringently when there appear to be different levels of scrutiny given to new article submissions compared to extant pages. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:BoomboxTestarossa/List of Miracleman characters - a bit quick 'n' nasty (e.g. the references need sorting) but it doesn't seem to overwhelm the page IMHO BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - very selectively into the list article. Maybe adding 5 or 6 lines there. Fails notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Efeler High School

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

Fails GNG and NSCHOOL, unreferenced since creation (except for blacklisted cites). Previously nom'd in 2006, No SIGCOV from I RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Before showed social media, directories, and government sites. // Timothy :: talk 14:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just nothing here to work with at all. No sources and very limited information. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially, this is a WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scholastic Corporation. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic Reference

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

No refs on the page, very few offwiki refs that I can find. Clearly the books exist, but I don't see RS that show the meet the GNG. Nor what that would look like for a series of reference books. JMWt (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Business. JMWt (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Scholastic Corporation per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here are sources I found about the subject:
1. Bookman, Julie (1999-09-11). "Books for Kids: 'Wow' facts give young historians frame of reference - Family Pages". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
  The article notes: "Every September, Scholastic unveils a stack of affordable reference books. This season offers an impressive bounty. ... Here are some of our other favorite new releases from Scholastic Reference:"
2. Hobbs, Nancy (1996-12-27). "Under The Covers; Reviews Of Children's Books". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
  The article notes: "Telling history through banded timelines is Scholastic Reference's innovative way to show readers how developments in science, arts, politics and social developments occurred simultaneously during the 1800s."
3. "Books - Fall/Winter Preview - Gift Books - Art [Page 1 of 2]". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1996-10-26. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
  The article notes: ""The Scholastic Encyclopedia of Sports in the United States" by Kevin Osborn; "The Scholastic Encyclopedia of the United States" by Judy Bock and Rachel Kranz; "The Scholastic Encyclopedia of the Presidents and Their Times" by David Rubel (all from Scholastic Reference, ages 9 and up, $17.95 each). These are great resources for the classroom or home. The sports volume traces the history of organized athletics from the Civil War era to the mega-business that it is today. There are also profiles of more than 100 famous athletes, from Jesse Owens to Michael Jordan. And there are entries on interesting topics such as the Special Olympics, the women's baseball league and baseball's Negro Leagues. The volume on the United States provides an overview on each of our 50 states as well as "fascinating facts" about each."
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably without the need to merge anything. There's clearly not enough coverage to justify an article; a bullet point under Scholastic Corporation#Imprints and corporate divisions would be reasonable though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted bc socking. (non-admin closure) Carpimaps (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Global Empress

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

Contested PROD. Being allegedly signed to Empire Distribution is enough to escape WP:A7 probably. In spite of this, I can find hardly anything about her apart from the usual self-published sites like Spotify, SoundCloud etc. Does not seem to meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. I found All Hip Hop but it's a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Argument to redirect is undercut by the absence of a good target. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Marie Bridges

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage for a GNG pass and no evidence of an NACTOR pass. QuietHere (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. QuietHere (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, as that seems to be a show where she had one of her most notable roles. I think that's the best we can do for now.Historyday01 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 I'm not sure a redirect is appropriate given she has multiple notable roles, including another which is listed first in the lead. That may just be a matter of chronology, but if she is truly "best known" for both of those roles then redirecting to one, especially a page that doesn't even link back to her directly so likely has no information about her specifically, is probably not the best move. I won't object to this closing as a redirect if that's preferred, but there's my two cents on the matter. QuietHere (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true she has multiple notable roles, but I think a redirect is better than nothing. Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general I'd agree, but in this case since it'd be going somewhere that doesn't inform readers about the subject they're searching for, I think it'd be better for the name to lead to a search which directs to multiple pages that directly mention her. QuietHere (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and mentioned in multiple places (not suitable for redirecting). Avilich (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Recent additions by Techoliver298 include multiple Instagram sources and one from the subject's business website, about which I found no independent coverage. Has not changed my mind about deleting at all. QuietHere (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLPs need clearly Ind RS for content and notability. Above, article, BEFORE showed no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No opinion on redirect. // Timothy :: talk 10:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ICC World Test Championship#Tournament records. Not appropriate as an article per WP:NOTSTATS, but participants indicated redirection was an acceptable alternative. RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cricket World Test Championship records

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

Blatant WP:NOTSTATS violation, as there is a ridiculous number of stats. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which only needs keys stats, and the ones already listed at ICC World Test Championship#Tournament records and e.g. 2021–2023 ICC World Test Championship#Statistics are perfectly sufficient for that. This isn't a cricket fandom site, and so we don't need hundreds of statistics only sourced to one website. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and Lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the World Test Championship article where I presume there might also be some form of statistical summary anyway. This is a step too far here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the World Test Championship I created this page to maintain like limited overs World Cups records page. But as Joseph2302 said, here they are way too ridiculous. So this is what I expected. As per nom delete and redirect. Kirubar (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too many stats, especially for a tournament which such a short history. A succinct summary on the main article page will suffice. StickyWicket (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ICC World Test Championship#Tournament records. This article is excessive statscruft and any particular record can just be found on Cricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting someone’s work that took a lot of hours to create. Sadistic person Manetta4 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no actual reason why the article was deleted. I’m seeking a redress and an undeletion Manetta4 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oriaku Kelechukwu James

