Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ariadacapo (talk | contribs) at 10:26, 11 March 2023 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian coherent structure.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 10 March 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable topic, but needs a lot of work and possibly stubification. Sandstein 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrangian coherent structure

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

Article written mostly by a single-purpose editor (User:Georgehaller) who explain on their talk page that they coined the term, and who authored almost all of the cited sources. The issue seems impossible to fix because the article is overly technical. It has seen no edits to content since 2016, when the main author was notified of their conflict of interest. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a glance at Google Scholars and it seems that it is used in many papers not written by George Haller. WP:DINC should apply here. I am not confident in this vote so I am marking it as a comment.
  • Keep A Google search shows that the concept appears in many independent sources and practical applications. The COI isn't really a problem because the article doesn't read as promotional. It does read as having a pile of bricks fall on your head, but thats a feature of almost all of our maths articles. small jars tc 16:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very possible to oversell one's own scientific work. Consider language like LCSs are, therefore, ideal tools for model validation and benchmarking. The person who coined the term and cited his own writings about it isn't in a place to say things like that.
    Notability of a scientific concept can't be read off the results of a Google search. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it can be, when it reveals dozens of reliable sources which either have their primary subject as the topic, or use it as the primary method in a modelling application. I have not linked any sources here only because of their abundance. I'll admit that the article has some tone problems, but they're mostly WP:NOTESSAY, not WP:POV issues. It repeatedly compares LCSs to classical invariant manifolds, but noticeably focusses on their technical differences and avoids stating that one is necessarily more useful than the other. small jars tc 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mere existence of many sources using the words were sufficient reason to keep the article, then one wouldn't even have to run a Google search. The reference list is right there already. The problem here is that the current article text is so thoroughly COI-laden that there is a real question of whether even seemingly bland, flat statements can be trusted. If it's unencyclopedic in tone, organized in an unilluminating way, cited to sources that might or might not be the right ones because the author is including his own papers whenever possible... then there's a legitimate possibility that we're in a blow it up and start over situation.
    It's also possible that a term occurs in many reliable scientific publications but is better off being treated as an aspect of a larger topic, rather than being given its own article. An example that just sprang to mind is Kraus operator: Google Scholar finds about 2,900 results, versus about 1,100 for Lagrangian coherent structure, but it doesn't really make sense to give the concept of a Kraus operator its own article instead of explaining it within the article on POVMs or quantum operations, which is why Kraus operator is a redirect to a section of the latter.
    It's very possible that when all these factors are considered, the best course of action is to keep the article, but they are factors to consider. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept our article would need a lot of work, but it is about a notable topic. The Google Scholar search linked above does indeed find many peer-reviewed papers written by others about the topic, and there are some books about it.[1][2] Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter is a master's thesis, which is probably not a reliable source. The former is a bachelor's thesis, which is even less likely to be so. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for correcting me on the books, but I still believe that the topic is notable based on the papers found by Google Scholar. Would you be able suggest any article as a redirect target? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing seems quite the right fit, though it's been a while since I've poked around this corner of the encyclopedia. Fluid dynamics might be a little too broad for the purpose, but it could be a place to start looking (if it turns out that we can't save the page and need a redirect target). XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple WP:BEFORE-style search on GScholar shows several reviews that could serve as secondary sources for the article. Reviews [3], [4], [5] are written by others, and one Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics article written by Haller[6]. There may be others; that is as far as I looked. Unless I am missing something subtle, the topic looks notable and seems to satisfy WP:GNG. In reading the article, there is a lot of good information that is reasonably neutral in tone. But I could believe that there may be some sections that are of undue weight, the intro has too much hype, and sources are indeed biased toward Haller. The article needs a neutral tone, other secondary sources, and possibly a due weight makeover, but I'm not convinced that the problems rise to the point that the article needs WP:TNT. In that essay, TNT is recommended in cases where the content and editing history are all near useless or are actively harmful. I am happy to reconsider if I am missing something big here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a big job, but if the notability case is persuasive, one way forward would be to stub the article down and build it back. Writing a new introduction based on and pointing to sources written by others would put non-COI content first and foremost. Material from the current version could be brought forward as it's checked out. Just a thought. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe I am missing something too - but one paper (which is dedicated to the subject) alone from the article references shows highly cited by secondary sources - and therefore should meet notability: 689 documents have cited: Lagrangian coherent structures and mixing in two-dimensional turbulence And: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ResonantDistortion 23:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this could be "no consensus", the keep arguments do not generally address the claims of lack of sourcing, or just point to web searches rather than particular in-depth references. Given this, the "delete" arguments are substantially stronger and more policy-based. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bezanson

