Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlgoSec

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to [[WP:NCORP. Feel free to ping me if better sources are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winfried W. Weber

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NPROF. There are references to articles written by the subject, however there is no secondary coverage of the subject as a journalist. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: citations to work seem negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't quite meet WP:NPROF. While it mentions the subject's own writings, there aren't enough independent sources discussing their journalistic career. Waqar💬 17:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing presented is of insufficient depth. Star Mississippi 00:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh James (law firm)

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

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [1]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [2] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [8] [9]. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [10]. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online [11], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The new references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: which 'new references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a basic misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, which is based on the existence of coverage, not necessarily used in the Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: I'm not saying the sources have to be in the article; I am simply asking which 'new sources' Eastmain and Iwaqarhashmi are referring to. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the recent references significantly improve the article's notability. Waqar💬 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: which 'recent references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company (law firms are still companies/organizations) therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent. The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent. There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company. The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.

We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc). None of the other Keep !voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources. None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With one exception, all I see are the humdrum company activities that are carried in trade papers and journals - company moves; company expands; company does X. I don't see any in depth analysis that would stand out. The only exception is one I cannot access, but it is a very recent report that the firm is being sued Law360. Should that suit get wide coverage there may be (ironically) enough to source an article. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Kowalska

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some limited coverage here, here, and here, which I think is evidence of further offline coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with this – that's an awful lot of coverage and perhaps we should be looking to the GNG rather than the NSKATE SNG. Toadspike [Talk] 22:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The third source provided by JTtheOG seem to contain somewhat in-depth coverage, but multiple good sources are required to pass WP:GNG instead of just one. I'm leaning towards delete as a result. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A search for sources didn't come up with anything other than databases. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc ♫^talk 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work done by Tacyarg to improve the article, including adding multiple references. Should be sufficient to presume notability for this historic support organisation. ResonantDis_tortion 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Alice Liddell#Alice Liddell in other works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. M. Rubin

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

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question meets none of the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) widely cited by peers (2) known for originating a new concept (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) The work itself is non a well-known or significant work. The article was written by a blocked user and seems to primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed this heretofore-malformed nomination. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a line in Alice Liddell's Alice Liddell in other works section. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923. I'm closing this as a Redirect. I don't see the point of Drafitfying when it is one sentence, an editor can always start a new draft with this one sentence and work through AFC if they find adequate sourcing and more information on this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Quast