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

Insufficient starring roles to pass WP:NACTOR's criteria. AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He is still an up-and-coming actor who doesn't have a movie career to speak of. Starring in one film that is borderline notable isn't enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. It’s giving sadistic hater. Seek help bro Manetta4 (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the sources itself gives me the A7 vibe. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not salting at this time because all previous deletions have been of redirects created as this was moved back and forth from draft, not new creations of the article following a consensus for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arvid Lindblad

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

Not notable subject declined twice at Draft:Arvid Lindblad. WP:TOOSOON appears to apply here. AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TOOSOON is right; the only sources I find are the ones given in the article. Could perhaps draftify as the season is about to start, but that's still no guarantee he'll get any sort of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Borderline notability with coverage in publications which specialize in Karting or junior open-wheel racing, including Feeder Series, Formula Scout, Vroom Karting Magazine, and Kart Express. This does not clear the bar described in WP:YOUNGATH, which is a higher bar than GNG. Oppose draftifying for same reasons. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Copy-paste of the indicated draft. Declined twice as draft as failing WP:GNG. Suggest salt to prevent re-creation, and advise creator to continue working on the draft. UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose salting - decent coverage exists, but until the driver establishes himself in single-seaters, this is WP:TOOSOON. The draft is substantially similar to this version, and needs some working on too before it's mainspace-ready. I do not find the logic in WP:SALTing this. As far as I can tell, this is the 1st AfD on the subject and there's no real risk of early re-creation. And as a 15-year-old Red Bull junior with extense karting success, racing for the best team in F4, his WP:POTENTIAL to become notable is considerable. MSport1005 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt indefinitely because of recreations, and possible UPE. I had come across some previous version of this article. It wasn't notable then, and it is not notable now. @MSport1005: Hello. Most of the recreation(s) can be here, and some can be seen in the history/log of the draft. Salting is not an infinite/permanent block on creation, once the subject is notable the draft can be submitted to review, and the article can be created. No harm here :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic catastrophe

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

Per WP:FORUM. "Cosmic catastrophe" is a descriptor that refers to any form of catastrophe related to space. It is not a "coined term" that refers to this one thought experiment alone. Jurta talk 12:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jurta talk 12:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that I can find that Einstein ever used the term (or "kosmische Katastrophe", for that matter). Even if that was the case, there is hardly enough meat to this single thought experiment to spin out a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsubstantiated claims.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:SYNTH-y confabulation. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an interesting question and I wondered if it could usefully be added to another article such as speed of gravity. But so far as I can tell, this thought experiment only asks "what is the speed of gravity?" rather than answering it. Also agree with the nominator that I can't find this thought experiment being referred to as cosmic catastrophe elsewhere. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without prejudice to merging $Salvio giuliano$ 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sæward of Essex

