Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 21	June 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Bucher

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

Non-notable artist. Lacks independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at and searching the internet, he seems to have some substantial coverage from largely German language sources. He's also been described as one of the leading German wood sculptors of the 20th century. [1] - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the Schwarzwaelder Bote (Black Forest Messenger) on the occasion of his family donating part of his real estate to the community after his death in 1995. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding any reliable sources to add to the biographical information presented in the article. his entry on Dewiki cannot be used to bring the subject up to notable. It was created by the same SPA in English and in German. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Additionally, the second of the two references (museum stuff) failed verification. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Knightoftheswords281, this artist is very notable in Germany and among wood sculptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is more than one Franz Bucher and specifically there is a German sculptor (1928-1995) and a Swiss painter 1836-1919. A google search for "Franz Bucher artist" will bring up information about all three. Reviewers should be aware that finding an article about an artist in German isn't necessarily about the living Swiss artist. Again, I am finding no reliable sources for the information provided in this article and no way to bring the article up to notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specifically presenting the sources that are suggested to exist, and evaluation of them for suitability (and, as per some comments here, making sure they're about the right person!) wouild be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find sourcing for him in Gscholar (only a marine/fish scholar with the same name), jstor has nothing. Will try a .ch search, see what I find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He seems to have some works in the Geneva art Museum [2], his biography gives the date of birth and city that match up with this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not listed in the Historik Lexicon der Schweiz [3], which is odd. That's the RS and gold standard for Swiss biographies. He's listed in SIKART [4], found from the German Wiki. He appears to have won awards and his works are held in several collections, but my German is useless. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am not exactly overwhelmed by the quality of the available sources, but the SIKART entry (the one about him, b. 1940, authored by Fabrizio Brentini) gives some pretty solid material to work with. In addition there seems to be an (unfortunately paywalled) focused article on him in Luzerner Zeitung. Various supplementary sources here and there, and a couple of books, which I assume are mostly pictures but at least the former of which seem to be from a legitimate publisher (and as to the latter, I'm a bit unclear on this "Gisler" press from Luzern might have been, but it does seem to have found its way into some pretty fancy libraries). Overall I think it is possible to have an article on him, and therefore we should give it our best shot, although the person(s) behind these articles haven't exactly been helping. -- Visviva (talk) 02:55, 24 June 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 per WP:SNOW, without prejudice against a future nomination when things aren't quite so fresh. – bradv 00:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton Rush

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS T v x1 22:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the subject of this article clearly doesn't meet points 2 and 3 of WP:BLP1E, especially point 3. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, he does very much meet point 2. And with regards to point 3, I will contest that it weren’t his actions during the expedition that caused the mishap, so he’s not independently notable for it. Basically he was just one of the occupants, his role in the loss of Titan wasn’t substantial. Carbon case of what this policy was written for.T v x1 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely a notable businessman prior to the wreck, with full length sources from months and years ago: [5], [6], [7]Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Not true. If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. There’s nothing spectacular about his business activities.T v x1 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is now the central character in a major international news story. People will remember this incident and the person responsible for years to come. I'd say his backstory, which had many elements that led up to the implosion of the Titan, is relevant for historical purposes. 96.241.148.20 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 96.241.148.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The central character in ONE EVENT! People like him is exactly what Wikipedia:BLP1E was written for. Nothing in your comment justifies his article.T v x1 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That argument doesn't work. BLP1E isn't satisfied because the third criterion states it has to be insignificant, whereas this was significant. 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No his role in the incident has to have been substantial, which is not the case. There is nothing that suggests that his piloting of the vessel caused the breakup. His role in the accident isn’t in any way more important than that of the other four occupants.T v x1 23:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial - that's a subjective interpretation of what is meant by 'substantial'. And clearly his role is more important than the other four occupants - this incident revolves entirely around a sub that he and those working for him designed and built. He himself dismissed concerns about the safety of the design, and then he himself was piloting it. The incident doesn't even happen without his involvement, so his involement is objectively substantial. 176.254.143.249 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 176.254.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's a big personal conjecture on you part to state it would not have happened without him. The expedition was executed by a company, not a person. They could have done that with another CEO as well. Also there is confirmation that design errors by him caused this, your are making wild assumptions here. There's nothing here about that incident that wasn't already included elsewhere. This is largely a content fork.T v x1 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, he wasn’t the pilot. Second of all, he’s the CEO of the company and had final say in the design decisions of the sub, which ultimately led to a lack of proper engineering and safety standards that led to the implosion. 42.3.105.87 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 42.3.105.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We don't know that yet. There has not been any confirmation that the break-up was the result of design flaws. And even if so, there were multiple engineers working for the company who all could be responsible.T v x1 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From BLP1E: 'John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.' This article clearly meets those conditions and there is a precedent. 176.254.143.249 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 176.254.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No it doesn't. These case are not comparable. That assassination attempt was completely orchestrated and executed by Hinckley. It wouldn't have happened without him. In this case, there's nothing to suggest that the accident was caused by Rush's piloting. His role in the cause wasn't substantial at all. He was just as much an occupant and victim as the other four. T v x1 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial. The Reagan assassination does not happen without Hinckley and the Titan incident does now happen without Rush. 176.254.143.249 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 176.254.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That analogy is just not true. He wasn't needed at all for that submersible to be operated. T v x1 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Definitely notable for more than one event, there are a lot of sources ranging from years ago to now easily found online. Icehax (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was no one interested in writing an article for him prior to his death? T v x1 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was then; this is now. Though deceased, he is an internationally recognized figure following this news story that made headlines around the world. 96.241.148.20 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 96.241.148.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

ONE news story. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies before taking part in a procedure like AFD. T v x1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are valid arguments, so neither is yours.T v x1 23:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you are wrong in this case. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are. Please read the sites content policies. Anything worth mentioning about this person can be put in the articles on his company and on the accident that claimed his life.T v x1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, and a valid split from OceanGate. I have to disagree with Tvx1's assertion that If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. Given that we continue to write new articles on Wikipedia, that can't be the case. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that’s nonsense. A notable businessman who had been active for decades, yet was of interest to no one here prior to dying?? Please just admit the reality that no one would be interested in an article on this person if he hadn’t died this week. T v x1 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact he did die and was a central figure in a significant event IS enough. You're not giving enough weight to the situation 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No it isn't. Please actually read Wikipedia's content policies. Why do you keep acting with such a know-it-all attitude, even though you haven't any edit whatsoever to this site outside this AFD? T v x1 00:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, he was notable before the implosion i think, but is only more notable now. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No he wasn’t. That’s why we didn’t have an article on him before.T v x1 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these "notable" people write their own articles about themselves, and perhaps Rush didn't think that was important or didn't have the inclination to do it. Just because there wasn't an article before, doesn't mean that after becoming world famous he isn't worthy of an article now. 96.241.148.20 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 96.241.148.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That must have been the worst argument I have read here so far. T v x1 00:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep otherwise Merge and redirect into OceanGate. Rush is unquestionably notable now from the events following Sunday. However, the information in this rather quickly compiled article would be sufficient if moved to the main article of the OceanGate of which he was CEO. Notoriety prior to the Titan incident would indicate an article having been written previously, this is not the case.

If a substantial article can be written on his background, which would be the entirety of his life leading up to the incident, then an article is fine. Otherwise, a detailed section in the OceanGate article would suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources prior to the implosion, Was certainly notable prior to the recent events, Meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I he was, he would have already had an article. T v x1 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Firstly, he's had coverage in a myriad of sources before the submersible incident and that compounded with the recent coverage makes him notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress; just because he didn't have an article before does not equate to him not meeting notability requirements now that he does. Additionally, considering that he's now dead, that offers a greater degree of separation between him and OceanGate, which will presumably get a new CEO and move on. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crucially however, it doesn't give him the required separation from this one event. T v x1 00:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYT
BBC
Newsweek
The Independent
AP
CBS
San Fran Chronicle
NYP
WaPo
CBC
The Guardian
DW
NBC
The Smithsonian
Bloomberg
doesn't give him the required separation from this one event

Bro, what? How does this fail to confer notability? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 00:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are numerous sources mentioning him before the disaster(as per above). He's relevant enough to deserve his own article, especially now.

Emkut7 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of which demonstrate notability.T v x1 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep. Let's get the tag off the page ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. T v x1 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shahzada Dawood. WP:SNOW: clear consensus to redirect to his father. Leaving it open any longer will not net a different outcome. Anarchyte (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suleman Dawood