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

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923: My revert was due to the previous request for a discussion regarding notability of the subject, which had not yet occurred. A search of multiple newspaper archives failed to uncover any WP:SIGCOV for the subject, however, and as such WP:GNG is not met. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list mentioned, player isn't notable by himself BFC Aspie (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a case for keeping here. There's lots of mentions and some articles on him which could arguably be SIGCOV, such as this piece from The Courier-Journal which is a decent-sized piece focusing on him and one other; there's also an article on "Quast Is Added To Grid Staff At U. of L." ("He was one of the best punters ever produced by a local school and his kicking won immediate attention at Purdue") and a brief piece with a photo [12] ("his ability to snag forward passes has gained him recognition") – his one-game stay with the Brecks also has coverage: "Quast, Ex-Purdue Star Is To Play With Brecks In Tomorrow's Contest" / [13]. His death also received coverage in the area papers, such as [14] ("Quast ... starred at Purdue and he became an outstanding football official"). Thoughts @Cbl62, Let'srun, and BFC Aspie:? – I can turn this into something pretty decent if you like. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that of those sources, the best one is the 1926 one talking about him joining the Louisville coaching staff. The other ones are either mentions or focus more on other people, while I'm not sure how to rate the obit. I do think this is a close call with those sources though, so maybe draftify (or userfy) to try and find more sources? I'm also wondering now if there are any books which may have covered him? Let'srun (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to work on adding the sources and improving the article, I'd support draftification. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to expand the article with the sources found, would both of you consider that sufficient? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support draftifying at this time, but I think we'd need one more piece of significant coverage to have the GNG (or BASIC) be met. Will take another look later though as it is a close case of notability. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Draftification seems like the best way forward if someone is willing to work on it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that more sigcov is needed or that it would be sufficient if it were expanded? I can absolutely expand it whenever necessary – but I want to make sure I'm not wasting my time on something that will be deleted if further coverage isn't found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably enough to get by the lower bar of WP:SPORTBASIC #5, but not sure if it's enough under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I guess, my question is, would you support it being in mainspace if I were to substantially expand it? It takes time for me to do these things and I want to make sure that, if I did expand it, I wouldn't be wasting my time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine "Special to the Courier" meant the same thing then as it does now: submitted content, i.e. not RS or independent. The 5 brief sentences in an un-bylined local coaching announcement are routine, far from SIGCOV, and are accompanied by an almost equal amount of coverage instructing readers how they can participate in a tailgating caravan to "the game on Saturday". An adjacent story has more than double the content hyping an upcoming game between two high schools. If you can write a "decent article" on Quast just from these kinds of trivial community-interest blurbs, then you could write one on basically any small-town high school coach--which surely is an indication such coverage falls under the utterly mundane content censured by NOTNEWS. The two Indianapolis Star articles are desperately deficient in SIGCOV and so contribute nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That I could write a good article on a high school coach is completely irrelevant to Quast's notability. I'm not as familiar with the "Special to the _" process, but I note that I've seen it plenty of times with e.g. The New York Times. Are all of those NYT stories regarded as unreliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought this through and I'm not convinced that the proffered sources satisfy GNG. The whole basis for his claim to notablity is that he played one game for the Louisville Brecks in 1923. Only two of the sources touch briefly on his pro "career", namely this one, and both simply announce that Quast signed with the Brecks -- with no depth whatsoever. And the obit in the Courier Journal (here) doesn't even mention his one-game NFL "career" -- if his one game with the Brecks wasn't even significant enough to merit even a brief mention in his obituary, how in the world can we then claim that it is notable enough to be the basis of an encyclopedia article?? Cbl62 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the only thing that matters here be whether his obituary mentions that he played in the NFL? If it had added, "Quast also played in the NFL", are you saying you'd suddenly think it worthy of being kept? I thought it was the coverage that mattered, not whether his brief obituary mentions a certain aspect of his life? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get real. The one and only reason that this one-sentence sub-stub was created was because he appeared in an NFL game. That is the real-world assertion of "notability" that purportedly supports the creation and maintenance of the article. The complete absence of coverage of his one-game NFL career (certainly no SIGCOV -- and not even a mention in his obituary) eviscerates the contention that his NFL "career" was notable. Seems pretty clear to me. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument brings to mind the Buck Saunders AfD where you presented some routine coverage that likewise made no mention of his one-game NFL career. Didn't satisfy GNG in that case and shouldn't here either. Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saunders only had SIGCOV from an unusual death. Quast has multiple pieces of arguably significant coverage from his football career talking about how he was a 'star' and a popular player, including some coverage for his NFL career. I could write an extensive biography of this NFL player in accordance with WP:NBASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"), but oddly it seems some editors think havingJohn Quast End Louisville Brecks 1923 Yes Purdue is more beneficial to the reader than a C-class or possible GA on the subject... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the full guideline for WP:NBASIC saysIf the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. The question here is if the sources provided in this discussion, which are secondary, go beyond trivial coverage. I believe they don't do that nearly enough here, but reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had said you thought the coaching staff article was SIGCOV #1; there's also this – about the 'Kentucky boys starring at Purdue', which is about ~325 words focusing on him and one other player (along with two pictures). What's wrong with that one? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It focuses more on that other player and doesn't really delve too much into Quast specifically other than one paragraph (the second to last). I'd expect a bit more personally, but that is just where I stand. I certainly understand where you are coming from. Let'srun (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or at least draftify - This is a really tough case. The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are just barely enough for significant coverage in my opinion and it would appear Quast is notable more so for his college playing and coaching careers. I also agree with Cbl62 that this article would never have been created if not for his brief NFL tenure. However, the bits and pieces of non-trivial coverage found combined with his professional tenure push me towards keeping the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note: Cbl62 brought this AfD to my attention in another discussion, though I had already watchlisted it and planned to participate.
The coverage here is exactly the type of routine local community news we would expect for any college athlete or high school coach. But we have a policy:For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. So I'd like to know how these articles go beyond "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports..." in ways that are not present in any of the articles on other local coaches and athletes in the same newspapers.
I also want to point out that "Kentucky boys starring at Purdue" is bylined "Special to the Courier-Journal", which in all likelihood means it was contributed by non-staff who are almost certainly not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923, as helpfully suggested by the previous editors. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There is a decent amount of coverage here. While its close, I believe that with draftification I can sufficiently show compliance with WP:NBASIC (I'm a bit busy at the moment to expand right now), which notes that sources can be combined to demonstrate notability if by itself not enough. I think I should be given a chance with draftification, given my history with saving historic NFL players from deletion. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the result (redirect, draftify, delete), you remain within your rights to try to improve the article at a later date. Frankly, there's not a lot to draftify. I hereby preserve the entire one-sentence narrative text for future development: "John Henry Quast (April 4, 1900 – August 9, 1966) was an American football end for the Louisville Brecks of the National Football League (NFL)." Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinga