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

No refs on the page for many years. I found single line (sometimes single word) refs in some RS but there seems to be considerable uncertainty about basic facts in the sources. Seems to be very difficult to verify any of the facts on the page or whether any is simply personal opinion of previous editors. JMWt (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and England. JMWt (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in the article on Kings of the East Saxons. I have added the ref. Given he was a king and the ODNB is a reliable source, he passes the notability threshold per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For other !voters, the article in the OxfordDNB mentioned above says that Sæberht was succeeded by 3 sons, one of which was called Sæward (died in or after 617). And died in a battle. That's it. If this was the only verifiable source available, the WP page will only be one line long. I also think it is quite extreme to think that English tribal chieftains would be covered by WP:POLITICIAN. Nobody in the last 1300+ years thought he was even important enough to confirm his death date. JMWt (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, he is also listed in Kings And Kingdoms Of Early Anglo Saxon England by Barbara Yorke page 52. As far as I can see, Yorke says that there were a lot of kings with names beginning S but give no biographical detail about the subject at all. JMWt (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is quite extreme to think that English tribal chieftains would be covered by WP:POLITICIAN. Why, when anyone who sat in a sub-national legislature for a single day is? A king is a damned sight more notable than most legislators. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is some details given on him in that book. See page 48: "Sabert's three sons who succeeded him returned the kingdom to paganism and expelled the Gregorian missionaries from London, and so inadvertently ensured that Canterbury remained the metropolitan centre. According to Bede, their sacrilegious actions were avenged shortly afterwards when all three were defeated and killed in a battle against the West Saxons – possibly they were battling for control of Surrey.[ref 31 – HE III, 3]" BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was quite literally a king of a nation. The-J-Verse (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A merge to Kingdom of Essex is an obvious ATD that the nominator should have considered. Curbon7 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although there is very little on this page that isn't already on that page. What exactly are you suggesting needs merging? JMWt (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, merely being mentioned in genealogies is not sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per discussions below. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. And: several sources now added to the article - with biographical details in these sources which contribute more than 'genealogical lists'. ResonantDis_tortion 23:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of those sources actually give any additional biographical detail - in fact, they simply repeat the name and the uncertain date of death in a battle. Which is unsurprising because they cite each other and Bede, where the name comes from. Rippon even goes further, calling the genealogy quote "mythical" and named after the Saxon god Saxnot. It looks slightly better to have a few more references on the page, but I'm not sure they are the slam-dunk you seem to think they are. JMWt (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do, however, accept that the name is cited by Bede and is discussed by later historians. And that the biography, such that it is, can be verified (in the sense that Bede said he existed and others have said that Bede said he existed). Whether this counts as SIGCOV is perhaps a matter of opinion, for me it isn't - and is really just a passing mention by Bede of a regional chieftain. JMWt (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Comment - I find myself on the fence. There are arguments to be made based on both WP:NPOL (the article subject being a king, even if applying the term "politician" to someone of the subject's era is perhaps a bit weird) and WP:ANYBIO#3 (based on Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), but both are additional criteria of which WP:NBIO says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. In terms of WP:GNG we appear to have a bunch of sources that are reliable and solid as such but, based on the discussion here, there is concurrently an open question whether this counts as significant coverage. As it is now, I find myself leaning keep for reasons I'm not quite able to articulate, but wouldn't detest a merge to some list along the lines of WP:PAGEDECIDE either. For those with access to the references (I'm unable to view them on Google Books, for whatever reason), I'd much appreciate brief descriptions of whether we're talking a few sentences here-and-there, or something on the size of, say, at least a few paragraphs. ResonantDistortion and Necrothesp, I assume you have access to the refs you added to the article? -Ljleppan (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As follows: McCann is about a page about the genealogy with Sæward specifically mentioned once and the brothers mentioned once in one sentence. Johnson is a two sentence mention about the brothers in a section of half a page. Rippon is a sentence in a two page section. The Oxford DNB reference is a paragraph in total. Lappenburg is two sentences. JMWt (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that doesn't sound great. Ljleppan (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change my !vote to ~~neutral~~ for now, and will do a bit more thinking; seems very borderline. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actual vote below. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has automatic notability per WP:NPOL and also automatic notability per WP:ANYBIO. This person was the actual king of a nation! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read WP:NBIO, the "Additional criteria" (which both NPOL and ANYBIO are) do not mean automatic notability: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards [additional criteria]. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Specifically, see WP:BIOSPECIAL which describes what ought to be done when additional criteria are met, but sourcing is insufficient for the basic criteria at WP:NBASIC. Ljleppan (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've always treated in the past those two criteria to be givers of automatic notability. Have we ever deleted an article on someone who was the KING of an entire nation? Or at least one someone who passed NPOL (due to notability issues)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the notability guideline WP:NBIO (note that BIOSPECIAL is a section of NBIO) is incorrect and/or doesn't follow consensus, you can always start a talk page discussion/RfC to change it. Ljleppan (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there was no English nation at the time. He was a king in the sense of the head of a local tribe in a part of England. And probably not even a very big one. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was the king of the independent Kingdom of Essex, not just chief of a local tribe. There is a difference. By your reasoning, the Princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein probably aren't notable either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between English tribes in the 7 century and monarchs of European states in the 19/20 century. For one thing, the idea of a "state" didn't exist in the 7 century. For another, other than from the writings of Bede, we don't know anything about these guys. Literally nothing. JMWt (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: is something wrong I think. A head of minor kingdom is auto-notable on Wikipedia. I agree with User:Necrothesp that "By your reasoning, the Princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein probably aren't notable either." How much do you need? Please make an effort to learn about the royal AfD outcome rather than destroy. Please follow the rules. His information is limited because he lived in the medieval period. If you want to know more, please time travel. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

first, that's your opinion. You are welcome to it, but others including me disagree with your assessment of the importance you give to "auto-notability" and NPOL. Second, do not ever speak to me like that again. JMWt (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have high-level confidence in your opinion, you should try AfD on the articles of the Princes of Monaco. Just an advice. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's a bit silly to invoke WP:NPOL on a medieval petty king. That said, a little more leeway is given with rulers due to their positions as heads-of-state. Outright deletion is also just silly, as WP:BLARing to Kingdom of Essex#List of kings would be preferred if the outcome isn't keep. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention NBIO states meeting NPOL does not guarantee that a subject should be included, and NOPAGE asks us to consider whether a standalone is appropriate for the subject even if it's notable. If all we have covering this person is mere documentation of his existence, there's no reason that should be in a separate page. I'd also support redirecting. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay What is the purpose of using WP:NPOL criteria on Wikipedia? It appears that we use it as a backup criteria for saving articles during the AfD process. If this is not the case, then it may be worth considering abolishing the criteria as it could be deemed useless, IMO. Taung Tan (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no matter how minor or stub. He is a king not a beggar. So clearly passes WP:NPOL. Pls follow the rule even a system basis, is WP:NPOL a joke to you? Many people have pleaded for the turtle to transform into a bed bug. Taung Tan (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject meets WP:NPOL. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kingdom of Essex#List of kings - Applicable notability guideline is WP:NBIO. It has two parts: WP:NBASIC (which is effectively identical to WP:GNG) and several additional criteria. Sources identified so far are obviously insufficiently comprehensive to reach the significant aspect of NBASIC. The subject thus fails NBASIC. At the same time, there are credible arguments that the subject could be seen as reaching some of the Additional Criteria, namely WP:NPOL. However, as noted in the relevant section, meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Indeed, unambiguous language in the Special Cases section of NBIO, WP:BIOSPECIAL states that in cases of failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria we must merge the article into a broader article providing context. Please ping me if a better merge/redirect target, or additional sourcing to fulfill NBASIC, is identified. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that he lived in the medieval era, not the present 21st century. Having discussions among historians is sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:GNG.Taung Tan (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A merge discussion can be held separately. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why? As you know, individual AfDs can find consensus to merge as an ATD without a formal merge proposal. Curbon7 (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I do not agree with the merge proposals already made and this discussion is already reasonably long. The obvious merge target is Sexred, to make a single article on co-monarchs (re-titled, of course). Srnec (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynoteck

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

Was tagged for notability, then prodded by Smartse, which was removed without comment or improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is miles away from meeting WP:CORP as I'm unable to find even cursory independent coverage. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Lack of any kind of sourcing found, I only get 5 hits in all of Gnews, most don't even look related to this company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sourcing; not notable. Kablammo (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another mid-tier software company failing WP:CORP MNewnham (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rocky Harbour (Hong Kong). L Faraone 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Rock

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

No refs on the page for many years. I have found mentions in navigation books and brief mentions in blogs about walking routes. I don't see anything that meets the GNG JMWt (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Hong Kong. JMWt (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with foto to Rocky Harbour (Hong Kong), where it is listed, and picture would enhance. Djflem (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems acceptable, the photo would help the other article as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Pyramid Rock (island) then redirect to Rocky Harbour (Hong Kong), then create redirect to Pyramid Rock Festival. Island seems to be a non-notable location whilst the festival likely deserves targeting. Otherwise converting to a two-item dab would be necessary as a hatnote on either article would make little sense.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chehab Anad

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

Only coverage I can find of Anad in any language that isn't a database is Raya, which merely has one sentence about him being sent off for Al-Waab SC. I can't find anything to suggest he meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Askar

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

Searches in the English and Arabic languages failed to yield a single piece of WP:SIGCOV or anything that would even pass WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The three references used in the article are all database sources so clearly fall short of SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I tried making findings on Google and wasn't able to find any reasonable source to support. Failed WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTBASIC.Epcc12345 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sign Gene. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clerc

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

Not independently notable and an implausible redirect target because hardly anybody is likely to know who this character is. Dronebogus (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per reasons stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatsumi Fuwa. More Sign Gene-related WP:FANCRUFT. (I don't mind redirects, they are WP:CHEAP). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sign Gene. "hardly anybody is likely to know who this character is" is a rather bold claim for the protagonist of a - if low-budget - film, who has at least been mentioned at BBC News and several other magazines, both present in the article and not. Seeing that the reception section currently refers to the film rather than the character specifically, I think the best solution would be to merge the sourced content there. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manipal Pre-University College

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

No refs on the page for many years. It is not a degree-awarding institution and I can't find RS to meet the GNG JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Karnataka. JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS to verify content. JoseJan89 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a profitable organisation so, WP:NCORP is the criteria and it fails.AdesamSA (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep as a WP:TRAINWRECK. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought XFDcloser would do these automatically, but I was very wrong. I've removed the nomination tags from each article, but couldn't be asked to add {{Old AfD}} to each talk page. If someone who sees this wants to do so, go for it. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the BRSABV Ekana Cricket Stadium

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

WP:NOTSTATS and no indication that this is a notable subject as a group. Centuries by player, by team, by event, okay, these all make sense (and are comparable to e.g. the same lists we have for football hat tricks). But what has the stadium to do with the century? Is a stadium "better", of higher quality, if it has seen more centuries? Stadiums which have housed more international matches or series will usually have more centuries, sure, and...?

Now, people will object that there are even Featured Lists among these. So, let's take a look at one, List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium. The first 14 sources at the moment are not about centuries, so can be ignored here. The vast majority of the remaining sources are just statistics databases. The others are sources indicating that X or Y scored a century, not sources about the phenomenon of centuries at this stadium.

In short, only statistics about this subject are available, it isn't something that is a topic of interest for reliable sources otherwise. Most similar lists have already been deleted in 2021 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium.