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

Typical WP:BLP1E article. Suggest a redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident. Edwardx (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support and hopefully a speedy deletion. Killuminator (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - There is nothing noteworthy about this article that is not in Shahzada Dawood, except for personal subjects such as interests and schooling. With all due respect. Usedbook (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the other passengers were notable due to lasting coverage of their activities, this was a 19-year-old university student who really had no opportunity to gain WP:SIGCOV before his death. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - WP:BLP1E. We don't have Wikipedia pages for every person killed on 9/11 - we don't need this. Schierbecker (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There is nothing of significance in the Suleman Dawood page that already isn't present in the 2023 Titan submersible incident or Shahzada Dawood pages. Noahpeaslee11 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (in)to Shahzada Dawood. Because article is based on multiple reliable sources a redirect should be kept. Information about him that can easily be moved and even expanded in the family section of Shahzada Dawood. 109.38.140.242 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Being a victim of an accident doesn't make someone notable.Canuck85 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either 2023 Titan submersible incident or Shahzada Dawood. Keivan.f^Talk 22:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not to diminish his tragic death, but he seems far less notable than his father, who admittedly doesn't seem particularly notable himself. While I don't believe we need to delete the Shahzada Dawood article, there isn't much to Suleman's article beyond him being a college student and son of someone else who also died on board the Titan. Fernsong (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I carried out a page clean-up and fixed bare links which could suffer from link rot as it was practically abandoned by its creator. It is one of those cases where notable parents don't necessarily equal notability. Maybe this could be expanded upon in the future for being a passenger of Titan, but I say for now, delete. Another way of fixing this would be to do a sub-section on his father's Wikipedia entry. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Per Schierbecker - FlightTime (open channel) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I would argue this could fall under WP:A7 and shouldn't require any discussion. With all due respect the only articles written about him are about his death, which makes him not really a notable figure. I would move for a speedy delete. Icehax (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is nowhere near the level where A7 would apply - A7 isn't "non notable", it's "no credible claim of significance" - the latter is a lower standard than the former. The article contains full length pieces of coverage of this person from the BBC and surrey live, and being a victim in a major submarine accident that is currently worldwide front page news is a credible claim of significance. The issue here is that this is a WP:BLP1E, and since the person is only notable in one context they should be covered in the article on the event. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident per WP:BLP1E. Only notable in the context of that submarine accident as a passenger/victim. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood#Personal life - it wouldn't be appropriate to merge the information to the article on the Titan incident as it does not (and will not) go into such level of detail of the other victims. The personal life section of the article for his father is a suitable merge location. Kingsif (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident (or if that page is moved per its move discussion, whatever new title it is under). Per WP:BLP1E, there's no claim they're notable other than as the victim of said accident. There is no need to merge any content from here; coverage of them on the target page is already sufficient. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Obvious redirect candidate, preferably to 2023 Titan submersible incident and second preference to Shahzada Dawood ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident or Shahzada Dawood, barely any other coverage outside the submersible incident. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident, not enough info on him so not notable enough Taiwanesetoast888 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete as they're obviously non notable on their own. Bedivere (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Suleman Dawood. Not notable, just his teenage son. Yekshemesh (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Err...this is Suleman Dawood we're discussing. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously meant Shahzada Dawood Bedivere (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad but yes, I obviously meant Shahzada Dawood Yekshemesh (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect it would be sensible to merge with the page for Shahzada Dawood. - Anvib (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This should not even require a discussion and it's a failure that it's not already gone quite frankly. parqs (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shahzada Dawood. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to his father's page. His father as well as the others on-board are notable in other ways, while Suleman unfortunately is not notable outside of this tragedy. A redirect would make sense rather than a complete deletion. Mannytool (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the article with Shahzada Dawood GodzillamanRor (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ONEEVENT Nswix (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with the incident's article: Obvious BLP1E, but, in my view, better to redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident than Shahzada Dawood, as Suleman Dawood was known for his involvement in this debacle, not for being the son of Shahzada. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - He was not notable before the incident, not even locally. The article is about his personal life and his education - Which everyone has. He hasn't been involved in anything notable prior to the accident. And, with respect, him perishing in a notable maritime accident of this decade shouldn't grant him an article. The young man was unknown before the incident, and even before the incident he was pretty much a 'regular' person (besides being the son of a billionaire, who he himself wasn't that known either way). Yucalyptus (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident, or failing that, to Shahzada Dawood. There are plenty of good arguments (and some not-so-good ones) above for why this page should not remain as an article; I will not repeat them other than to point to WP:BLP1E.
I am persuaded by Heavy Water's argument that anyone looking for Suleman is looking for him because of his involvement in this debacle, not because he was the son of Shahzada. A reminder that WP:ATD is policy, so anyone arguing for deletion needs to explain why a redirect is a bad thing. I think the content in this page could be merged into both potential redirect targets, but I believe this page should point to the event for which he is notable. House Blaster^talk 04:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shahzada Dawood, as that article will be able to better cover details about the son as opposed to the article on the submarine incident. Mar4d (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per most of the above. Saw this coming as soon as Paul-Henri had a page made (although his had slightly more reason to be made a page). Booyahhayoob (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood. Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I believe it would be best to merge and redirect Suleman Dawood's page into his father's Shahzada Dawood, and his section can be added and included there instead. 24.13.28.25 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete/Merge: per all of the reasons above. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident or his father Shahzada Dawood. Give_Up 05:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood. I'm sensing snow in June... ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -This article has already been up for far too long. Nothing against this poor kid, he's just not relevant for WP 21stCenturySloth (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood.--Dl.thinker (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident Alex Muller 06:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, notable for only one event, redirect to Shahzada Dawood. Milkk7 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to the incident or to his father, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This 19-year-old boy did nothing notable in his life but die in a notable incident. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Tragic event but subject nowhere near notable enough for own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident, preserving categories. PamD 07:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect otherwise Delete to his father Shahzada Dawood. While not notable on own terms, he will be now, but only because of his father and the incident. -- Tytrox (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & merge to Shahzada Dawood or 2023 Titan submersible incident. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:56, 23 June 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article after new sources were found. If you are seeking a rename or merger, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thrown stones

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

Unsourced, seems partially promotional, searches return no relevant results... fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any RS to show that this passes WP:GEOFEAT. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find several good references using the corresponding article in the Italian Wikipedia at it:Pietre lanciate. Perhaps the Eglish article could be expanded with text from the Italian article, but I think that the references that now appear in the article are sufficient to show notability. I don't speak Italian, but I recognized that I should look for Italian-language sources about a geological feature in Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing seems sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Bolsena and redirect.~~ I tried. I really, really tried but just couldn't find enough to save this one. I spent about over an hour on this. There are reliable references but they are insufficient to establish notability; they will support a paragraph in our Bolsena article. (Bolsena is the nearby town).

The "Legend" section of the article - nice story but I've found zero to support it - not even junk sites. The legend appears in the Italian version without a reference, either. I deleted it.

Some tourist sites refer to The Thrown Stones as part of a UNESCO Geopark or Heritage Site; it doesn't appear on UNESCO"s site with either the Italian or English name.^[8][9] UNESCO also has an interactive world map of all its sites; there were no UNESCO geological sites in this area.

In all my searches, I checked the Italian name ("Pietre lanciate") as well as the English name. "Thrown stones" is so generic a search term as to generate a bazillion false hits, so I constrained the search by adding Bolsena to it. Here are my search results^{[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]} - either false hits, passing mentions or unreliable commercial tourism sites.

I found reliable results using Google Scholar but the papers I found just made passing mention of the Thrown Stones.^[23]

This appears to be a paper describing volcanic features in the Province of Viterba; I think its part of the application process to get the Lazio/Viterba area (not just our Thrown Stones) recognized as a UNESCO geological site for its volcanic features. It mentions the Thrown Stones.

This is a decent article about the Thrown Stones that's not obvious junk; if you believe it's from a reliable site, it's probably enough to establish notability. I don't think it's from what we would call a reliable source but others should look at it. I read it in translation.

This is just a commercial tourist web site. This may be an official local government page about the Thrown Stones but it's just a paragraph of puffery junk.

Here are the Italian article's 4 refs:

Page about the Lazio volcanic region. Mentions the Thrown Stones.^[24]
http://geoparcotuscia.provincia.vt.it/pdf/schede/03_Descrizione_Pietre%20Lanciate.pdf could be the smoking gun except the geoparcotuscia.provincia.vt.it sever won't respond. I did multiple searches on the general provincia.vt.it domain and kept coming back to this unhelpful empty page. My guess is that this was for the UNESCO initiative and that maybe it died at some point.
This geology paper gives a good overview of the volcanic region. It mentions the Thrown Stones.
http://geoparcotuscia.provincia.vt.it/pdf/doc/GeositiTuscia.pdf was another non-responding provincial page.

Sorry for the length; this was a big, empty rabbit hole. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Visviva and WP:GEONATURAL. I suggest renaming "Pietre lanciate" -- that's where I found the most references. Even the junky English-language tourism sites call it that. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, with great thanks for A. B.'s very thorough work. Although it was correctly noted above that this probably doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT, the applicable standard here is actually WP:GEONATURAL, which I think is met here, since this is a named natural feature about which we can provide more than bare statistics. That said, a merge could be perfectly cromulent. I think Lake Bolsena might be a better target in that case. -- Visviva (talk) 03:14, 24 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Miller (footballer)

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

Four official international caps for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was all I was able to find, if it is in fact the same person. JTtheOG (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:05, 23 June 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 23:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M'Backé N'Diaye

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I could find was this and this, which is not enough IMO. JTtheOG (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chrom

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

After extensive research, I've not found adequate sigcov about Chrom himself. At present, the article is mainly reliant on listicles, passing mentions, and low-quality coverage (such as Chrom getting a fan-made butt mouse pad). I'm not opposed to its existence inherently, but unless some serious work is done, I'm not convinced that Chrom passes notability requirements. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm having hard time to find valuable sources to use for Chrom. I'm afraid it's mostly listicles and such, but it semes doable now. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 19:21, 15 June 2023 (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/2023 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure I follow the nom's rationale. If their position is to not oppose the article's existence, then why nominate it for an AfD? The definition of significant coverage is quite clear according to the guidelines: more than a trivial mention, but does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and that is the case with the nature of the article's sourcing. Merging is a viable solution if a List of Fire Emblem Awakening characters styled after List of Fire Emblem Fates characters actually exists, and it could work because I've encountered scattered discussions in numerous discussions about various other Awakening characters over the years. Haleth (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I tend to not be a mergist, and if provided with new sources to show notability, I'd be amenable to having my mind changed. I nominated it because I do not feel that the article passes muster. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that cultural impact goes beyond just fan-made merchandise: the character has stayed relevant by consistently ranking in fan polls over the course of a decade, as well as numerous appearances outside of the original Awakening game in related Fire Emblem media or other games published by Nintendo due to fan demand as opposed to Nintendo company policy, an indicator that the character may be independently notable from an objective PoV. Haleth (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be surprised if there wasn't more coverage on him out there, between his recurring roles in Fire Emblem and Smash Bros, especially considering how popular both series have been in the past decade. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you can find more coverage, I would be delighted to !vote keep. I'm no fan of merging. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fire Emblem Awakening#Setting and characters. Chrom does not evidently have SIGCOV in reliable sources. The Reception is long, but cobbled together from numerous trivial mentions, and does not support substantive commentary on him. It would be more accurate to call the sources discussing the story at large than one character from it, and they are more relevant to the game itself. I would suggest that interested parties endeavor to recreate List of Fire Emblem Awakening characters, which was boldly redirected some years ago, in a manner that passes WP:LISTN, and adding commentary on Chrom to it instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. While some of the sources are left to be desired, I think there's enough significant coverage for this article to be considered generally notable. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Honestly the reception section is big...but it's all trivial. Also going to point out that fan polls while they can be cited shouldn't be leaned on for notability: often they're either primary sources, and there's no proof that the poll itself was accurate as these often don't have safeguards to prevent tampering. That's been pointed out multiple times through the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Abstaining per discussion with Sergecross. Can always revisit it later if need be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is this good source not being used in the article. [25]. I do not know if this changes anything. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary source (interview). Can be used, but doesn't count for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is from a developer that did not create the character and is not from Nintendo or Intelligent Systems. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sakurai is "not from Nintendo"? Given the ludicrous amount of Nintendo characters Smash Bros uses, it would be safe to call Sora LTD a first party Nintendo studio. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it factually is not, Sora Ltd. is literally not owned by Nintendo, despite some level of association between them. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as nominator. Done some thinking, reevaluating. I'm not 100% sure if it clears Ghosts'N Goblins, but I'm not sure enough that it fails it to endorse merging it. This is only compounded by multiple editors declaring their interest in addressing notability issues. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Chrom seems to have barely enough sources to pass WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@(Oinkers42): Please post the WP:THREE best secondary sources for the article then? I'm perfectly fine with keeping the article if said sources exist, but nobody has said what they actually supposedly are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I am not impressed by what I see in the reception, which appears lenghty but is built from sources that don't seem to pass WP:SIGCOV. There's a ton of listicles and such. Per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, I'd be happy to review the THREE best sources - ping me if they are provided. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Merge and Redirect. The nominator's position has changed so there is no longer support for deletion, there just has to be more of a consensus on what should happen next.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per nom, although a merge would also be fine. It is always worth considering that that all policies and guidelines draw their authority, if any, from WP:IAR, and thus that no guideline should be followed if it no longer serves the original purpose that made it a valid invocation of IAR against IAR. Anyway, I think a detailed character list is probably the optimal solution here. But since (a) such a list does not currently exist, (b) this character is evidently significant enough that it should be covered in some fairly substantial fashion somewhere, (c) the existing article is quite substantial and appears to serve the user and the project reasonably well, and (d) if merged and not considerably downsized there would be some SIZESPLIT issues anyway, I can see no great value or urgency in what would amount to a merely formal rearrangement of coverage. -- Visviva (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I just find it hard to believe that the coverage for this level of character doesn't exist out there somewhere. It's close now, and it's a rare case where I'd rather attempt to build up what we've already got for now, and revisit it down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Standard