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say fair comment, when an editor takes deletionism to such an extreme. It seems you have not yet hit the links for references at JSTOR and Google books. Moonraker (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unsourced BLP. : BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
The keep club hasn't supplied sources or arguments based in policy and guidelines, so the only response is an offer of cheese for the whine.
BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  12:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. "Delete and merge" isn't possible. Sandstein 19:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018–2020 Irish anti-immigration protests

2018–2020 Irish anti-immigration protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous to the creation of this article, it's creation was discussed on Talk:2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests#Scope. The creator of the article asked for feedback about the 2018 to 2020 period, and was informed by two other users (myself and another) that the period between 2018 to 2020 was not an interconnected phenomenon in the same way the protests in 2022 to 2023 were. Another user was more open to the idea, but felt the information should be kept strictly to the already existing 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests article. I think the creator made this new article in good faith but went against consensus to do so, and made a number of other errors in the process.

The new article is a clone of 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests and includes sentences copypasted from the original, but simply tweaked to say 2018. This is highly problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, this means that the new article is a work of WP:Synthesis and WP:Original Research. While there were a few isolated incidents of anti-immigrant protests in Ireland in that period, none of the sources used in this new article indicates that they were interconnected, as the sources in 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests do. Secondly, the new article is immediately rife with inaccurate information; the 2018 to 2020 protests were against "direct provision centres" for long-term refugees, rather than "temporary refugee shelters" for short-term refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine, so this in an immediate obvious error. The new article, cloning the old article, mentions the presence of far-right elements in these protests, but the source is from 2022 and the source is discussing the 2022 to 2023 period. This is another immediate obvious error/misattribution.

The new article is thus filled with many inaccuracies and muddles events that occurred in the 2018 to 2020 period with events that occurred in 2022 and 2023. This new article should have been much better researched and written if it was going to be written at all, which I don't think it should have been all things considered.

As the creator was already encouraged, I think the creator would be better served working on the background section of 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests rather than creating a separate, new article. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposer's argument is quite muddled, and mischaracterises talk page contributions made by other editors. There was a series of anti-refugee protests in Ireland from 2018-20, and another ongoing series started in 2022. The debate, with four contributors, was over whether to move the 2022-23 article to include the first series of protests, or to start a new article to cover them. The new article was started soon after the proposer voiced opposition to including the subject matter in the 2022-23 article. Now they seem to be in support of inclusion.Stara Marusya (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've clarified on the 2022-2023 talk page, I always opposed the creation of a new article, but if people were adamant about discussing 2018 to 2020, I said was open to that being included in the background section of 2022-2023. I've reread what I said in my original comment and I still think I was fairly clear about that.
Regardless of what I said, two other editors also voiced their opinions. One said either make a new article or expand the original, and the second replied they preferred the idea of expanding the original.
From two editors saying they opposed a new article, and a third being on the fence, I'm not sure how you still came to the concussion that a new article was where the consensus was going. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per proposers last comment, I refer anyone interested to Talk:2022–2023_Irish_anti-immigration_protests#Scope. Proposer makes reasonable points about state of current new article, which was intended to be a collaboration and not a finished product. These problems can be fixed without much effort, but who wants to edit a page that's proposed for deletion? Stara Marusya (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nominator seems to be right that none of the sources used in this new article indicates that [these protests] were interconnected, which is the core of the issue. The article doesn't cite any sources that treat these events as a single phenomenon or a series of collected events, and I haven't been able to find any (by contrast, there are plenty describing ongoing protests in those terms: [10], [11], [12], for example). As such, there's no basis for an article on this topic. Stara Marusya seems to be right that some of the issues raised by the nominator are fixable, but that's really moot here as there's a deeper-rooted WP:OR/WP:N problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Core? Nominator was the only to raise interconnectedness in the discussion. The Journal article discusses connections between the earlier protests, and the connections between some of the later ones don't appear to always be as strong as implied. Also, why delete? Nominator seems to want to merge. Stara Marusya (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? Stara Marusya (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Abbeyhill railway station. North America1000 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeyhill Junction