Also nominated are:

List of international cricket centuries at the Sydney Cricket Ground
List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at Edgbaston
List of international cricket centuries at Headingley
List of international cricket centuries at Lord's
List of international cricket centuries at Old Trafford
List of international cricket centuries at the Oval
List of international cricket centuries at Trent Bridge
List of international cricket centuries at Arun Jaitley Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at the M. A. Chidambaram Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at the Eden Gardens
List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at the Wankhede Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at Basin Reserve
List of international cricket centuries at Eden Park
List of international cricket centuries at Lancaster Park
List of international cricket centuries at Gaddafi Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at the National Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at Kingsmead Cricket Ground
List of international cricket centuries at Newlands Cricket Ground
List of international cricket centuries at St George's Park
List of international cricket centuries at the Wanderers Stadium
List of international cricket centuries at the Singhalese Sports Club Cricket Ground
List of international cricket centuries at the Kensington Oval
List of international cricket centuries at the Queen's Park Oval
List of international cricket centuries at Sabina Park
List of international cricket centuries at the Harare Sports Club
List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval
List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval
List of international cricket centuries at the Gabba
List of international cricket centuries at the Melbourne Cricket Ground Fram (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. Fram (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. Whilst some of these are probably not needed per WP:NOTSTATS, others are certainly notable and not just made up stats e.g. Lord's is famous for having an honours board for centurions. We shouldn't be lumping together grounds with 5 centuries ever (which don't need lists) with those that have hundreds of centuries, because they aren't comparable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have Lord's honours boards, which isn't up for deletion. That these boards are known doesn't mean that listing everyone on them is in any way wanted here. There is no reason why something jappened once or 200 times should make a difference either (one could just as well argue that if a stadium has seen hundreds of centuries, then it is hardly a remarkable feat any longer surely?). Fram (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep in favour of a proper discussion. The problem is that this is complex. Th lead list in this list of lists should clearly be redirected with a merge to the stadium; some of the others might also be - at which point they'd be candidates to be split off as content forks. It would be more helpful to arrive at a way of doing that sensibly.

Centuries on grounds seem to be discussed quite widely - the xxth century on the ground, for example - as do the number of times someone scored a century on a ground. I can see a case for keeping based on that sort of coverage - see, for example, the links from the Lord's list which seem to use the xxth or nth quite frequently from a quick selection, or things like this article which discusses the place in the Lord's tally of centuries a number of times.

The point that these are sourced only to statistical databases can, I imagine in almost every case, be dismissed - almost all of these matches will have been covered in prose form in Wisden - for example, phttps://www.espncricinfo.com/story/australia-v-england-1884-85-153648 this] is almost certainly the Wisden about the first match at the Adelaide Oval in which a century was scored; it makes reference to both century makers in detail. There will, of course, be coverage of this in Australian and British contemporary newspapers as well. I don't see it as difficult - other than the time involved - to add at least two prose sources to each list item if that were required.

There are plenty of cases where there are far too many statistics in an article that are non notable. I'm not sure that that's the case in at least some of these lists. On that ground I think we need to keep and discuss and reach a compromise - it's possible that this AfD becomes that discussion of course, in which case I'll revisit my opinion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I need to remove Lord's, as that one seems a bit different: I'll wait for a few more comments. In general though, I can see sources noting that X was the first century at a stadium, and of course the remainder is in itself verifiable (match X was at stadium Y, and player Z made a century), but are there sources for the list topic as a group (sources discussing the centuries at a stadium)? Does any non-statistical source pay attention to the list of centuries at a stadium, is the 10th or 20th century noted, ...? If not, then the list is not notable and not a good stand-alone topic, and undue inside an article on the stadium. I gave in the nom the example of the FL List of international cricket centuries at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium, which despite being a featured list has not a single such source. Or take another featured list, List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval. Stats and match reports, but non-stat sources about the list of centuries? The lead is completely based on statistics. It should be relatively easy to demonstrate for this one, in an affluent English-language country, that the list topic truly is notable surely? Fram (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord's is certainly a special case, and I always have the same feeling about the MCG fwiw.

I do understand the logic behind your argument - although I imagine we'd find some stuff on some grounds in the depths of the (mainly unindexed) ACS journal archive. But I gave up a long time ago trying to understand the featured list process, and tend to think that on pragmatic grounds these lists would probably be stuck on the ground page and then split off again. At least they're vaguely presentable on the whole. I'll dig around for stuff on Adelaide - there is a book from the 70s that I don't have a copy of that might be helpful - but for me this is as much about pragmatism as anything else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per Joseph2302. There are certain cases here amongst the more historical cricket grounds which merit individual discussion. Lord's, The Oval, MCG, ect. StickyWicket (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this has been a discussion point before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook. This article and a bundle of others were deleted in this AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. No indication that a proper WP:BEFORE was done on all these lists. A terrible example of WP:TRAINWRECK, unexpected from User:Fram. For example, I found coverage about centuries at Adelaide Oval with a simple search query—there's ton of coverage: [9], [10], a book that establishes notability. 114.78.248.3 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that books is about a century as in "100 years", not a book about the centuries? E.g. our list includes Tip Snooke, who scored a century in 1911: no trace of Snooke in that book. Basil Butcher, 1969? No, not mentioned. Obviously many others are mentioned, as important matches and players are described: but the book is not really interested in the topic of "international cricket centuries", but solely with 100 years of the Oval. So no, that book doesn't establish notability. Fram (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at BRSABV Ekana Cricket Stadium