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

Fails WP:GNG M.parvage (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Bangladesh. M.parvage (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be cited a lot, but I found no sigcov. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 11:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a periodical, being widely cited is a valid criteria for being likely notable per both WP:NNEWSPAPERCriteria#4 and WP:NMEDIA. ResonantDis_tortion 10:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following up on comment by Carpimaps (talk · contribs) - a quick check on Google Books & Scholar does indicate evidence of this publication being widely cited - which fulfils both WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA. Article however does need improvement and better sourcing. ResonantDis_tortion 09:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA based on how widely cited the newspaper is.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NNEWSPAPER, even if a periodical is notable, it may not be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about it if there are no reliable, independent sources that can be used to verify the information about the periodical. See WP:V Thanks. M.parvage (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The entire article is promotional. Please see my assessment.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage
Source 1	Company Website website; see WP:IIS	?	?	✘ No
Source 2	Research on Covid 19	But not the topic	Not at all, except for some references	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

M.parvage (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 assessment is stated as "Not at all, except for some references"? That is the most egregious interpretation of a source I have seen. Source 2 is clearly independent and clearly an in-depth analysis of the The Business Standard's reporting during Covid. There is also no evidence of a WP:Before given by the nominator. The subject is widely cited as per the !votes - a quick google verifies this. ResonantDis_tortion 07:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per ResonantDistortion. (I would have endorsed a merge to List of newspapers in Bangladesh, but for some unfortunate reason that list appears to be restricted to bluelinks, so is not a viable merge target.) I am grateful for M.parvage's source assessment, but I would have to join ResonantDistortion in disagreeing with the assessment of Source 2, which indeed seems to be quite in-depth and appears to be reliable and independent. There isn't as much to work with here as one would like (perhaps there are more sources in Bengali?), but this does appear to probably meet at least WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals. (That's one of two dueling essays on the subject; I think a close reading of NNEWSPAPER will show that that essay's standard is not met, if it matters.) At any rate, in my opinion, newspapers belong in a similar bucket to populated places, in that they represent a kind of encyclopedic background knowledge that warrants tipping the scales toward inclusion even when the sources available are (as they seem to be here) a bit sparse, because even a sparse article provides important value to readers and editors. (I am fond of the term "ecosystem services" for the added value that such articles provide in the overall web of coverage.) In addition, subject to the limitations of WP:V, I think it is also worth tipping the scales against cavalier deletions that aggravate Wikipedia's problems with systemic bias. All that said, there are two things that give me pause: (1) it seems difficult, at scale, to confidently separate citations for The Business Standard from citations for the Business Standard, and (2) this newspaper is not mentioned in List of newspapers in Bangladesh, which seems peculiar but may be due to the newspaper's fairly recent founding (possibly 2018?). -- Visviva (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article with another academic source that contains significant analysis of the newspaper.[26] I also agree with all the points that ResonantDistortion, Vinegarymass911, and Visviva have already made here in favor of keeping. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, article could use more expansion and continued development though. - Indefensible (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of schools in Ottawa. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March Academy

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

No indication of notability. Most sources are from the school's website. One source — the PDF — is long gone with no working archives on the Wayback Machine, one (Manta) is some sort of business listing (only mentioning it in passing), and another (OCT) seems to be a directory of certified teachers, meaning that it only mentions this place in passing at most. The only reference which could be usable is the one from "Our Kids." Trying to find additional sources on Google Search + News, I just found a bunch of sites that regurgitated information you could find on the school's website, more pages from Our Kids that contain the same information as the Our Kids reference on this page, and a page from a parenting magazine with dubious reliability based off of something their principal said. This page can't be redirected to a district page either, as it's a private school. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of schools in Ottawa per WP:ATD and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Article fails GNG like most lower schools. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a notability guideline. It's merely a list of the typical outcomes of school-related AFDs. WP:ATDR is a good reason to redirect though. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And SCHOOLOUTCOMES tells you where they are usually redirected. Nobody but you said it was a notability guideline. You may not know that since Wikipedia policies and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive rsther than proscriptive, how previous AtD's came out is a pretty useful thing to know. Our rules aren't there to tell us what we cannot do; instead they should describe what we do do. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over whether this article should be redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of schools in Ottawa. I'm not sure why that is debatable. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 22 June 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!} 04:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Download Accelerator Plus

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software that makes zero claims towards notability. Was previously nominated and kept with only 2 contributors with no real policy argument as to why it should be kept other than finding some reviews. The references are 80% primary sources and a not great review. I don't find anything that makes any note of this actually being notable software other than having appears in a couple of download accelerator lists (possibly because there weren't that many of them and they usually didn't work as advertised and are a dead software end.) Canterbury Tail talk 18:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notable, no coverage, just passing mentions. Artem.G (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The software seems to still be available, at least there is a web site for downloading it. I found the page on their site that purported to link to reviews, but I struck out on all of them. At most I found re-listings of the company info about the software. I'm not finding anything of substance; the best has been a CNET review from 2002. Lamona (talk) 21:43, 25 June 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!} 04:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzee Wittke

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a low-profile person who received a very brief blip of media coverage about a decade ago for having an unusual medical condition, but hasn't had any significant coverage since.
This isn't really making a particularly strong case that she would pass WP:GNG: there's a magazine article, a news story about the publication of that magazine article in another media outlet, and a (deadlinked but waybackable) article that briefly mentions Wittke's existence in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else with the same condition who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. (I've also already merged two other footnotes that were really just repetitions of the magazine article in different forms, such as a PDF of the print copy of the magazine issue that the same article appeared in, and a "sneak peek" preview of the same article in the magazine's "coming in the next issue" newsletter.) So there's really only one genuinely GNG-worthy source here, which isn't enough, and even on a WP:BEFORE search I'm just not really finding much else of value: the only new source I can find that's been published since that magazine article just rehashes the same information without adding anything new.
The first deletion discussion eight years ago foundered on the question of whether she would be subject to WP:BLP1E or not, as it wasn't clear whether anything in the article constituted an "event" per se -- but essentially the notability claim here amounts to "young girl who once had a magazine article published about her", which clearly counts as an event.
She just doesn't have the depth or volume of coverage necessary to justify a permanent intrusion into her and her family's privacy rights, and we have an established rule that due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have to be especially careful about the notability of minors. So we would need far more than just the absolute bare minimum number of usable footnotes for a technical GNG pass before an article about her was actually warranted. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Skynxnex (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: A subject to WP:BLP1E. Which isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still seems relevant, she was featured in a 2016 news story [27]. And she may hold the secret to aging acoording to a Macleans article (a reputable Canadian magazine) [28] and in Ars Technica [29]. And a mention in 2021 for a gov't program to study pediatric conditions in Alberta [30] Oddly enough, there is no coverage in Gscholar or Jstor. More than enough sustained coverage for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Maclean's article is the same Maclean's article that I already addressed in the nomination statement (i.e. it's fine, but not all by itself enough), the 2016 news story is the same additional source I already addressed in my nomination statement with when I said "the only new source I can find that's been published since that magazine article just rehashes the same information without adding anything new", and the Ars Technica source is just a republication in a different source of the same article I already addressed in my nomination statement when I said "a (deadlinked but waybackable) article that briefly mentions Wittke's existence in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else with the same condition who doesn't have a Wikipedia article". And "mentioned in passing within coverage of other things" doesn't assist notability at all — she isn't the subject of that 2021 piece, and instead just gets briefly glanced at in coverage whose core subject is something else, so it doesn't add any new GNG points above and beyond the sources that were already under discussion. As a low-profile figure with personal privacy rights, we would need a lot more coverage than that to justify intruding into those personal privacy rights. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would consider her condition to be a BLP1E even though it isn't strictly an "event." The articles about her are all brief and reiterate the same facts, sometimes using exactly the same sentences. The one possible reason to either keep this article or add information to the article on Aging is that if medical research turns up substantial information it will be anonymized for reasons of privacy. However, it probably will not be possible to link actual medical research to this person, and Wikipedia should not do so without confirmation. (Her name does not appear in G-Scholar.) Lamona (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a merge to Brooke_Greenberg#Comparable_cases may be feasible - the Maclean's article compares Wittke's condition to Greenberg's, and notes "Brooke's story attracted national media attention—she was on TLC, Katie Couric, in People—and other families reached out to Walker about their kids," etc. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with OP:s assessment. The combined sources do not approach GNG nor allow the creation of a basic biographic article. Draken Bowser (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this brief article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for an apparent extraordinary claim that this child has a condition which according to the article, "may hold answers to the scientific study of aging." So in addition to the WP:BLP policy issues related to privacy for the child and her family who appear to have primarily received in-depth coverage in the Maclean's source, this article appears to functionally not be about the purported subject. As I noted above, a brief mention on a related article may make sense (the condition does not appear to be formally named, and Richard Walker, the scientist who has studied the condition in multiple people, does not appear to have an article), but the sources are identified in this discussion and there does not appear to be substantial content available to merge. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:BLP issues, and not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 22 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games

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

This event hasn't happened yet; the article is a scaffold of outdated references, unreferenced stats, and blank sections. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it's a bit too early; maybe there are some sources about the teams and plans, but they're not in this article. Per WP:TNT let's delete it. It could be moved to draft, too, until the event is closer and the content is more viable. Note that the topic has existed in this state, slowly gaining more empty sections, since June of 2022. Mikeblas (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same problems. Really, the best solution is probably to draftify but I don't think there's a direct draftify process:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Barbados, Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, and Puerto Rico. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, redirect/draft others per WP:ATD. What a horrible nomination for deletion. At best these should be redirected to 2023 Pan American Games. The nominator could have easily redirected as an WP:ATD. I will try to check for sources later! I am assuming the nominator has not done a WP:BEFORE based on their nomination rationale. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did some preliminary digging and found sources:

Brazil: [31], [32], [33], [34],

Puerto Rico: [35], [36], [37].

Peru: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]

Guatemala: [45], [46], [47]

Ecuador, [48], [49], [50], [51]

For Barbados El Salvador, and Haiti, a drafting or redirect at this moment would be the best option. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL, as are the rest of them. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all We are less than four months away from the 2023 Pan American Games, and most of the items in the articles have updated sources. I've just had a look at some of the articles and added new sources, so I can't understand why articles that bring official references from Pan American Sports Federations have to be deleted.

Felipe.moraislima (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

premature is premature. Delete them now, and remake if you want at such a time when there would be sourced content to actually put in them. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you consider it premature? I checked again all the articles nominated for deletion. Here are my impressions: in most of the sports there, we have official qualification lists from each sport governing body, as you can see in the cases of fencing, karate, sailing, racquetball, surfing, weightlifting, taekwondo, archery and cycling. In team sports, we have articles from credible sources reporting the results of qualifying tournaments.