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

After discussion with the relevant WProject, I'm nominating this for deletion. It's not a major part of the rail infrastructure, there's only passing mention in RS I can find and there were no refs on the page for many years before I added one yesterday. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Abbeyhill railway station Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If there are sources, provide them. If not, well, this is what happens. Sandstein 19:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Morantz

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unreferenced and fails WP:BIO. Those arguing for keep should not just say WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to look, you would see my point that sources are easy to find. I see there is a sudden explosion in the proposed deletion of diplomats. Your campaign does not improve Wikipedia and ought not to be encouraged. Moonraker (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, If sources are "easy to find", can you provide these sources? A search through newspapers.com did not return anything providing WP:SIGCOV, just some minor mentions. A general search also returned very few sources (such as [13][14]) with none being WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Curbon7. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curbon7, the question comes down to what is significant coverage. The 35 articles you found at newspapers.com are a pretty large number for someone claimed to be non-notable. We would not expect a biography for someone living. WP:BIO calls for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No doubt you also found some coverage in Google books, as I did. If I had time, I could make a solidly referenced article here, but like other content-creators I am too busy to do it in a hurry, simply because an obsessive editor is determined to cull ambassadors. If this anti-ambassador campaign is allowed to continue, dozens, or more likely hundreds, of diplomatic articles will not develop into useful content, and the people who create them will be intimidated into not starting more. If anyone thinks this is good for WP, I do not. Moonraker (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ADHOM. If you continue with personal attacks, I will report you. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker, As you'll know as an experienced editor, passing mentions, such as [15] or [16], do not constitute significant coverage. None of the newspapers.com results even come close to being an edge-case; they are all passing. No doubt you also found some coverage in Google books; no I didn't actually, or at least nothing significant. I could make a solidly referenced article here, but like other content-creators I am too busy to do it in a hurry; sourcing of modern Anglo-sphere political figures is really not that difficult. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker has been asked repeated times to demonstrate existence of sources. Despite this Moonraker has not produced a thing. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, I agree with that last point, at least so far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, but I doubt if you are saying that we should therefore treat "political figures" as less notable than others. And information on people who deal with international affairs is inherently more useful to this encyclopedia than that on people who deal with local or their own affairs. I agree that an ambassador can prove to be non-notable, but I do not agree with a presumption of it, and I am most unhappy about the level of the campaign against ambassador biographies which is now such a large part of the Afd jungle. Moonraker (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources you refer to as "easy to find"? LibStar (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered that above. Moonraker (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harby Sangha