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

There have only ever been 3 centuries at this ground, which is not enough to warrant a separate list for these. Doesn't meet any of the suggested notability requirements of WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, Lists, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - revert the parent article back to this then delete or redirect this unnecessary fork Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous set of five-wicket haul AfD's the general consensus was, iirc, that under 15 or 25 or so shouldn't merit a standalone article. There was a quite long discussion about this at the time and I think that was what we arrived at. I imagine the best thing to do here might be to partial merge into the ground article, but with the Econom and Batsmen columns removed - again, this was in the general consensus at the time - and possibly without any of the tables but with a suitable paragraph of prose instead. I could live with redirect - which would at least stop the article being re-created quite as easily - or deletion, but my memory is that the consensus ended up being redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough occurrences to justify a list, and too few to really be worth copying across to the stadium article. StickyWicket (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insignificant stats. Ajf773 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary fork, fragmenting content, fails NLIST. // Timothy :: talk 10:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly restored the content to the parent as Spiderone suggested. I think this is a very unlikely search term, but if others feel a redirect is helpful I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 10:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Ramirez Jr.

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

Per WP:USCJN, state appellate judges are not inherently notable. BD2412 T 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, you nominated for deletion four articles regarding judges (Juan Ramirez Jr.; Angel A. Cortiñas; David M. Gersten; Alan R. Schwartz), within the span of two minutes, with identical descriptions. Likewise, while you state in each that "state appellate judges are not inherently notable", you do not address why each individual judge is not notable; plenty of people are notable, even if not bestowed inherently by job title. With that in mind, and given that the AfD guidelines have a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular judge before nominating the article for deletion? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than copy-pasting one answer four times, I have answered with respect to all four at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz. BD2412 T 18:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, have given a rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz where extensive discussion is to be found. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per individual discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. These do not meet that standard. // Timothy :: talk 11:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angel A. Cortiñas

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

Per WP:USCJN, state appellate judges are not inherently notable. BD2412 T 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, you nominated for deletion four articles regarding judges (Juan Ramirez Jr.; Angel A. Cortiñas; David M. Gersten; Alan R. Schwartz), within the span of two minutes, with identical descriptions. Likewise, while you state in each that "state appellate judges are not inherently notable", you do not address why each individual judge is not notable; plenty of people are notable, even if not bestowed inherently by job title. With that in mind, and given that the AfD guidelines have a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular judge before nominating the article for deletion? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than copy-pasting one answer four times, I have answered with respect to all four at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz. BD2412 T 18:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, have given a rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz where extensive discussion is to be found. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per individual discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan R. Schwartz. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. These do not meet that standard. // Timothy :: talk 11:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as it is widely cited in the scientific literature L Faraone 06:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XACML

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

only sources are primary sources. lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. [11], [12], [13]; these are just the first three results of a Google Scholar search. There's plenty more, too. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of sources for just a simple Google Scholar search. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm not sure that a Google Search is sufficient. I'd like to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I don't understand your above comment. It is true to say, as others have above, that there are a good number of peer-reviewed journal papers on this topic, as shown by pages of references on GScholar. Normally that's enough to show notability - others above have linked to individual papers, what else do you want? JMWt (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, my mistake, I look over every AFD every day and I saw that mention as "Google Search", not "Google Scholar search". I don't see Google Scholar mentioned very often but I do see lots of editors state that others should look at regular Google search results without providing any specifics of what they found. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress campaign for the next Indian general election

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

Delete: The article contains extravagant information which is irrelevant to the topic. Besides many items of information are not cited with reliable sources. I hope the administrators will take proper decision based on policies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be only one article containing campaigns of major political parties in India. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article falls under WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two major sections - Political Affairs Group and Task Force-2024 contain no citation. Besides the items of information in this article are different from campaigning. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs WP:TNT and as all of the materials in the article are off topic, the article should be properly rewritten and should be merged into an article Campaigning for 2024 Indian general election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst it might seem WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'm not sure there is really a valid reason to delete. There are lots of high quality sources, presumably they are only going to increase. I don't like the title fwiw, and I don't envy anyone trying to write about this in a neutral way. JMWt (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though the article seems as WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is no valid reason to delete it as source there is WP: Reliable. I think that the article needs some improvement.

Thank You! Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no opinion on the AfD, but will note here for transparency that XYZ 250706 appears to have approached at least two editors on their talk pages regarding this AfD: Special:Diff/1144227404, Special:Diff/1144227430. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan I have told them to put their neutral opinion. Besides one of them (a member of Wikiproject Indian politics) has edited this page several times before and other editors who actively takes part in such discussions and is a renowned Wikipedia article reviewer. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @XYZ 250706: re: canvassing, you're new to AFD so you should get some grace on this, but what you did above was canvassing. It didn't impact the AFD, but this should not be repeated for any reason. Your intent may have been innocent, but you crossed a line regardless of your wording. // Timothy :: talk 11:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move to an appropriate page title. I rm the unsourced content, BLPs should be listed as members of political groups, committees, etc only with clearly RS to prevent abuse. Its too soon for the article, but it will be probably be notable at some point. A keep here shouldn't reflect on any future AFD, if the article is not expanded and properly referenced, it should be deleted and an unnesseary fork. // Timothy :: talk 11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But if we see the current condition of the article, it is not ready to be published in Wikipedia. Should not we add or merge it to an article which will contain campaigning of major political parties in India? XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There are lots of stubs with just a paragraph. Its an unfortunate fact of Wikipedia // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for deletion here. It's early, certainly, and I wouldn't waste my time writing about this; but there's coverage and the eventual notability is not in question. I'm not seeing a problem with the title either; when the election date is confirmed, moving makes sense, but not before. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck Companion