AfDs for this article:

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

It is my opinion that this article falls short of the WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards in regarding to sourcing and significant coverage. Some of the sourcing comes from the Benzinga site itself, other coverage is minimal and does not go into any great depth. At least one major contributor to the article was paid to polish the text (and that person has since been blocked). I welcome the conversation on the editorial merits of this article. Thank you. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
note that a previous version of this article was deleted.
I agree that nearly all available souces with exeption of CRJ article (which trashed Benzinga as reliable news source, in some depth) don't meet standards. Two or three other secondary sources ARE reputable sources, but mostly is just brief, superficial coverage of a Benzinga press release about its aquisition. These items don't confirm, (but merely "report") info in press release. The SEC I suppose is a "primary source," certainly reliable.
Nearly all other sources here are junky.
The assertion above, that somebody was "paid" to work on this article, seems plausible but unknowable, and thus in some sense incorrect. 212.95.5.96 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(cont. from june 30) I vote for "delete" based on poor sourcing & other qualities.
213.142.97.157 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and nothing has changed since this article was deleted the last time in 2012. HighKing⁺⁺17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CJR article easily and obviously meets ALL criteria listed above. Odd that this fact would seen obscure to anyone.
Note also, that objectively, the CJR article offers a very negative view of Benzinga as a reputable news source.
Among the MANY other sources used in the article, a small handful besides CJR meet "reliablity" guidelines, but fail on all other criteria cited above by highking.
Strictly applying these criteria would require deletion. 213.142.97.157 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the WP:NCORP problems cited by the nominator and the two previous editors. This discussion provides a great incentive for editors to acquaint themselves with WP:NCORP. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Kane (American football)

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

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921: My revert was due to the previous request for a discussion to determine notability, which hadn't yet occurred. However, a search of multiple newspaper archives failed to uncover the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spent four years at Fordham and played professionally in 1919 as well as 1921. That "George Kane Fordham" in NY / OH doesn't seem to bring up anything has me thinking that he might have been known under another name. It seems Fordham in 1912 had two Kanes, H. Kane and V. Kane. Wonder whether one of those is our Kane under a different name... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 (although that article title needs to be changed to say "in exactly one game for NPOV reasons). Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Questions as to a person's identity should be resolved long before making a Wikipedia article about the person. Geschichte (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923, as helpfully suggested by the previous editors. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Academy High school

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

Non-notable school, none of the sources cited contributes anything towards notability, and a BEFORE search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with flying colours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability but did not find any. I agree with the nominator; it fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources to establish notability. Pinakpani (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Honor System (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DePaola

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Honor System (band), as that band seemed to accomplish a little more. I'm not sure if his other band (The Broadways) is notable either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhokar

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the current sources are significant coverage, and I think that the same issues from the August 2016 AfD still apply. So, this still fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, Pakistan, and India. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there does not seem to have been any attempt to find sources that actually prove notability, rather the reverse, a quick attempt to ignore the old AfD, notable or, as here, not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current sources don't seem to provide any substantial coverage. Waqar💬 17:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with some failing verification and others that have no significant indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balghar

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

This has been in CAT:UNREF for 16 years. I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editor created article in 2008 with two un-sourced edits, and then never edited on Wikipedia again. Lots of subsequent editors since then, but no one has provided sourcing. — Maile (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Changing to Keep based on the rock carvings (petroglyphs), which I believe make this village historicaly notable. — Maile (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree wit above. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to exist and meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been discussed in several scholarly articles (perform an easy search on Google) and clearly meets WP:GEOLAND, though I think most sources won't be in English. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There should at least be one reference to verify that this place indeed exists and meets WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are rock carvings (petroglyphs) and inscriptions near Balghar. See this reference:Journal of Asian Civilisations. Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations. 2000. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 4 more references to the article. Cleaned up and removed some unsourced content...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hram Hall