So, I totally disagree with deleting the articles, since they're verifiable, related to a multi-sport event and are made respecting Wikipedia rules. Felipe.moraislima (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider moving them to draft space until they're viable? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added Bolivia and Dominican Republic. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bolivia and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more clarity on Draftification or Redirection. If you think there should be different outcomes for all of these articles, please specify what you would prefer to see happen with each one. I understand this takes more time with 10 articles nominated but it shouldn't be up to the closer to guess which to Keep and which to Redirect. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados, El Salvador, Haiti, drafting is the best option. For the rest, keep. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as even though the event hasn't happened yet, the articles are about an event that will almost certainly occur that is only four months away. There's no need to delete them. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, they would have been worth deleting last June.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 22 June 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 Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Ventus. czar 02:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ventus (Kingdom Hearts)

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

GA criteria has no bearing with the article's notability. The main problem with the article is there is next to no reception about him as a character, and none that passes any amount of WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing, but passing mentions from the game reviews. I cannot find anything per WP:BEFORE. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of Kingdom Hearts. The characters are certainly noteworthy as part of a group, but there's nothing indicating this character is standalone notable. There are a great many primary sources, but Wikipedia is not FANDOM and also requires SIGCOV in secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No commentary besides some trivial "wow he looks like Roxas" comments. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there is a small consensus to Merge this article, it is also a GA. I think we should hear from more editors before merging an article declared a GA into another, much longer article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above - Outside of the primary sources (the games themselves and official KH publications), the sources are all general reviews of Birth By Sleep or the KH franchise as a whole, with the small bits content mentioning Ventus in specific being cherry picked out to comprise the "Reception" section. Many of these sources only very briefly talk about him, or only talk about all three of the characters in BBS as a set without any commentary on Ventus specifically. Searching for sources outside of the article turns up plenty of articles mentioning him while discussing the plots of the game or in gameplay guides, but not much in the way of actual analysis or reception of Ventus. Rorshacma (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Despite being a main character in BBS, his role in KH3 is limited as a side character at best and compared to the other main characters who have appeared with more significant roles in the franchise, I'd say WP:SIGCOV keeps this article from being in effect. Conyo14 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 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 23:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jurven Koffy

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:48, 23 June 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. ✗plicit 23:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toothpick Bridge

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

Band's article is up for deletion; looking at their albums, most don't seem notable. Only hits on this phrase are for toothpick bridges, nothing for a musical album. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album, couldn't find anything but passing mentions in interviews and a single paragraph review on a site with undocumented editorial practices. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for this album is a bit tricky because it turns out that some people have the hobby of building model bridges out of toothpicks. (I learn something new every day.) Beyond that, I can find no reviews or other coverage of this album in reliable media, and it is only visible in the usual retail and streaming services. Do not redirect to the band because they may also be deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ist (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC Graywalls (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The band's article has now been deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ist (band). Under most interpretations of WP:A9, if the band is not notable than neither are their albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:02, 29 June 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. ✗plicit 23:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Martha

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

Band's article is up for deletion; looking at their albums, most don't seem notable. This one as well only has streaming sites, or places to purchase a copy. Non-notable album. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same reason as their other albums that have recently been nominated. This album has a brief review at AllMusic (already cited), which helps a little, but I can find nothing else to indicate that the album was noticed by anyone else in the music media. Do not redirect to the band because they may also be deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ist (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The band's article has now been deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ist (band). Under most interpretations of WP:A9, if the band is not notable than neither are their albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:02, 29 June 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. ✗plicit 23:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freudian Corduroy

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

Band's article is up for deletion; looking at their albums, most don't seem notable. This in particular only has 4 pages in Gsearch, most of which are where to stream it or buy it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All mentions of it on the web are just streaming/purchase sites (like mentioned in the nom) or user generated review sites like RYM. ULPS (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The album has a brief review at AllMusic (already cited), which helps a little, but I can find nothing else to indicate that the album was noticed by anyone else in the music media. Do not redirect to the band because they may also be deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ist (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The band's article has now been deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ist (band). Under most interpretations of WP:A9, if the band is not notable than neither are their albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:02, 29 June 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 23:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rugenio Josephia

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 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 23:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Pauletta

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenbert Croes

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Subject scored 5 international goals for Aruba but I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how is this Glenbert Croes related to Betico Croes, in Aruba "the father of the nation"? The name Glenbert runs in Betico's family. While that can't be a coincidence, to name the footballer under Betico's family we will need more than logical inference! gidonb (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're on the right track, because that Glenbert Croes is the minister of Labour in Aruba as of 2021, and should with this Glenbert Croes the footballer. Ivan Milenin (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ivan Milenin! It's unfortunate that we do not know the relationship because it would be a fair mention in the article on Betico Croes. It doesn't have to be now. If someone reads through this page in the future and can source the relationship, do it add Glenbert Croes the footballer to the article on Betico! gidonb (talk) 00:28, 30 June 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 23:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Jyoti Convent High School, Chiplun

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for 10 years and no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 23 June 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. Ultimately, the argument to delete is significantly more convincing, owing to the complete lack of sources that establish this individual's notability. While we do need to keep in mind that available sources might be harder to find for someone that played 80 years ago, it's difficult to find a justification to keep the article at AfD when not even a single source with significant coverage can be provided. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Milner

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG/WP:SPORTBASIC. Sources 1 and 2 are trivial database entries and thus do not contribute to establishing notability, and source 3 only mentions Milner in passing (not WP:SIGCOV). Actualcpscm (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per COMMONSENSE/IAR - 35 appearances in English's professional football league 80 years ago? There will be plenty of offline coverage out there. Giant Snowman 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessarily true. Not all players, even at the professional level, are covered in-depth by reliable sources, especially if they played for a handful of seasons. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't see much in an initial search, but I feel there are sources between primary and secondary, enough to pass WP:BASIC from [52], [53], [54], and I recon a newspaper archive search will reveal enough on his time at Darlington FC to warrant an article. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources do not ever contribute to notability... JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Primary sources can be used to support content in articles! Which is clearly part of WP:BASIC which is part of my argument to keep. So I don't know why you feel you have to tell me about notability! Govvy (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But primary sources have zero bearing on a discussion about notability (including BASIC) and should never factor into anyone's notability determinations. Being able to use primary sources is not a factor in meeting in BASIC, it's only a reminder that they can still be used even if they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't do a historical source search at the moment, but the Northern Echo article talks about the goal he scored to win an FA Cup game in front of 12,000 people. Not all sports stubs need to be purged. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG as it stands. No significant coverage has been presented here, nore could I find any during a search. The little information we have on the subject does not indicate that he gained any notability. Playing professional football, even in England, is far from a great indicator of notability. This was not a national team player or a player who had a career in the top-tier. On the contrary, he seems to have had a short stint in the lower leagues. Using WP:COMMONSENSE, there is no way to assert that he is notable based on these facts Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alvaldi: The league he played in wasn't the top tier of English football? Then what was at the time? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BeanieFan11: - the top tier of English football at the time he played was the Football League First Division. Milner played in the Football League Third Division South (for Aldershot) and Football League Third Division North (for Darlington), the two parallel halves of the third tier of English football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @BeanieFan11 Football League First Division was the first tier in England from 1888 until 2004, but Darlington F.C has never played higher than the Football League Second Division and Aldershot F.C. seems to have been in the Football League Third Division South during Milner's stint there if I'm understanding this correctly. Alvaldi (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi: - a minor correction, the First Division was only the top tier until 1992, when the Premier League was created, but you are correct in everything else you say. Both clubs were in the third tier when he played for them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude Thanks, even though I knew it I still blindly copied it from the League's article :) Alvaldi (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV sources have been uncovered, as is required for NSPORT. "Keep" reasoning based on playing any level of professional football has been rejected by wide consensus both as a direct notability criterion and as a predictor of GNG, and so should be disregarded. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG as no SIGCOV has been presented here and I couldn't find anything in my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 14:41, 29 June 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. ✗plicit 14:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Manuela Sadow

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

WP Before says nothing notable about the person; the available sources are not reliable enough. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, however observe many links are now dead or behind paywalls or, in case of national library, only accessible from library systems as a result in policy changes.

Recommend AfD nomination be removed - replaces with

This Wikipedia page may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Citations out-of-date/inaccessible. Please help improve this Wikipedia page if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions.

More detail:

Nominator has expressed concerns about Ms. Sadow's notability and the reliability of available sources. Listed sources are no longer online/accessible - this is not justification for deletion, but for flagging need for update. Tanja Sadow is a leading figure in the jewelry industry in Singapore. Azupancich (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC) — Azupancich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the articles I found there are mentions of her in relation to jewelry-making and to jewelry-related events, but only mentions. I only found one article that is minimally substantial (this) and it is mainly an advertorial. The design school she founded seems to have all of four instructors. I don't find anything outside of Singaporean sources, and would expect a wider range for notability. Lamona (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no refs that aren't PR or advertorials. Non-notable individual, appears PROMO. School also appears non-notable, with scant mentions online. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability standards. Also noting that article creator's entire contribution history is centered on this person and her school. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References do not need to be online or free to be valid. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note only 2 articles link to this. The vast majority of sources are not WP:SIGCOV. Rather promotional and fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 23 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Weida

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

NN chess player - fails WP:NCHESS. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and China. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article with what information I can find at the moment. There is enough on his playing and coaching career on Google Books to lead me to believe that he passes GNG. Cobblet (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, seems to have sufficient notability and referencing coverage. - Indefensible (talk) 02:02, 27 June 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 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Namatak

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 22 June 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 23:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Robert Yelou

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:43, 22 June 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. ✗plicit 12:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William David Volk

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

This is someone's resume, sourced to personal websites, company PR, and sources that don't mention his name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO and the coverage of this person does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true in total:

For example:

"Volk has worked extensively with Activison, he designed the (M.A.D.E) game engine and was technical producer of the 1992 game Leather Goddesses of Phobos 2, Return to Zork, The Manhole, Rodney's Funscreen and other adventure games"

Two of those games in the above passage is liked to articles that specify Volk's role:

Leather Goddesses of Phobos 2: Gas Pump Girls Meet the Pulsating Inconvenience from Planet X! - Programmer

Return to Zork - Producer

(in the case of Manhole it lists Activision as the original publisher).

Additionally later on:

From there he moved to Avalon Hill Game Co. where he started the quality assurance division for the Microcomputer Game Division at Avalon Hill. from 1979-1982 where he created the games "Conflict 2500", "Voyager 1" and "Controller"

Conflict links to him (designer), Voyager has him listed as designer/programmer but does not link back, and Controller links back to his page.