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

A non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP: Notability (people). Doesn't cites references as well, therefore should be deleted.Lillyput4455 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article needs review by some more experienced AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per @M.Ashraf333 Ñ•ætin👨 (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Yung Chukwuebuka.VickKiang (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete WP:NACTOR looks for significant roles in multiple films, and while the filmography is impressive, there's nothing that would support significant roles. For WP:GNG, the sourcing just isn't there. One source is basically a database dump page. Another is the definition of a passing mention - name dropped with a dozen more. The remaining sources are all fluff pieces with instagram images and videos, decent for sourcing background information but not actual in depth coverage. I suspect there are better sources out there but will need someone familiar with Punjabi sources and language to ferret out. Ravensfire (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO, sources in article and BEFORE show nothing but PROMO and database records. Nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. Keep votes fails to provide sourcing. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.
Source eval:
Comments Reference
Promo article, complete with photos 1. Sanjha, A. B. P. (2023-03-01). "ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਅਦਾਕਾਰ ਹਾਰਬੀ ਸੰਘਾ ਨੇ ਮਨਾਈ ਵਿਆਹ ਦੀ ਵਰ੍ਹੇਗੰਢ, ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਖੂਬਸੂਰਤ ਤਸਵੀਰਾਂ". punjabi.abplive.com (in Punjabi). Retrieved 2023-03-05.
Database record 2. ^ "Harby Sangha (Actor) उम्र, पत्नी, परिवार, Biography in Hindi - बायोग्राफी". 2022-09-30. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
Promo doesn't mention subject 3. ^ Sethi, Chitleen K. (2020-03-27). "Sidhu Moose Wala releases song on Punjab 'super-spreader', gives call for social distancing". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-04-21.
Promo list 4. ^ "Happy Birthday Harby Sangha: Here Are His 5 Notable Films As Comic Star". PTC Punjabi. 2020-05-20. Retrieved 2023-03-05.
Promo article, complete with photos, dups ref #1 5. ^ Sanjha, A. B. P. (2022-12-17). "Harby Sangha: ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਐਕਟਰ ਹਾਰਬੀ ਸੰਘਾ ਨੇ ਪਤਨੀ ਤੇ ਬੱਚਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਕੀਤੀ ਖੂਬ ਮਸਤੀ, ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਵੀਡੀਓ". punjabi.abplive.com (in Punjabi). Retrieved 2023-03-05.

 // Timothy :: talk  17:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Just wanted to add that being a "short" article is not valid grounds or argument for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Hetzenegger

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Sources are either interviews or promo pieces. KH-1 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Elliott (voice over)

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

Another "who?" British radio presenter/voice over resume article. No meaningful citations. No assertion of notability beyond "he has been on the radio". Promotional tone (the subject is apparently "in demand"). Flip Format (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gasser

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

Another "radio presenter resume" article - presenter has moved around various local and regional stations in the UK and now presents a single weekend show on a national radio station, which is not in and of itself notable. Citations are generally of the "this person exists" variety (e.g. his entry in a general register!) and/or passing mentions of the subject, and I can't find any more meaningful assertion of notability elsewhere. The only article about the subject is the Guardian piece, which is a review of a programme presented by him rather than about him per se. Capital Brighton (née Juice 107.2) is notable, Radio X is notable, this person is not. Flip Format (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches indicate he is not notable. CT55555(talk) 19:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Qureshi

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

Fails WP:GNG, reads like a resume. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources provided seem to indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG. The resume thing is a problem, but we have a template for that. AfD is not cleanup. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to agree with QuicoleJR in that the page needs clean-up, but AfD is NOT a replacement for cleaning up an article. The OP is clearly ignoring WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, which is unfortunate to see.--Historyday01 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first ref is dead, but [17] is a self-described PR platform so Red XN. [18] is a wordpress blog, Red XN. [19] I can't access, but as it's covering her HS career it needs to be part of prolonged coverage to meet YOUNGATH, and that has not been demonstrated. [20] is not independent, Red XN. [21] is a trivial mention in stats, Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prowess as a high schooler doesn't cut it. Yes she made it to Fed Cup qualifying for Pakistan. And then she made it to the main draw of Fed Cop in 2013 but lost and didn't do anything of note. Fed Cup is a pretty good indicator of GNG but in this case it doesn't seem to be. Not notable for anything tennis related other than that 1st round loss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete High school talent is not sufficient. She did represent Pakistan in the Fed Cup qualification. She then advanced to the Fed Cop main draw in 2013, lost, and did nothing noteworthy. Fed Cup usually serves as a reliable predictor of GNG, but in this instance it doesn't appear to be. Other than the defeat in the first round, nothing noteworthy in the tennis world.Khorang 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS.Onel5969 TT me 01:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Ali Akbar