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBUILD due to a lack of independent non-routine coverage (Google search) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Serbia. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found in newspapers or in books. Fails WP:NBUILD as there is no coverage to indicate the importance of that building in any way. We don't need an article on every single building out there. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails WP:OR, and is a WP:STUB despite being 9 years old. Overall, article seems to not be WP:N. --Mjks28 (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjks28, just to note that being a WP:STUB by itself is not a reason for deletion. It's more about failing notability . Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand being a WP:STUB isn't alone a reason for deletion. It is just part of my overall profile on the article, though my main reasons are that the article doesn't appear to pass WP:N, and is WP:OR. Mjks28 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any coverage beyond trivial mentions that RK Jugović plays there. Perhaps that could be a redirect target? Walsh90210 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and comments above. M S Hassan (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gerald Branch

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

The current content of this article is a complete duplicate of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). The following statement is all about Joseph Branch (Florida politician), not his son:

assassinated November 22, 1867
a state legislator in Florida at the age of 21, worked as a lawyer, and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas
married Mary Polk

Evidence here: in that article, says:

Joseph Branch is son of Joseph Branch and Susan Simpson O'Bryan
His uncle is John Branch
He married Annie Pillow Martin and Mary Jones Polk; by Polk, he has a son Joseph
Children also include Lucia Eugenia Branch
state legislator in Florida at the age of 21 and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas

Note the point 2-4 above meets the content of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). GZWDer (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is potential for conflation here. @GZWDer: Can you provide a proper citation for the link above rather than just a bare URL? There appears to conflicting records and a dearth of reliable sources on this, but this source states that Joseph Branch, the Florida Attorney General, was a brother of Lawrence O'Bryan Branch and was "murdered by renegades" in Arkansas in 1866 [sic]. Mary Polk Branch in her memoir writes she was married to "Col Joseph Branch", "a member of the legislature at twenty-one, and president of a bank", on Nov. 29, 1859, and that Colonel Branch was shot to death by a drunken Doctor Pendleton in November 1867. However, a genealogical entry later in the book states that a "Joseph Gerald Polk" is the son of Joseph Branch and his second wife Mary Polk Branch, and this son was "a member of Legislature of Florida at twenty-one, a successful lawyer and planter in Desha bounty, Arkansas, where he amassed a very large fortune. He was assassinated on his plantation November 22, 1867." --Animalparty! (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tricky. Per the collection of his papers, Branch the attorney general may have died in 1864. There is no indication of a Joseph Branch II in the list of every state legislator in Florida. Curbon7 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has a single source ("Memoirs of a Southern Woman") that is written and published by the Branch family - self written family histories are not great sources. As Curbon7 points out The People of Lawmaking in Florida 1822 – 2019 lists just one "Branch, Joseph" who was the Legislative Council in 1841 and Attorney General, 1845-1846 so is Joseph Branch (Florida politician). The memoirs say "Joseph Gerald Branch the third, Joseph Branch second, was a member of Legislature of Florida at twenty-one" but I can find no mention in the newspapers. A search of the newspapers found that a Colonel Joseph Branch was shot in Arkansas 1867 this and this but no mention of Florida, politics or Gerald as a middle name so cannot be linked to "Joseph Gerald" son of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). A search of the newspapers found that a Joseph H. Branch from Tallahassee, Florida did die 1864 - see this. KylieTastic (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per FamilySearch the one died in 1864 is his nephew. i.e. Joseph Branch (Florida politician) cited Joseph Branch Papers, 1830-1869, but the "Joseph Branch" mentioned there is his nephew. GZWDer (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a poorly worded nomination (the text of the nominated article isn't a "complete duplicate"), but the article is entirely based on a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and, as Curbon7 points out, only Joseph Branch the attorney general shows up in the list of Florida legislators, eliminating a claim to notability under WP:NPOL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Shirazy

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

I see nothing that persuades me that he passes WP:BIO, nor WP:NPROF, nor WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor WP:NATHLETE. A draft of this name already exists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of resume-material involving his works, miscellaneous papers, work experience, and poetry writing, but nothing that seems to definitively secure his notability. Closest thing might be his (failed?/successful?) candidacy for the assembly. The recent COI activity doesn't help either. GuardianH (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be part of a cross multiple wiki spamming exercise by the creating editor. There is a possibility that this is self promotion, whcih I rate currently at a 0.75 probability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing mentioned in this article suggests encyclopedic notability. I concur that it looks a lot like self-promotion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Punay