Then:

In October 2019 William Volk produced and published The Climate Trail, a post-climate apocalypse game based on the classic game

Links to the Climate Trail website that has Volk as the Designer/Developer on the TEAM page: https://www.theclimatetrail.com/climate-trail-team

If wished, I would like to edit and take out items without references and place references in the article. VideoGameVet (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He is credited for The Pyramid of Peril and Mac Challenger in the GAMES section as well. VideoGameVet (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of hits in Crypto blogs or websites, which seem associated with him; this is typical of them [55]. Anything crypto is a huge red flag. This in the IBT [56] is about all there is, and it's an iffy source. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty evidently non-notable, and seems to be made for promotional reasons. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:32, 26 June 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!} 22:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Mihajlović

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

NN - fails WP:NMODEL UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Serbia. UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting notability standards. All I find are either photos of her or photo captions. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Three primary database profile references Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated and no indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 22 June 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Verma

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

Currently, the article provides no reliable sources for any of the claims it makes. The subject appears to fail WP:GNG, and for WP:NACTOR to be met, we would need to be demonstrate through reliable sources that Verma had "significant roles" in notable films or shows. The mere claim (in the article) that this is the case is not enough to establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe absence of reliable sources in the article can be attributed to the lack of any reputable sources that cover this individual. The only mention of the person comes from TellyChakkar, an entertainment website, but their credibility falls short of meeting the necessary standards. As of now, the individual does not meet the eligibility criteria.AmusingWeasel (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ill add IMDB reference Link if you want ill add more link 3foxwriter (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is considered user-generated content and accordingly does not contribute to establishing notability. If you have other relevant reliable sources, please do mention them here or add them to the article. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:26, 25 June 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ist (band)

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

Checking through articles with old notability tags. This one needs some evaluation by folks who understand the nuances of WP:NBAND. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing notability, there are no mentions of them in Gnews, there's a band called Ist Ist and an entertainment group called Ist. There's an AllMusic bio, that's about all. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Ist does not even have a biography page at AllMusic, just a couple of brief album reviews. See: [57]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for this band is tough due to their bland name, but a search in conjunction with singer Kenton Hall reveals that he has had some success after Ist broke up, and that band is typically mentioned briefly as one of his early endeavors. They have a couple of brief album reviews at AllMusic but no band biography, and their only claim to semi-fame is being very briefly mentioned by a famous person at his blog (footnote #13). While together, it looks like they only got some brief gig announcements, and today their works are only visible at the usual retail and upload sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability for the reasons listed above by DOOMSDAYER.Hkkingg (talk) 07:23, 26 June 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. ✗plicit 14:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Instruments

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

Running a check on articles with very old notability issues. None of the sources here have any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, Italy, United States of America, and Rhode Island. UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years and never been updated. Refeences are woeful. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as self-generated news. They are WP:SPS sources. Fails WP:SIRS. Coverage is woeful. This is an old established company and there should be a really decent article on it, but its not this. If there was references available to support they would be there. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. I agree with the above, current references fail NCORP and I can't locate anything that might be used. There doesn't appear to be any WP:ATD either. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many reliable sources but each is short and usually references one product. None meets our requirement for substantial coverage. This is typical of analysis and test equipment companies -- they have wide fragmented product lines and don't get the coverage more focused companies get. This company is also privately-held which reduces the coverage.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Irandoost

AfDs for this article:

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

Bit parts in movies, false claims. No WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Wrestling, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 22 June 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. ✗plicit 06:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnabas Enjoy

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

No indication of notability (two international caps for the Cook Islands national football team). Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also, is this really a real name? Govvy (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a world of Bongo Christ and Argélico Fucks... Giant Snowman 10:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't have significant coverage and the Wikipedia page is very out of date in saying "currently". --Mvqr (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Southern Football Netball League#Division 4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moorabbin Kangaroos Football Club

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

Fails WP:ORG. Searched in gnews, gbooks and Australian search engine Trove. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Southern Football Netball League#Division 4. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I couldn't find any sources for the page either. I'm going to have a look into if other clubs in the same competition are notable, as some of them could probably be PRODed. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Football Netball League#Division 4. Not independently notable based on a lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 17:16, 24 June 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!} 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Quijano

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. There's a data scientist with the same name but they aren't notable either. --Mvqr (talk) 12:01, 22 June 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. I'm persuaded by the arguments and sources brought forward by those arguing to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Express (Bangladesh)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG M.parvage (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Bangladesh. M.parvage (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The second largest English language daily in Bangladesh. Widely cited, and has been discussed in scholarly literature. Four additional sources have been added, and the article expanded somewhat. Nominating editor has been warned about the need for WP:BEFORE searches before proposing deletion. Oblivy (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment: @Vinegarymass911 helpfully pointed to Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), in the context of a deletion discussion for Bangladesh's largest daily newspaper here, also brought by @M.parvage. As an English-language newspaper with a focus on business and economics, Financial Express articles are widely cited by English-language academics both in Bangladesh and abroad. That would satisfy condition #4 ("regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works").

I suggest the below source assessment table should be approached with skepticism (for example the suggestion that the Daily Star, which directly competes with the Financial Express, is not independent). But that's just my view. Oblivy (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do an assessment of this article. And I would like to remind Oblivy that, we should show respect to contributors. You can acknowledge, not warn.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage
Source 1	competitor's website; see WP:IIS		Article is about Tipaimukh dam	✘ No
Source 2	Own website			✘ No
Source 3	see WP:IIS and expamples	recognized newspaper	not more than a event	✘ No
Source 4			not directly and not even in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
Source 5			Just a summary and news style but not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
Source 6	satisfied WP:NIS		doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
Source 7	a fictional and promotional content	not more than a content maker	not at all	✘ No
Source 8	Own Website, WP:IIS		about an editor	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

M.parvage (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be based on non-RS based on the table, so not meeting notability. I can't find anything extra, nor do I know what counts as reliable media in Bangladesh. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per @Oblivy comment. Widely cited newspaper. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA - widely cited - a quick check on Google books confirms evidence on this. Thoroughness of the nominators WP:before and thoroughness of the source assessment table - both could be much better. For example source 5 is sigcov in a RS. ResonantDis_tortion 08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NNEWSPAPER, even if a periodical is notable, it may not be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about it if there are no reliable, independent sources that can be used to verify the information about the periodical. See WP:V M.parvage (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA per Resonant and Oblivy.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a basic disagreement on the accuracy of the source table. Much of the Keep arguments rest on the fact that this is the second largest English language daily in Bangladesh, if that's the case, then it should be easy to find supporting sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Expanded the article in my limited time. Finding sources is more difficult due to the various newspapers of the same/similar name worldwide.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I have absolutely no idea why WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are being so widely cited here, let alone why their contents are being wikilawyered over. Unlike e.g. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC which document English Wikipedia notability guidelines, WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are just WP:ESSAYs. Perhaps pending a future WP:RFC on either of these becoming an official guideline(?), it stands that an entire deletion discussion shouldn't hinge on them. Right now I'm seeing an absence of substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources needed to construct a substantial, reliable article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are only essays. They are, however, prominent and longstanding ones. Their existence is an acknowledgement that in this subject area the GNG doesn't necessarily capture what is notable. Different inclusion metrics are needed, even if the community has never been able to agree on exactly what they should be other than on a case by case basis. Common sense tells us that the largest business newspaper in a country of 170 million people is likely to be noteworthy. Wikipedia will be better for our readers and our editors if we give them at least basic information about a source widely cited by academics. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is fully sourced, and there are sources establishing its notability. There is good reason to question the source analysis table above:

Source 3 is a 300-word editorial from the company's main competitor entirely about the article subject, yet it is said to be neither independent nor significant coverage of the company
Articles 4 and 5 are by scholars who selected the paper as a subject for scholarly analysis yet they are said to lack significant coverage.

I've just added another paper[58] which is even more in-depth.

With respect, saying that people advocating for consideration of WP:NPERIODICAL is Wikilawyering seems to get things backwards. WP:NCORP says in the hatnote that the policy should be applied using common sense and that occasional exceptions may apply. The many scholarly articles citing FE coverage as support for economic events having occurred shows its notability in a real-world sense even if the policy wouldn't strictly deem those sufficiently WP:SIRS. In any event, as the foregoing paragraph shows, there is WP:SIRS coverage and in conjunction with the many independent sources that cite the paper's output there seems to be little reason to consider it non-notable.

Comment There's quite a bit of nonsense in the nominator's assessment of the sources. For example, competitor The Daily Star (sources 1, 3, 6) is independent. The Financial Express (sources 2 and 8), although not independent, is a reliable source for what it is cited for: the paper's language, publication frequency, place of publication, date publication commenced, and owner. Also note that Oblivy and Vinegarymass911 subsequently improved the article, more than doubling the number of sources cited. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the two academic journal articles cited (sources 4 and 5). They contain background information about the newspaper as well as analysis and comparison with other major Bangladeshi newspapers in terms of, respectively, use of news agency content and news type in several dimensions. That is significant coverage, and those sources count towards fulfilling WP:GNG. A third academic journal article contains additional independent, reliable, and in-depth coverage, making it even clearer that the topic meets GNG.[59] --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glengall Road (football ground)

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

Contested redirect. I redirected this to 1885–86 Millwall Rovers F.C. season, as this ground was only used for that season, and most of the article is about the season and not about the utterly unremarkable ground, "a piece of wasteland, which was roughly marked out as a football pitch", anyway. Whatever needs to be said about the ground can easily be included in the season article. Fram (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Fram (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced, it's straight forward and to the point of what it is. I don't see a reason to delete it. If anything, I can see some room for improvement. There maybe other sources out there. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just created the article and was in the process of expanding it and nine minutes later it was deleted. There are numerous other defunct football grounds (List of defunct English football stadiums) that were 'wasteland', parks or barely played on which have minimal articles, such as Athletic Grounds (Blackpool) and Abbs Field. West Ham's temporary ground Browning Road has its own article and was played on for just two months and hasn't been merged into 1896–97 Thames Ironworks F.C. season, so why single out Glengall Road? Most grounds before 1900 were wasteland or 'unremarkable', so I'm not sure why a clubs' humble beginnings is a deletion policy. It is of historical significance as it's Millwall's first ground and establishes their foundation. If you give me more time to research the ground I can expand the article. TheLostBoy (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are fine - there's no such deletion policy. Assuming it can be documented, then this would be notable, and looks too extensive to merge. The policy failure here is by User:Fram who should know better than redirecting and AFDing an article that is in progress minutes after creation (especially after they've been notified it is in progress); the AFD violates C.2 of WP:BEFORE which says "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article". Some ~~book and/or~~ article references would help the WP:GNG case; I added one from a 1909 London paper. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect - this is a well written and sourced article, but when you dig into it, none of it is about the stadium itself. As such, we don't need a standalone article. Giant Snowman 18:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per GS. All of the sources are almost entirely about the team rather than about the stadium itself. There isn't significant coverage specifically about the stadium to show it passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the article was nominated I’ve added info on the pitch, its dimensions and condition. Where players would change, where fans would stand, and how many fans attended games. I corrected when the ground opened and who it was against, and I added when it closed and who the last game was played against. I marked the coordinates of where it would stand today and what stands there now. I added a map from the era showing the road name changes from the current map and the distance from their second ground. I added a newspaper quote on the ground from the era.

If you remove the little information I added about the formation of the club and the team, there is no context why they’re playing in the middle of an industrial estate or why they needed to move. Featured article North Road, Manchester, Man United's first ground, includes similar info.

This is 1885 with minimal sources and info that wasn’t recorded, or has since been lost. The only info on this ground online is the repeated “Millwall were founded on a piece of wasteland on Glengall Road in 1885”. This article provides more significant historical info about it than anywhere else. It has authoritative sources from historians, reputable newspapers and government sources. No original research, as per WP:GNG. The article is notable as to why Millwall is called Millwall. This was the only ground they played at in the district of Millwall. This would all be lost in a redirect. TheLostBoy (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tough one. Although this is an excellent article that clearly adds something to the encyclopedia, we still need to ensure the article meets GNG. I think it probably does, but I can't quite find the evidence yet. And I want to ensure this well-written article has a great policy-based reason for keep.

The two book sources look very good, but I would like to know how different they are. They have very similar titles and one of the same authors. TheLostBoy can you confirm they are totally separate books?