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

No refs on the page for many years. It seems to be a reprint of previously published comics, no indication on the page of why we should think it is notable. I don't find any RS that meet the GNG in my search for them, interested to hear if anyone finds anything. JMWt (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Disney. JMWt (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. Minor reprint compilation. Not worthy of a separate article. Dronebogus (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck - I found no evidence of the subject being independently notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per @Dronebogus - it's a reprint compilation and can be mentioned on the appropriate article(s). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck as per all of the above is the best solution for this overlap. TH1980 (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural close as the nominator is a sockpuppet and after two relists, there has been no support for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Jaleel

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

No in-depth coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:NFILM as a Producer. Page could do with as a tidy-up MNewnham (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hopefully to get more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Athletics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amed Elna

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. I am only finding this source [14], which isn't enough for SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per explanation by nominee. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS and doesn't appear to be WP:GNG. Finished last in their heat at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and their time was 25th out of the 27 athletes competing in the 100 meter race. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres as WP:ATD, in the absence of evidence of meeting WP:GNG. I've merged some of the info from this article to Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Athletics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandjema Batouli

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS and does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Their time was 80th out of 84 competitors in the 100m race at the 2000 Summer Olympic games. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not much to work with here. No real accomplishments are cited. There's only one source.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gracie family. RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rener Gracie

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

Another member of Gracie Family that's not actually notable. Not as a coach, a martial artist or as a businessman. Also probable COI/vanity page, based on creater's history of only this page and the page of the subject's father.Nswix (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Martial arts, and Brazil. Nswix (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of this page and you are correct that I know the subject, Rener Gracie. I'm a published historian with a PhD History from the Ohio State University and I have served on the faculty at the United States Military Academy and Old Dominion University. My point is that I'm well-qualified as a trained researcher who can objectively assess and effectively present material that meets the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I'm not a sycophant and this is not a vanity page. Rener Gracie is not "another member of the Gracie family." He is, however, the only notable Gracie family member other than his grandfather, Helio Gracie, and his father, Rorion Gracie. The article cites numerous achievements to support this assessment. To address your specific concerns, I agree that his achievements as a coach/trainer aren't notable. While he is the principal jiu-jitsu coach/trainer for highly successful UFC fighter Brian Ortega, coaching/training sports competitors is not how he invests his time. As a martial artist, his achievements are remarkable. His creation of the Gracie University is on par with his father's founding of the UFC and his grandfather's creation of the unique Gracie jiu-jitsu self-defense system. He has grown the original Gracie Academy in Torrance, CA into a worldwide network of over 200 training centers and over 380,000 online students. His ability to use distance learning technology to reach an international audience with quality instruction and preservation of high standards is unique in the martial arts. He has also led a nationwide movement to incorporate jiu-jitsu control techniques in law enforcement officer training. His program, Gracie Survival Tactics, is one of the few approved courses of instruction in nearly every state. His presence on YouTube conducting Gracie Breakdowns of assaults and frequent appearances on the FOX News Dan Bongino show as a self-defense expert have given him an increasingly visible platform to advance the use of jiu-jitsu as a solution to police use of excessive force. HIs success as a martial artist in these two areas alone justify his inclusion in Wikipedia. His achievements as a businessman are only remarkable because he has carved out a niche for himself as an entrepreneur and inventor apart from his core competency in jiu-jitsu. To be one of the few whose product and presentation "wins" an endorsement on Shark Tank and evolves into a profitable clothing line is notable. I know the family history well, and would agree with deleting all of the articles about Gracie family members except for Helio, Rorion, and Rener. Billodom2 (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Billodom2, are you connected in some way to Rener's father, Rorion Gracie? I have reason to believe that you are, and I'd appreciate some clarification on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've known him professionally for many years. The specific relationship is that I'm a jiu-jitsu practitioner and he introduced me to the martial art. Subsequently, I became licensed to teach their programs. As noted in my first response, I'm a professional editor, and historian (PhD History, Ohio State University) well-versed in thoroughly researching, documenting sources, objectively assessing, and finally presenting written conclusions. So, I'm capable of creating and contributing to the Rorion Gracie page without bias. In fact, I'm so attuned to it that I would err in the other direction to avoid an accusation of bias or favoritism. I am licensed to teach the Gracie jiu-jitsu curriculum, but have no investments in either Rener or Rorion's business ventures. 2600:8805:1A10:3200:2979:9DD8:818E:BA2C (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, there are several Gracie family members who were notable competitors - Rickson, Royler, Renzo, and arguably Royce as the first UFC champion. But, their achievements are limited to the ring/mat and, while impressive, lack the overall impact of Helio, Rorion, and Rener. People who dispute Rener's notability tend to focus on his competition record and are unaware of the more important, lasting, and pioneering contribution he has made as a jiu-jitsu instructor. Billodom2 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PLENTY of sources available online. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was here for years with nobody having any issues then rules changed. Now tens of thousands of article are going to be hit over rules that I ultimately feel will be reversed. He's known for more than one thing along with being a member of the most famous family in MMA. How does deleting this article benefit wikipedia?KatoKungLee (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what your saying is, he doesn't meet notability under the current rules, you just have a problem with the rules. Nswix (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR and WP:BOLD. I don't see how deleting this article helps anyone or the website.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and it appears their primary claim to fame is simply being a member of the Gracie family. I also have a concern that the article's creator, Billodom2, has a COI and a possible connection to Rorion Gracie, the father of this subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above about my relationship to Rener and Rorion. It's not a COI. In this case, both men are members of a very large family - Rorion has 10 children, Helio had ten (I think), and Helio's brother, Carlos, had over 20 children. Rorion and Rener's are notable because they stand out among this sea of talented jiu-jitsu instructors and competitors. In both cases, they have achieved more than than their predecessors and contemporaries. 2600:8805:1A10:3200:2979:9DD8:818E:BA2C (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gracie Family. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage and notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. Alvaldi (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the article, the sources were a hundred or more articles in martial arts publications from around the world about Rorion in particular, and some about Rener as well. Now, Rener has emerged as a national spokesperson for the use of jiu-jitsu by law enforcement to reduce the level of police violence. I could update the article with a list of publications and show the extent of his internet presence to address the GNG for significant coverage. 2600:8805:1A10:3200:2979:9DD8:818E:BA2C (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. GNG is established by significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which excludes anything that has any connection to him whatsoever. The sources I found in my search were interviews (not independent or secondary), promotional material, and coverage by organizations affiliated with him. JoelleJay (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with a list of online publications that show the extent of his internet presence to address the GNG for significant coverage. Billodom2 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit because it's just a dump of links. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm awaiting feedback from Wikimedia editors through a senior Wikipedia moderator to determine which links meet the GNG standard. Once I've received it, I'll map the references to appropriate content in the article. The link dump was meant to show that there is ample secondary coverage to warrant keeping this article. Most of this was not available at the time when I created the article nor was the requirement for documentation as stringent as it is now. I just need time to pull it together. Billodom2 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Billodom2 What would you say are the WP:THREE best sources that go towards GNG for the subject? Alvaldi (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't worked through the details of each article, but there is coverage by major publications of his efforts to show how jiu-jitsu can address bullying among children, sexual assault, and police violence. I know that I have work to do here to properly enter the references, but I'm trying to buy time to complete the update. I don't want to have the page deleted and have to start all over again. 2600:8805:1A10:3200:2979:9DD8:818E:BA2C (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Billodom2, if this is redirected, you will still be able to access the full page through its history at the redirect. If you do have GNG-fulfilling references you can then add them to the version before the redirection and republish the page. However you should make sure your sources actually do comply with GNG first. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shrine Auditorium. and rename to Shrine Auditorium and Exhibition Hall Less Unless (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrine Exposition Hall