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

The two articles provided here as sources are not enough for WP:GNG and all remaining sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Guatemala. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not established. C 679 04:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Agha G. A. Gul. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernew Pictures

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

Fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth. On a related note, this film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul. I agree with Saqib's assessment. This is a company so it has to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial and mostly related to Evernew Studios which is a notable topic. I still think there might be some offline coverage which we are missing in a simple before so please redirect it to Agha G. A. Gul for now. 2400:ADCC:144:8200:8483:7158:CABA:36A (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evernew Studios or Agha G. A. Gul, both of them are notable topics and already have reliable references. I agree both with Saqib's above nomination and the other above Wikipedia editor's suggestion of a Redirect...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul as per WP:ATD - this company does not appear to meet our notability criteria so a redirect is the best option. HighKing⁺⁺20:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect per consensus. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A&B Productions

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

Clearly fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir - the coverage is mostly related to its founder Asif Raza Mir so redirect for now. Fails WP:NCORP due to trivial coverage. 202.47.46.115 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asif Raza Mir, I agree...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir: It is sometimes difficult to find the notability of film or related production company if not finding sources that trivially mentions them. In this cases it isn't different and most times, we would term them inherited (from the film being produced or produced from the company). Following that's the article doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT as it's lacking many information to ascertain notability, hence redirect to the founder until reasonable sources that meets WP:RS are found. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir as WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan notable senior army officers

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

There is no single reference in the article, there is no proof that the listed people are notable. This name of the article was at first List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers (see page history) and this name was derived from the List of British generals and brigadiers which has plenty of references. Hamwal (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference, slowly. I do not understand why editors consider deleting material that provides a basis for further research. What needs to happen with this article is (1) that references need to be imported from the linked articles, especially for the most senior officers; and (2) possibly the large list of major-generals and brigadiers which do not have articles needs to be trimmed. There will be lots of material at associated army and SL war articles which can be imported to provide the necessary references. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the first name of the article 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' was better than the current name; references must be added to this article like List of British generals and brigadiers article has so many references. Hamwal (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills WP:NLIST and the inclusion criterion is well-defined per WP:SALAT. AfD is not cleanup, this list just needs some references. Broc (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Buckshot06:, @Broc:, Please consider to change the article's name to 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' which is now active as a redirect to the article, 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' - this name is more suitable than the current name. Hamwal (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. Broc (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. The word "notable" should not be in the title. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be notable!! Buckshot06 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is notable for research on the Sri Lanka Army and also the civil war of Sri Lanka. 37.111.200.67 (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:, I am the nominator of the deletion of the article is saying that the article must be kept and I am withdrawing the deletion nomination. Hamwal (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamwal, it is fine for you to withdraw your nomination but we don't delete AFDs except for techinical reasons like if there is more than one AFD started for the same article. This is due to be closed soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Horn

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

Article only has a profile citation and nothing else could be found in Google. Shinadamina (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Rugby league. Shinadamina (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Single citation, fails notability. Mn1548 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Owyhee River. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Dragon Canyon

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

This would appear to really belong in the Owyhee River article rather as a stub. Qwirkle (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Owyhee River: Does not meet WP:NATFEAT as it does not have information beyond location and name. The single source included in the article is not reliable. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Assassin's Creed characters. I wish more participants had spoken up since the last relisting but they didn't and I'm going to close this as a Merge. As several participants stated, they would prefer this to be a generous Merge rather than a superficial one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway

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

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [15] [16] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Douglas