Let's take a look at the online sources (sorry I'm not knowledgeable enough to do a proper table) to see if they help the article meet GNG. 6 talks about the location without mentioning the club, 7 I'm unable to find the specific article in the newspage TheLostBoy can you help me out?, 8 may not be RS?, 11 doesn't mention the ground by name and is the club's own site so probably doesn't contribute to notability, 15 is one sentence about the ground and 16 is only a couple of sentences about the club's time at the ground. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! Millwall: A Complete Record 1885-1991 by Lindsay (1991) was written by a club historian. Millwall: The Complete record by Tarrant (2010) is a completely separate book but used Lindsay’s as a basis to update, correct and go much more in depth into all aspects of the club and is referred to as the 'official record'.

I used 6 to reference the road name change from Glengall Road to Tiller Road/Glengall Grove. I didn’t add 7 . I did sign up to research on there but have used up my free article views. Nfitz added it, maybe they could help? I can remove 11 if you don't think reliable. He is a Millwall historian and had helped with numerous corrections on wikipedia before. Moved 8 to correct reference point, stating when and who the club was founded by. As you can tell by 15 and 16, references to the club at Glengall Road is scarce. Do a google search and there really is the same regurgitated sentence or two, usually from what I added myself on Millwall F.C.. This part of the clubs history at the ground is lost online. The meat and bones is in the books. I'm trying to get ahold of Millwall Football Club 1885-1939, and a couple of others to gather more info on this elusive ground and Millwall's other three on the Isle of Dogs. But it will take time to do this.

I got Millwall and Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry both good article status, so I hope you know this page is in good hands. Thanks for taking the time. Much appreciated! TheLostBoy (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the sources need removing, if they were the only thing there, they might not be enough to prove GNG. But I think it's looking good overall. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough for a standalone article. There are some solid details about the ground itself and these were provided in two different books along with some other sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see opinion here split between Keep and Redirect with lots of discussion (which is refreshing to see).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be enough content about this ground to write a decent article and pass WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ground appears to pass GNG, albeit not by much, and the article is a bit bloated with non-ground coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus washoensis

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

This "species" has been almost universally identified as a subspecies of P. Ponderosa, with recent Nuclear and Plastid DNA studies and analysis from Willyard confirming this. The article has many errors in how it is written. It should be noted that most of the references used in the article label the species as Pinus Ponderosa Var. Washoensis, rather than just Pinus Washoensis. I would support renaming the article to Pinus Ponderosa Var. Washoensis, however, is not accurate to label the article as Pinus Washoensis when multiple reputable sources like Willyard and the USDA/USFS label it otherwise. I would also be open to merging the article and adding more information to the Pinus Ponderosa page under the specific section for Var. Washoensis. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a few references that are relevant: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

References

^ "Pinus ponderosa subsp. washoensis (Washoe pine) description". www.conifers.org. Retrieved 2023-06-22.
^ Willyard, Ann; Gernandt, David S.; Cooper, Blake; Douglas, Connor; Finch, Kristen; Karemera, Hassan; Lindberg, Erik; Langer, Stephen K.; Lefler, Julia; Marquardt, Paula; Pouncey, Dakota L.; Telewski, Frank (2021-10-25). "Phylogenomics in the Hard Pines (Pinus subsection Ponderosae; Pinaceae) Confirms Paraphyly in Pinus ponderosa, and Places Pinus jeffreyi with the California Big Cone Pines". Systematic Botany. 46 (3): 538–561. doi:10.1600/036364421x16312067913435. ISSN 0363-6445.
^ Willyard, Ann; Gernandt, David S.; López-Reyes, Alejandro; Potter, Kevin M. (December 2021). "Mitochondrial phylogeography of the ponderosa pines: widespread gene capture, interspecific sharing, and two unique lineages". Tree Genetics & Genomes. 17 (6). doi:10.1007/s11295-021-01529-4. ISSN 1614-2942.

Keep. No valid reason for deletion. See WP:MERGE if that was your intent instead. The article was just created yesterday, so it's not like you're unable to discuss this with the article creator. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, AfD is utterly the wrong place to be starting a discussion about changing the name of this article or merging its contents. Thincat (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I read somewhere that it's under the purview of the individual user weather or not a subspecies gets an article. Americanfreedom (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wordsmith with additional sources to reflect its current status as a likely subspecies.--Kev min § 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete the title. The article can be moved to a title for a subspecies or a variety, or could be redirected to Pinus ponderosa, with the subspecies/variety being discussed there. Ultimately, Pinus washoensis should be a redirect, but there are different options for the target. Plantdrew (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rewrite as a subspecies article. UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a subspecies, its a variety. In fact, the folks working on plant taxonomy are heading in the direction of renaming all plant subspecies as varieties. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Still, it's a keep !vote with a rewrite that would necessitate a move. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa. Abductive (reasoning) 00:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It generally requires more than a couple of phylogenetic studies for names to be changed holus bolus. When the botanists are more aligned in their agreements, then redirects will be needed. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a distinctive form that isn't a species does not automatically qualify for a page unless notable. This one appears to have enough sources to render page viable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Washoe Pine seems notable and even if it was decided not to give it its own article, a redirect is needed. The question then becomes whether to treat it as a species (OD, FNA), subspecies (Gymnosperm database), variety (conifer database via CoL, Willyard et al, 2021) or synonym (WFO following WCSP, POWO following Farjon 2001). In A Handbook of the World's Conifers (2010), Farjon referred to the "the spurious taxon P. washoensis" (p739). While the newer molecular studies now favour variety, we should probably treat it as a population or stand of Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa following POWO, WFO and Farjon rather than the primary sources. But that is a discussion for the talk page. — Jts1882 | talk 11:26, 24 June 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 Withdrawn‎. In an attempt to reduce duplication, since an AFD of a very similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruwar (Rajput clan) is also running right now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barwar (caste)

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

As per comments of an admin [60] and as per my opinion, this article which duplicates content from another article is also not fulfilling WP:GNG. It needs to be deleted as the content of another article Baruwar (Rajput clan) will be possibly merged into Rajput clans.-Admantine123 (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Admantine123 (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Admantine123. Any chance you might want to withdraw this nomination? Then when the other AFD closes as redirect, we can just WP:BLAR Barwar (caste) to Rajput clans without all the paperwork. This AFD is essentially a duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruwar (Rajput clan). If not no worries. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure, i was not clear that what is going to happen with this article after the Speedy delition was rejected. Hence, i nominated it. You may do what you have suggested.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:07, 22 June 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 03:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raejae Joseph

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darío Ramos

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 June 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atomically precise manufacturing

AfDs for this article:

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

The page is scientific speculation about future methods which have not been demonstrated so may never work. While it has been cited in some science blogs and similar, is it not validated science. Hence it does not belong on WP IMHO. (If it ever is achieved, then a section can be written including the nobel nomination (?).) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2023 (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/2023 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of APM have already been achieved with hundreds to thousands of refereed publications. However, the larger vision of using APM for bulk fabrication is yet to be achieved. Within the field, there is active debate about the meaning of APM, and as convergence happens, this language will be inserted.

I have made some changes in the intro to try to make the page less subjective. It's just a start, though. Maybe a section should be added about how the field debates the concepts. 50.204.119.4 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as a scientist who has worked in Materials Science/nanoscience for decades, I will contest the statement "hundreds to thousands of refereed publications". The lack of refereed citations in the article attests to this. Indeed, your revision of the introduction where you include many "could" reinforces that this is speculation. Please see WP:Crystal.

N.B., please do not claim STM, quantum computing or hypothetical room-temperature superconductors to be part of this. The first two are massive in their own right; the last is comparable to cold fusion. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, I'm not sure if I'm reading your nomination correctly, but is the concern that the technology/method does not yet exist and/or are not likely to exist soon? Because we do have articles on room temperature superconductors and cold fusion (which are probably much better covered than this topic) and even death rays and anti-gravity. Care should of course be taken to adhere to scientific consensus and, for example, not state anything as fact if it is speculative, that is not in itself a reason to not have an article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All those you mention are well-balanced with extensive details, viable cites/sources etc. I have no problem with them.

After removing two duplicates, this article has 9 cites:

Ref 1 is a proposal abstract
3 & 8 are manufacturer sales material
6 is a white paper
2, 5, 7, 9 are not peer reviewed and are blogs or comments
4 is a reviewed crystal ball paper. Relevant, but not a demonstration source.
8 is the only relevant peer reviewed source.

To me this is way too little, plus most should be removed as inappropriate, WP:RS. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., with ongoing edits the specific numbers are changing, but the conclusion remains: WP:RS Ldm1954 (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping open the possibility of blowing it up and starting over even if we can, do you think it would be possible to write a well-balanced article after removing the bad sources and adding ones that are not currently present? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find them, and are willing to invest the time then it could be possible. I am not enthused.

Addendum: I just went through and deleted most of the parts which came from the DOE proposal of Ref #1. There is not much left. I think you would have to start fresh.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're all volunteers here, so nobody has to do any work they don't want to. If you're alright with removing everything overly speculative, then we might just leave it at that. Maybe some people at one of the noticeboards will be willing to put things on their watchlists and challenge questionable additions (though, of course, most of us here are not experts, so will most likely more often go by tone instead of actual content). At least nominally, it is then up to the people adding stuff in to meet WP:BURDEN. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the fluff. I might come back later to check.

For reference, this is connected (without proper citing) to the DARPA 2015 "Atoms to Product" program. With AI/MI and additive manufacturing this topic is pretty much dead. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete remains my vote.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails to meet WP:V and based on WP:TOOSOON it should be deleted. Nanosci (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps merge with nanotechnology or nanomanufacturing whatever would be salvageable?~~ The speculative topic of the article does not merit an independent encyclopedia entry, a section in an existing article on an overarching topic would definitely be sufficient. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) All right, striking my !merge per below, but I hereby go fence because it seems a shame to lose somehow... --Ouro (blah blah) 19:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not merge with nanotechnology; despite the name that is a science topic. I would not merge one paper (remember this is speculation) with the existing, well-written (IMHO) nanomanufacturing page. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I follow You. Delete then? --Ouro (blah blah) 17:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain 👎 Ldm1954 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge. Merging these this article with the recommended page will be misleading as per WP:FORUM and WP:OR. This article is talking about fabrication approach, currently under efforts of developing using various experimental techniques, but not yet achieved. Based on WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL it should be deleted. Nanosci (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda forgot this discussion was still running. I don't find the deletion rationales particularly compelling given that they don't mesh too well with how our content is generally organised from what I can tell, but I don't particularly care whether this turns out to be keep or redirect without a merge. To clarify, Nanosci, are you arguing this under WP:DELREASON 6, 7 or 8? CRYSTAL in reference to 8 is in relation to speculation not covered in reliable sources, i.e. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Again, issues with the current content of the article should probably be taken to WP:FRINGEN (or just boldly removed). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My WP:CRYSTAL is based on the "Proposed Method" section of the webpage. That is pure current undergoing research exploration and can be seen as pure speculation. Although, I was aware of past misleading references with those removed, they are no longer the issue. However, this page can be still categorized as a perfect example of prediction of future technology. Based on WP:TOOSOON (and as you quoted WP:Fringen, I would support to WP:BeBold and delete the page.
Nanosci (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the deletion policy works. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a prediction, it is a speculation. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a reminder, you can only offer one bolded "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Nanosci (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would think keep it. It has a section on lab developed applications, showing some electronic applications have been assembled, even though of a small quantity of units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Freedman