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

Bringing this here following a contested WP:BLAR to Shrine Auditorium by an IP. As written, it is arguably meets the WP:A7 speedy deletion, but given that the article existed from 2014 to 2023 it seems more appropriate to bring this to discussion. I was unable to find any significant independent coverage online in a DuckDuckGo, Newspapers.com, or Google Books search, but searching is made more difficult by the mountain of useless results in the form of trivial mentions in announcements of concerts, etc. and I make no claim of having searched it exhaustively.

Based on the minimal amount of coverage that was deemed due at Shrine Auditorium, I'm currently a bit more inclined to suggest deletion over restoring the redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It's a good article Evangp (talk)
merge and rename producing Shrine Auditorium and Exhibition Hall, which is in fact the actual name of the combined facility. Mangoe (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rename Renaming per Mangoe explanation. Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rename Per Mangoe. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kenafick

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Could not find no significant coverage under his name or the 2 alternate names he used. Also searched Australian search engine Trove. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for Wikipedia. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR you can see lots of citations of his translation of Marxism, Freedom and the State (C1) and more clearly passes C3 due to the multiple independent reviews of the translation. This wasn't in the article at the point of nomination, I found them. It wasn't too easy due not just his multiple names, but they they tend to be written "K. J. Kenafick" and "Kenafick, K. J." being the terms that got the most hits, but "Marxism, Freedom and the State" in ProQuest and Wikipedia Library really being the best way to verify what I'm saying. CT55555(talk) 03:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism about this discussion via the project talk page. CT55555(talk) 03:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. I agree with the above. There is quite enough to keep this article. --Bduke (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there is a typo in the nomination "Could not find no significant coverage" has a double negative that implies significant coverage was found, but I assume @LibStar meant to say the opposite. CT55555(talk) 05:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

correct. Thanks for picking it up. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person has their own collection in a national library. That definitely meets WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CT55555, Bduke, KatoKungLee. I've also added 2 RSs. Cabrils (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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