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

I actually did WP:BEFORE, but unfortunately these are the only reliable sources I found were his interview about his voice for Albert Wesker [17] [18], which is not WP:SIGCOV. Trivial mentioned sources like this [19] aren't helpful for GNG. Aside from that, the article has a lot of unreliable sources, COI and OWN issues by the actor itself. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to pass the subject-specific notability guideline of WP:NACTOR due to his numerous roles in notable works of media, and prolific acting career. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I suggest the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:NACTOR which is on the generous side. Douglas easily has enough roles in significant productions to qualify. The borderline cases for NACTOR are like "one moderately successful role, no sources at all on personal life, some minor stuff nobody cares about," which this topic is light-years ahead of. SnowFire (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even NACTOR aside, multiple sources write about things that Douglas posts, like this. As for COI and OWN issues, the former is easily rectified by any one other editor verifying whether there's NPOV issues or not; the latter, I don't see anything suggesting Douglas is edit warring, at least not recently. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if the article is messy it meets WP:NACTOR, and possibly GNG (albeit weakly) per Cukie. The conflict of interest is better off bringing up at the associated noticeboard. λ NegativeMP1 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I apologize for not being familiar with WP:NACTOR. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Press Your Luck scandal. I see a rough consensus that these two articles should be Merged. I've seen hundreds of AFDs at this point and have never seen one closed as a "reverse merge" as the target article would have to be tagged, the creator notified and be included in an AFD nomination. Once this AFD is closed, the scope of a Merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Larson

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

WP:BLP1E. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Per ~~WP:BLP1E~~WP:BIO1E there should not be two separate articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as all of the reliable sources and verifiable content at Michael Larson has already been incorporated into Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep BLP1E does not apply. He is not alive. And the article has substantial information about him beyond his winning strategy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An additional comment: Since Jax 0677 has decided in a somewhat idiosyncratic way to express skepticism about the above (see edit history of this page), I'll note that the article has a whole section titled "Later life, death, and legacy." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Changing opinion to redirect. Fourthords's comments below are convincing. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the nominator meant WP:BIO1E, which does apply. Also, all of this article's verifiable content (including the 11% not stemming from the PYL event) is already to be found at the article about the overall event—Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Crime, Games, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Press Your Luck scandal, if only because there's little left to merge. The history may be useful for attribution purposes, though, and keeping the history around is useful for tracking how we wrote about this subject years in the past. As for Larson's article, it's now redundant to the scandal article. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I mean, it was already merged in practice, but still. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am OK with a merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever is done here, please remember to move Michael Larson (disambiguation) to the title, Michael Larson, when this is all over. BD2412 T 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Michael Larson would continue to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, unless you want to open an RFD. 162 etc. (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and redirect Press Your Luck scandal to Michael Larson. (This concern is slightly lessened if the article moves from its current POV title, but that's being argued in a RM currently, and I'd still prefer the reverse merge.) It doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles, yes, but this is the more relevant article and the better title. This is not a BIO1E case, this was actually the more notable article if only one is kept - see arguments in the earlier RM discussion. Many sources discuss the topic simply by Michael Larson's name and not by the episode or by "scandal", e.g. [20]. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Just finished reading the scandal article. All the pertinent information is there. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing seems fine, it's in older sources but talks about this person. Bit of a scandal later in life, but he's notable for the win on the show and what happened after. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Press Your Luck scandal back in, per SnowFire. A RM to move "Michael Larson" to "Press Your Luck scandal" was closed as "not moved". This whole "write a content fork, then nominate the old article for deletion" strategy feels like an end-run around that RM. Sceptre (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the extant article was and is an over-detailed pseudo-biography containing original research and un- and mis-sourced claims about someone notable for only one event, I began writing the event-based article on or before 2 Feb 2023 (per the cited sources in the original version of the article. The request to move the BIO1E was instigated at 15:54 UTC on 22 March 2024 by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), by which time I had been writing the event article for at least thirteen months, even saying in that very discussion,I began writing a Press Your Luck scandal from whole cloth to ensure 100% citation to reliable sources. I'm seven (of 22) sources deep in it right now, and was probably going to spend another month or so before ready to bring live. Furthermore, this AFD was begun by Jax 0677 (talk · contribs). Given all this, I'm unsure how any involved editor can be so plainly accused of what you claim. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sourcing is fine and meets our inclusion guidelines. Coverage is over a wide enough time WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply. But I think the material is better covered by us as an event article rather than a BLP. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clipgenerator

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

Atrociously sourced, highly advertorial that appears to fail WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Software, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N. If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mjks28:, What evidence do you have suggesting this product meets WP:NCORP? I've done the WP:BEFORE search and came up with none. The most in-depth piece I came upon was https://www.pressetext.com/news/na-20080110015.html but this is of course nothing, because it's a press release.
Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search and can't find any sources either that prove the subject of the article is WP:N, so I change my argument to delete. Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like an advertisement. . .Mean as custard (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 Wabash football team