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

No indication of notability - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Not one of the sources satisfies the independent, reliable and significant coverage requirement. Source analysis: 1, 5, 8, 10 are articles written by Freedman himself; 2 talks about how his phone started buzzing and him doing some interviews; 3, 4 are interviews of him with no editorial content; 6 is about his tweets, plus Sportskeeda is unreliable for notability purposes; 7 covers someone else's reply to his tweet; 9 is an opinion piece on an unreliable site which essentially says that his tweets are funny. A WP:BEFORE search turned up more such trivial coverage. Maduant (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Sports, and Australia. Maduant (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it's true that the subject has deleted their webpage and social media handles (which is unfortunate, as they contained some external links), that is not to imply he is not covered in secondary sources as a cricket writer/satirist. For instance, there is Geo Super, Hindustan Times, Geo TV [61] [62], ARY News, Indian Express, The Express Tribune, News18, The Cricketer [63], The Quint etc. All of these are mainstream publications of course. Plus, there is the extensive content on YouTube, such as this well-known documentary made for Cricingif, featuring Freedman with the who's who of Pakistani cricket. Even if the links that are no longer relevant or satisfactory were to be omitted, a WP:STUB article could easily be salvaged based on the external coverage and principle of WP:NOTDONE. Best, Mar4d (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sources are useless from a notability standpoint as they are written by Freedman himself. And, with the exception of this tweet listicle, none of the remaining sources listed above have a byline/author - all are marked "Web Desk", "News Desk", etc, indicative of regurgitated tabloid press releases. A lot of people have their tweets mentioned in the news frequently, that in itself does not confer notability. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is a classic argument to avoid at AfDs. I'm yet to see a single independently bylined article that demonstrates why Freedman is notable. WP:STUB and WP:NOTDONE would come into the picture if the topic's notability is established, which clearly isn't the case here. Maduant (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I noticed this article is an orphan. Most of the sources are not indepth per WP:SIGCOV and therefore fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 22 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Moore Gibson

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

WP:BLP of a person whose principal notability claim is being a wife.
As always, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so people don't get articles just because of who they were married to -- but there isn't really any other strong notability claim being made here at all, and the only other attempt at one (board member of a charity) is referenced to a primary source rather than any evidence of media coverage about her work in that role to establish any notability for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think her principle notability is not as the wife but as the recipient of the largest divorce settlement in Hollywood history. Parsons nose (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 28 June 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. This article was deleted at AfD 8 years ago, but as we all know, consensus can change, and 8 years is a more than reasonable amount of time for consensus to change. This unsourced article was nominated for deletion a few hours after it was created, and dozens of sources were added over the next 48 hours, so arguably WP:HEY would encourage us to grant the author a bit more leniency for now. With that said, sources that qualify to establish the notability of this rivalry were thin, and consensus was split on whether this rivalry has become notable in the time since the last article was deleted. My suggestion would be to allow interested editors to continue building this article and finding sources to establish its notability. If, after a reasonable amount of time (at least a couple months), there are still questions as to the notability of this rivalry, then it can be re-nominated for deletion and the full breadth of available sources can be analyzed. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina–Tennessee football rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was nominated before in 2015 and deleted, discussion here. No sources cited in the new page. Per WP:GNG this is still not notable as a "football rivalry". All sources I can find are opinion pieces on how it should be considered one, of which I've found two. Glman99 (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... I think even if it were slightly notable that a rivalry would need to be significantly notable to constitute it's own stand-alone article. To create it as it's own article and not even put in an attempt to provide sources? Get out of here haha.

Fireandflames2 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just started this article tonight, and have not had time to add sources and a notable games section, but there are sources that cite this as a rivalry even dating back all the way to 2011. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/912769-south-carolina-vs-tennessee-10-little-known-facts-about-southern-rivalry. I would like a little more time to add sources

Ok, I added two notable games (I plan on filling in several more in that section) and added in citations (with more to come). I hope this is enough for now. I do think this merits a rivalry now, especially with the series being tied 9-9 since 2005, and the fact that for South Carolina, Knoxville is the second-closet SEC school by geography.

It also should be noted that Tennessee and South Carolina could be paired up as permanent rivals if the SEC moves to a 9 game schedule https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2022/06/03/sec-football-schedule-nine-conference-games-permanent-rivals-expansion/9986455002/ Also, if South Carolina and Missouri can have a wikipedia page, then this series definitely can too. South Carolina and Tennessee are close geographically and have played for 30 years consecutively. SC and Missouri have played 13 times. The situation has changed from 2015 given the games over the last few years. Also see Greenville Online newspaper "Still, it's odd the Gamecocks' 2024 schedule won't feature Georgia, Tennessee or Florida, a trio that ranks as arguably their biggest SEC rivals." As well as the state newspaper " In an annual SEC rivalry dating back to 1992, that is Tennessee’s largest point spread against South Carolina since Oct. 30, 1999, when the Gamecocks visited Neyland Stadium." https://www.thestate.com/sports/college/university-of-south-carolina/usc-football/article268820602.html#storylink=cpy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnsc20 (talk • contribs)

None of these sources point to a notable rivalry. The one in KnoxNews calls it a "divisional rivalry" which would also apply to other teams. The other two are from blogs or not notable sources doing routine coverage. As 2015, I remain unconvinced this is a notable rivalry worthy of a separate page on Wikipedia. Two teams playing often does not warrant a page. You mention Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina), the difference is that they play for a trophy. UT-SC do not. Glman99 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I really am not trying to be argumentative or difficult, but I do not understand why this needs to be deleted. Just because it does not have a trophy does not mean it is not an important rivalry, as a trophy does not create animosity. Also, most SEC rivalries do not have trophies (none of Tennessee's other rivalries have one). This series has decided the east several times, and has a history of close competitive games. Also, the State Newspaper and Greenville Online are not blogs, they are reputable newspapers with widespread influence in South Carolina. They both quoted this as being a rivalry. I just dont understand what is harmful about having this page especially once I am able to finish out the notable games section. Its not like every rivalry that has its own page is Ohio State-Michigan, See Auburn-Ole Miss, Auburn-Tulane, Ole Miss-Tulane, LSU-Mississippi St, Georgia-Vanderbilt, Mississippi St-Alabama, Michigan-Northwestern. For instance, if Penn St and Maryland (Penn St leads 42-3-1) and Penn St Michigan can have pages, than certainly Tennessee and South Carolina can have one. I appreciate the concern and passion we have for college football rivalries, but do not understand what is harmful about a page for this series. There is a history here, and I have put time into making the page, and will continue to develop it. I really don't understand the need to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnsc20 (talk • contribs)

I understand you've put work into this, and I appreciate your contributions. However, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean this page meets the notability guidelines for pages on Wikipedia. Some of those other "rivalries" you mentioned should probably be considered for deletion as well, some of them even have tags nothing they may not meet WP:GNG. I have yet to see convincing sources that this passes the notability check as a notable football rivalry. Glman99 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by Glman99. Clearly not enough sigcov to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 18:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also make it clear that the continued WP:WALLSOFTEXT added by User:Tnsc20 will not impact my opinion on this topic. The sources brought up by this user are simply WP:ROUTINE game reports and summaries, but does not go on to describe how these teams would be rivals. The significant coverage required to describe this series as a "rivalry" simply is not there. Frank Anchor 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to do to provide "convincing evidence?" Those are two reputable sources that quote this as a rivalry. I just don't understand how this page is harming anyone. I have enjoyed learning about this series and it is clear there is a geographic and historical dislike between these teams. I have not even had time to finish it out and show the history of this rivalry through the Notable Games section. I don't get the benefit to deleting this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnsc20 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Per WP:HARMLESS, this isn't an argument to keep a page. Pages on Wikipedia must meet notability, verifiability, policies and use reliable sources. I'd encourage you to read these policies, as you obviously have skill and could bring useful edits and pages! Glman99 (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources meeting WP:GNG provided.

Tnsc20 (talk · contribs) Please feel free to create a WP:DRAFT article and submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation instead.

Please also be sure to sign your comments on this page.

PK-WIKI (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how this is not Notable (there are significant articles covering these games and results), It is also verifiable and reliable. Knoxville News, Greenville Online, and State Newspaper are all good sources, and I have added citations into the article. I feel as though this article is being targeted just because it failed in 2015, and not based on the merits of what is currently in it. I get that you disagree, but there really isn't a reason I can see that this article does not meet the standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnsc20 (talk • contribs)

Sure, I can explain my analysis! The Knox News source refers to SC as Tennessee's "East divisional rival". If all divisional opponents were considered notable rivalries, we'd have quite a few pages! The Tennesseean is also referring to divisional rivals, and not past rivalry between UT-SC, but potential future divisional games. That article also does not call this game a rivalry at all, while referring to Alabama and Vanderbilt as Tennessee's rivals. The State is also WP:ROUTINE coverage of the upcoming game between "SEC rivals". These are all indicative of teams that play in the same division, not a notable football rivalry. Again, I recommend you review WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. User:PK-WIKI is also right, you can copy this article into a WP:DRAFT and then submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation later on to get help on it. Glman99 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel this is just a difference of opinion, not an argument to delete the whole page. It is not just "another divisional rivalry." In face it is one of South Carolina's biggest SEC rivalries - see Greenville Newspaper - "Still, it's odd the Gamecocks' 2024 schedule won't feature Georgia, Tennessee or Florida, a trio that ranks as arguably their biggest SEC rivals." I also just have a different take on what The State article says, it calls the series "an annual SEC rivalry dating back to 1992." That does not imply divisions, but rather the history and longevity of these two teams playing. Sure its not Alabama-Tennessee, but South Carolina cost Tennessee a chance at the national championship last year, and these games have had historical impact on both programs. I have provided reliable sources that cite this as a rivalry, and really don't understand how deleting this article helps. It does nothing but invalidate my time and work, and make me less likely to contribute to wikipedia in the future.