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ñ•ætin👨 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources provided have not been contested. Sandstein 19:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead Ranch, Arizona

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

I get nothing but real estate hits for this non-notable subdivision/neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Can we add them to the article? It's a stub as is. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not adding sources to an article unless and until it is decided that it will not be deleted. Furius (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the current article about the housing development, which does not appear to be notable, and add any labor action to United Farm Workers. –dlthewave ☎ 15:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is truly a no-brainer. Was a very well-known ranch from the early 1900s through the 1970s, with literally hundreds of mentions in articles during that time frame. It had a history of being partly owned by mobsters (see here and here) In the mid-70s there were several in-depth articles about a planned development on the farm: see this and this. During the 1970s the farm was involved in several legal matters involving illegal aliens, with plenty of coverage: like this, this, and this. Then there was the purchase for development (see this and this. Then there's the annexation by Glendale, Arizona (see here). Then while it is being developed, there was this, this, and this, not to mention hundreds of mentions. Later than that, it's difficult to find in-depth coverage, not because there isn't any but due to the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of mentions of them in the newspapers, although its sale in 2021 created some stir with this.Onel5969 TT me 01:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#6. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank

Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. It should be merged into the Silicon Valley Bank article. User:Dariocister Talk 04:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep (snowball keep if there's support). This is an ongoing event, not a future event, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. And the notability seems unquestionable. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What? The collapse has happened. To quote the article, Silicon Valley Bank was closed after a bank run, causing the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis and the second-largest in U.S. history. Heavy Water (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't gone yet, regulators have assumed control of the organization. So that means it is crystal to say that it is collapsing. Until it is completely withdrawn from the stock market, it still exists. Dariocister (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The charter closed. The FDIC controls a successor institution, the DINB of Santa Clara. This is clear from the FDIC press release: Silicon Valley Bank... was closed today... the FDIC created the Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara (DINB). The whole predecessor institution was transferred to the DINB. DINBs are new banks, established under 12 USC s 1821(m) ("New depository institutions"). The predecessor institution is on the FDIC's failed bank list. Ifly6 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions? It's not a prediction. It happened today. SWinxy (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:FUTURE in this instance seems to refer to scheduled or expected future events. This event is not a future event. It already happened. The FDIC already has a receivership set up; the predecessor institution already closed; the successor DINB is a new institution created for that purpose. All of this is made clear in the press releases issued by the FDIC and by the California state bank regulator. It is further made clear in the context of FDIC resolutions operations (see eg Crisis and Reponse ch 6). Ifly6 (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 00:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TestCrew

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP, sourced primarily to press-releases. KH-1 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 06:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Negro Wool Hollow

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

I don't see how this could possibly meet WP:GEOLAND - finding basically no coverage, GNIS doesn't even know where exactly this is located, and the Ramsey source has only one or two short sentences about it. Pretty much all I've found that unambiguously refers to this place is a single local change.org petition to change the name of this, although I admittedly didn't search too hard under the alternative name. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only source I can find is https://collections.shsmo.org/manuscripts/columbia/C2366/crawford-county. Historical societies tend to be considered reliable, but it cites a 1944 Master's thesis, which is available here: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/82581 Generally Master's thesis are considered not reliable sources, I think.
The author was Zimmer, Gertrude Minnie. The only reference I can find to her is here https://www.cozeanfuneralhome.com/obituary/4962168. She was a librarian and a school teacher.
I downloaded the thesis. It lists the former name once, in a list, with zero context or extra information.
So we know almost nothing of this place, there is not significant coverage, but WP:GEOLAND has a lower bar, but it still has a bar and that bar is above what we have, in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 05:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulstate

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

Poorly sourced. Google doesn't turn anything up. Appears to have fallen through the cracks. Has been deleted per a previous AfD, but also previously declined for CSD. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palakunnel Valiyachan