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

No indication this team, which only played a single game, meets the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article was created as a sub-stub almost 10 years ago with a single sentence -- "The 1884 Wabash Little Giants football team represented Wabash College during the 1884 college football season." The only addition since then has been a notation that the "Little Giants" nickname wasn't adopted until 20 years ago. Nothing of encyclopedic value is lost by deleting this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the article having been a WP:STUB for 9 years, and only having one citation. Mjks28 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are not reasons for deletion. For that reason, the person closing the discussion will unfortunately not take your stated opinion into regard, so please feel free to revise - and please read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think only having one citation qualifies as a reason, no? Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All material is included in the Wabash College article. Leaving a redirect would be a painless courtesy. Carrite (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article. We have thousands and thousands of stub articles. Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual and valid reasons for deletion here are set forth in the nom: The article lacks anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV and thus plainly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. As for redirecting, that would undermine the utility of red link in our comprehensive system of team templates. E.g., Template:Wabash Little Giants football navbox. A redlink tells us that a season article does not exist. We could theoretically fill in all of those redlinks with redirects, but then the utility of the templates is massively undercut and we end up with team templates that are a useless loop redirecting to the main team article. (A minor program like Wabash (Division III!) has very few notable seasons, and the blue links in the template allow the viewer to zero in on those seasons.) Please do not redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge can't be closed to a target which doesn't currently exist. Also, would that target meet the notability guidelines (GNG and NSEASONS)? Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun, my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines. It would be more productive for you to examine such possibilities before creating an AfD like this. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines We would need more than an assumption. Can you provide a couple sources? Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, you how to answer this question for yourself. See: 1889 Indiana Hoosiers football team. There's lots of other stuff on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone wants to take the time to create a well-sourced redirect target, redirect is not an available or permissible option here. For that reason, I remain in the "delete" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need an existing target article, not a hypothetical one that could be created in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wabash football, 1884–1889 has been created. More coverage can be found, but search at Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library is currently down. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the proposed decade target on the assumption Wabash is a football team we care about the seasons for. There's not enough available for this season to have a stand-alone article, there's not even that much to merge, but it's better to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere using the guidance at WP:NSEASONS which allows multiple seasons to be smushed into one. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What info still needs to be merged? I think if anything a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The single game result can be included somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It already is under 1884, no? Let'srun (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other AfD, I didn't notice the merge had already happened. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 (there's nothing to merge, it's already there). Thanks to User:Jweiss11 for creating a suitable target article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 since the season article does not appear to be notable enough for standalone inclusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 DePauw football team

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

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, despite having the claim of playing in the first football game in Indiana. The only source is from the team website, which is primary. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better, with only a single sentence of coverage found at [[21]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis is borderline SIGCOV with a full paragraph on the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A closer can't redirect to a non-existent target. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DePauw football, 1884–1889 has been created. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the target meets GNG or NSEASONS, but if others find the sourcing to be acceptable I suppose a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If need be, the scope could be expanded to cover the 1890s as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. There's not a lot of information here, it may have been reported on at the time, and it's in our interest to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What information here isn't already included in that article? If anything, this should be either redirected or deleted, but I don't see any basis for a merge now. Let'srun (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merges don't often occur before the AfD is closed. Still the correct result, and this can be redirected there by the closer. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the info included in this article has already been merged in the article Jweiss11 made, so that doesn't apply in this case. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still viewing my vote as "the information should be retained via a merge" even though it has been already than a "it's been merged so we can redirect there," merge usually implies redirect with some or all information brought over to the new page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the newly-created DePauw football, 1884–1889 may still not be significant enough to warrant its own article and may need to expand its scope, but I guess for now redirecting this article to that one is the best outcome for this AfD. A discussion about the new article may result in further expanding that range of years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11's creation is a good first step, though I also agree with User:Eagles247 and suggest extending to 1899 which would covers the 19th century, bring it up to about 60 games, and provide greater certainey that there is enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq R3

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

The company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:CORP. Only the citation to TechCrunch would appear to be vaguely reliable. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. As to the citations in the article: ArsTechnica is actually more reliable than TechCrunch (ArsTechnica is rated as generally reliable, while TechCrunch is rated as marginally reliable on WP:RSP). However, none of the three citations provide significant coverage. Source 1 is WP:ORGTRIV (it talks about a standard transaction, namely "a capital transaction, such as raised capital"). Source 2 only mentions Security Scorecard with regard to something else, and Source 3 is a listicle. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the analysis conducted by Epicgenius. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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