Games in this series have played significant roles in the history of the program, as TN loses to SC led to Johnny majors being replaced with Fulmer. A Tennessee win over SC helped push Spurrier out the door. A 2016 Tennessee loss cost the Vols a chance at their first chance to win the East since 2007, etc. etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnsc20 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments User:Tnsc20. Glman99 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry about the signing comments, I did not know that was something I needed to do, but see it now. I really do just want to say I appreciate your insight, and am happy to do whatever you think is necessary to improve this article. I would love to focus on improving it rather than deleting.Tnsc20 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can sign by placing four tildes (~~~~) after your post. This will automatically add your username and a date/timestamp. Frank Anchor 20:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... I know I have probably not done this in the preferred manner, and I apologize. While I am not new to wikipedia, this process is new to me, and I did not intent to format so badly. With that said this page should be kept. Relevant news sources like the Knoxville News Sentinel, the State Newspaper, and Greenville News have dubbed this a 30+ year series a rivalry. Not only that, but the series is significant historically, as games in 2013 and 2022 ultimately disqualified both schools from advancing to the national championship/CFP. Several other games have decided the winner of the SEC East. When this deletion article started, I had not had time to add citations and expand the page to where it is now.Tnsc20 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage such as Why South Carolina rivalry is so important to UT Vols, South Carolina vs. Tennessee: 10 Little Known Facts About the Southern Rivalry, Tennessee football: 10 Vols games vs. South Carolina that dramatically altered history, Tennessee-South Carolina: All-time series, Steve Spurrier has changed the South Carolina-Tennessee rivalry and South Carolina faces most lopsided point spread against Tennessee in 23 years.Alvaldi (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the below source analysis:

Source analysis by User:Frank Anchor

Source assessment by User:Frank Anchor
Source	Comments
Why South Carolina rivalry is so important to UT Vols	Only describes the two teams as "divisional rivals" which can be said of any two teams in the same division. Also summaries of recent overall performance of the two schools. Goes into no depth as to why the teams are rivals. N
South Carolina vs. Tennessee: 10 Little Known Facts About the Southern Rivalry	Fan blog that describes routine "trends" in the series. Does nothing to establish the teams as rivals outside of overusing the term "rivalry" to manufacture hype. N
Tennessee football: 10 Vols games vs. South Carolina that dramatically altered history	Fan blog explaining how some of the games between Tennessee and South Carolina have impacted the UT team. Does nothing to describe Tennessee and South Carolina as rivals. Only mention of the term on the page is to mention tennessee's rivalries with Georgia and Florida N
Tennessee-South Carolina: All-time series	WP:ROUTINE list of game scores. Mentions the teams are "division rivals" in the first sentence, a term that can be used to describe any pair of teams in the same division N
Steve Spurrier has changed the South Carolina-Tennessee rivalry	Fan blog that explains that Spurrier impacted the series for both teams. It does state that the series has "become a major SEC East rivalry." However, "Saturday Down South" is a fan site and hardly an authority on college football. Still the closest to GNG coverage of the group. ?
South Carolina faces most lopsided point spread against Tennessee in 23 years	WP:ROUTINE pre-game report that describes a large point spread. Describes the series as an "SEC rivalry" which can be used for any of the 91 pairings of teams in the conference. N

Of the sources provided, one fan blog might have enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG in establishing South Carolina and Tennessee as rivals. Even if that was a clear pass (which it is not), GNG requires multiple sources so this alone would not be enough. The rest are routine coverage of the series and/or only make a passing mention of the term "rivalry" without going into any depth of why there is a rivalry (animocity between teams, fan bases, etc.). Frank Anchor 13:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this source analysis! Glman99 (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to disagree here. The first source mentioned from Knoxville News, which is not a fan blog, does describe why there is a rivalry and how it is important. Just look at the title, "why SC rivalry is so important for TN" and continues on throughout the article. The author mentions how the rise of South Carolina coincided with the fall of Tennessee in the 2000s. It mentions the ups and downs of the rivalry, and how the two programs are competing for similar recruits. Look at the quote "The SEC East isn’t big enough for both South Carolina and Tennessee to achieve great success at the same time." This article explains the rivalry and its impact on the two programs by going into how the streaks in the rivalry have played into the successes and failures at each program. Tnsc20 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the quote "The SEC East isn’t big enough for both South Carolina and Tennessee to achieve great success at the same time." also mentions that it is not big enough because of traditional powers Georgia and Florida being in the SEC East as well. It has NOTHING to do with UT and South Carolina being rivals. The title uses the term "rivalry" to manufacture hype and for no other reason. One team rising while another team falling does not imply a rivalry (if anything, it implies there not being a rivalry due to lack of simultaneous success). Frank Anchor 15:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quote highlights the importance of the South Carolina-Tennessee series, and how one must win the game to compete in the east. This underscores the high intensity and importance this game has on the calendar each year. The nature of one team rising when the other falls in this instance does contribute to the rivalry. There is a clear reason for animosity because as South Carolina got good, they took recruits and success and games away from Tennessee (all mentioned in the article. Another source the Saturday Down South article also highlights how to connection of Steve Spurrier contributed to the growth of the rivalry during his time at SC. "Not only has South Carolina-Tennessee become a major SEC East rivalry, but the perception has changed over the past decade. The Gamecocks have been the dominant program in recent years while the Vols have come up short." This quote shows hot it is NOT just another SEC east series. In fact it is "a major SEC East rivalry." The article 10 Vols games vs. South Carolina that dramatically altered history, also describes the importance this game has carried throughout the years and how its result has lead to major changes in both programs. Its not often that you have a rivalry that twice in the last decade has eliminated one team from national championship consideration (2013 and 2022) late in the year.Tnsc20 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say they only make one passing mention; however, this argument should not be used to discredit the sources calling this series a rivalry. For the 4th and 6th sources, I would point to trivial coverage

Shortcuts

as a reason not to discredit. Multiple sources mentioned clearly do call the Tennessee-SC series a rivalry. Also the News Sentinel does not jsut call it a divisional rivalry, as the title of the article does not say divisional. Again I would point towards trivial here as well. Tnsc20 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2nd and 3rd sources, I would point to the just a blog argument

Shortcuts

With the second source, it is not fair to claim that it was written just to "manufacture hype," as that is completely unverifiable. The 3rd source describes the importance and history of the games between the two schools and should not be discredited just because you claim it is a blog. Tnsc20 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alvaldi and Tnsc20. I do not agree that there is some special heightened threshold of SIGCOV that is required for rivalry articles in contrast to other types of articles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you reviewed the cited sources @Cbl62? There isn't any WP:SIGCOV. Glman99 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. And I also went back and reviewed my "delete" vote when this same topic was AfD'd 7 year ago. A lot has changed since then. I respect FrankAnchor's views but the following comment is striking: "The title uses the term 'rivalry' to manufacture hype and for no other reason." I don't think it's our role at AfD to second-guess the coverage or to disqualify coverage because we believe that a reliable, independent publication had an invalid motive for the coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that we could find any division matchups called rivalries by some source. A quick search finds articles on Tennessee and Missouri, LSU (and here), Arkansas, Ole Miss. Heck, even Ohio State-Maryland. Most of these are the same sites used for the article. All major sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of games, not actually about the history or facts of the so-called rivalry. Glman99 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they key difference here is that South Carolina and Tennessee have played 30 consecutive years. Tennessee/Ole Miss and Tennessee/Arkansas used to play annually and had a rivalry. In the very first paragraph on Tennessee/Missouri it says they have not even played 12 times. Also TN/SC are much closer geographically than any of these other schools. Also, the News Sentinel Article (which calls it a "rivalry" in the title and describes the history/facts of the series) describes the high stakes matchups in the rivalry, something clearly lacking with these other series you mentioned. Another good one to look at is https://www.totheeforeverago.org/p/south-carolina-gamecocks-2024-football-schedule which lists Georgia Florida and Tennessee as south Carolinas main "local" rivals and "measuring sticks." The fear of future pages popping up involving Tennessee and other SEC opponents is not grounds to delete this one.Tnsc20 (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you just linked is a blog, not a WP:RS. Glman99 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Provided sources are all opinion or news sources: nothing solid that covers this subject from a reliable standpoint, like a book or a website by a scholar: this is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. Come back when you have something that has a strong reputation for reliability. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"website by a scholar"? I don't know of any sports rivalry that has coverage in a "website by a scholar". It's never been, nor should it be, the notability standard that only scholarly sources count. Coverage in news sources are perfectly acceptable provided the source is a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Cbl62 above. News sources are credible coverage. The coverage from reputable sources like the Knoxville News Sentinel and the State newspaper are perfectly valid. Almost zero, if any, college football rivalries have a book written about them.Tnsc20 (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One or two articles mentioning the two teams as "rivals" or "SEC rivals" does not meet WP:NRIVALRY (Sports rivalries are not presumed notable). Per the general guidelines, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant coverage per analysis only 2 sources are in reliable sources and they are all WP:ROUTINE. Many of the other sources are not WP:RS and then do not count towards WP:SIGCOV. Simply being mentioned in a newspaper isn't enough to meet the standards to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Glman99 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources that complete the News sentinel article in establishing this as a rivalry.

[64], [65] (govols 247 is a subset of Knoxville News Sentinel and USA Today Network), [66], and [67]. Again a reminder that the original Knox News article calls the two rivals in the title and does have a history of the rivalry and describes the important games over time.Tnsc20 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it’s odd the Gamecocks’ 2024 schedule won’t feature Georgia, Tennessee or Florida, a trio that ranks as arguably their biggest SEC rivals," "Is Tennessee and South Carolina a football rivalry? 'Yeah, I think it’s a rivalry game,' junior safety Todd Kelly Jr. said. 'South Carolina and Tennessee have gone down to the wire almost every year, even before I got here,'" "If you don’t already count Tennessee as a rival, I like that one and it would probably be my pick," "The annual game between the Gamecocks and the Tennessee Volunteers is another big rivalry." Tnsc20 (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnsc20 Regardless of the result of this AfD, I highly suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:V, WP:N, and WP:ROUTINE. 1 is a reliable source, but it is WP:ROUTINE in my opinion. 2, 3, and 4 are all blogs or opinion pieces, they do not meet WP:RS. Glman99 (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glman99, I would again point to WP:JUSTABLOG. Additionally, the govols article is part of Knoxville News sentinel and I would argue a reliable source there. I do not understand the problem with [68] as it does everything you ask. It describes the history and importance of the rivalry and is clearly a reputable sport. It calls them rivals in the title, the article is NOT called Why South Carolina is important DIVISIONAL rivals.Tnsc20 (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTABLOG does not support these sources. "And keep in mind that while sources such as blogs aren't usually suitable for the purposes of establishing notability, they may be perfectly suitable for verifying information within an article whose notability has already been established by other means". 1-2 sources doing generally WP:ROUTINE coverage does not meet WP:GNG. Glman99 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the 247 sports source is not a blog (part of Knoxville news sentinel), and the Knox News article [5] is credible and not routine. Tnsc20 (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, seems like enough now to satisfy GNG, at least in my eyes. IceBergYYC (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The added info is still sourced from sources that do not meet WP:RS. WP:HEY does not refer to walls of text, but substantial improvement from WP:RS. Glman99 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY does apply in this situation because when this article was nominated there were no sources at all listed. Numerous references and citations have been added since this AfD was created.Tnsc20 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The references and citations are pretty much all WP:ROUTINE. Quality matters more than quantity in this case. Throwing references at the wall does not a well-cited article make. Glman99 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 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.

[1] "Pinus ponderosa subsp. washoensis (Washoe pine) description". www.conifers.org. Retrieved 2023-06-22.

[2] Willyard, Ann; Gernandt, David S.; Cooper, Blake; Douglas, Connor; Finch, Kristen; Karemera, Hassan; Lindberg, Erik; Langer, Stephen K.; Lefler, Julia; Marquardt, Paula; Pouncey, Dakota L.; Telewski, Frank (2021-10-25). "Phylogenomics in the Hard Pines (Pinus subsection Ponderosae; Pinaceae) Confirms Paraphyly in Pinus ponderosa, and Places Pinus jeffreyi with the California Big Cone Pines". Systematic Botany. 46 (3): 538–561. doi:10.1600/036364421x16312067913435. ISSN 0363-6445.

[3] Willyard, Ann; Gernandt, David S.; López-Reyes, Alejandro; Potter, Kevin M. (December 2021). "Mitochondrial phylogeography of the ponderosa pines: widespread gene capture, interspecific sharing, and two unique lineages". Tree Genetics & Genomes. 17 (6). doi:10.1007/s11295-021-01529-4. ISSN 1614-2942.

[1]

[2]

[3]