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion with a poor rationale, but the subject's position did not make him inherently notable, what he actually did isn't exactly clear, and there's no proper sourcing here. Google produces nothing. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll look to see if this guy satisfies WP:NBISHOP but suffice to say I never heard of him in my research on the Malabar Christians. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence he meets NBISHOP based on the article's own assertions. Regular clergy can always meet the GNG, regardless of their hierarchical office, of course. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is called as SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE (the veteran Indian freedom fighter and the person who instituted Indian national Army during world war 2) of Syrian catholic History. This comment is made by Mr. MO Joseph a known historian of syro malabar Church. He is mentioned with great reverence in the " Indian Church History" by dr. Xavier Koodappuzha. His personal diary Nalagam was published twice. It is available in Malayalam and is getting ready for third publication. Nalagam is a historical document about the history of Kerala during 1840 to 1880, a first hand information. It also provides valid information about language, culture and social life of Kerala during the rule of British in India 37.231.117.229 (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, and Kerala. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 04:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The article says his diary is an important source for the history of this church in the late 19th century. If so, that might make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copy of the 2nd edition of the diary 37.231.117.229 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added two more general references to the article, a capsule bio and the publication info on his diary. The sources appear to be out there, just not easily accesible or in English. Some unpublished sources[39][40]. Jahaza (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Brian Volk-Weiss. Sandstein 19:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nacelle (film producer)

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

Doing this on behalf of 180.150.37.213 on WT:AFD: Company doesn't meet notability requirements. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Brian Volk-Weiss as per WP:ATD below 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. What we have here are references that either talk about the movies (productions) where the company is mentioned in passing (fails CORPDEPTH), or that talk about or interview the execs (fails ORGIND), or ones that regurgitate announcements or PR (fails ORGIND) - all without the reference including any "Independent Content" by was of in-depth original opinion/analysis/fact checking/etc. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 16:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The owner Brian Volk-Weiss has an article. These two pages could be merged. Sagsbasel (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Brian Volk-Weiss looks notable, don't see evidence that Nacelle is independently notable. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 06:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Jurgle

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Unable to find sufficient independent coverage online. JTtheOG (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Wielgosz

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The first source is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: What are you looking for to help make evaluating consensus here more clear? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly, sources proving notability. At the moment, the !keep votes are weak, in my opinion, because Moonraker asserts in general terms that usually Canadian ambassadors prove notable and that sources must exist, although he does not provide any, NoonIcarus basically argues that ambassadors are inherently notable and, again, he doesn't provide any sources showing notability and the same basically goes for your keep !vote. Nobody has proved why Ms Wielgosz is notable, resorting instead to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ASSERTN, which is why I (and I presume, User:Northamerica1000) relisted the discussion. —  Salvio giuliano 06:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Salvio LibStar (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage by WP:RS sufficiently demonstrate notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Furthermore, a Canadian ambassador would be considered a notable subject per relevant guidelines (specifically, GNG), and the subject appears to have a notable career. While sourcing in the article may be weak, a drive-by AfD nomination is not an appropriate way to address it. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject has WP:NOTABILITY that would warrant inclusion as an article. Clearly, the subject is notable. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t have a claim to notability due to absence of coverage, however, WP:GNG is met by the subject and as such deletion is not the appropriate outcome for the article. If WP:GNG weren’t met by the totality of the subject and the subject’s career, the article could be considered a valid candidate for deletion. On the other hand, however, I find that the subject’s claim to notability is strong enough to pass the threshold for inclusion in the form of a standalone article, due to the appropriate GNG conditions being satisfied. The argument for deletion just isn’t very strong here in the face of the subject’s overall demonstrated WP:NOTABILITY, and the rationale for keeping is thus stronger on its merits. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Baker (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an unreferenced stub for 15 years. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Léon Gérard Asselin

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a single, far from significant, source. Greenman (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo

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

The article is not notable, it only has four refs, one of which appears to be dead, of the other three they all seem to be press releases, and the show is only the main subject of one of those Googleguy007 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treason in Arthurian legend

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

WP:SYNTH issues, article makes a bunch of connections that aren't there, article is all over the place in terms of writing/topic, and the topic is not notable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_11&oldid=1144022945"