Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 21: Difference between revisions

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!} 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just a You Tuber with no significant performance as a contortionist Robynthehode (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG by having coverage in multiple RS over a span of at least 4 years (CBC 2019 being the oldest that's actually about her content creation). Also the claim of "just a YouTuber" doesn't particularly make sense as being a YouTuber is the primary thing she is notable for, see especially being YouTube's top Canadian creator of 2023). I would say it's more accurate to say she's a contortionist with significant performance as a YouTuber. Samsmachado (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't count youtube views as notable. That article just mentions her name in a list of people and isn't strictly about her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete.: Being on youtube is fine, but we need SIGCOV. The one CBC article is about her, the rest are interviews or brief mentions. The National Post isn't substantial coverage. This is typical [1]. One more big non-CBC source and I think we'd have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even in French-Canadian media, only a brief mention [2]. TOOSOON I think Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we should necessarily expect French-Canadian media to cover her. She's from an anglophone area, and now lives in Los Angeles. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A google search brings up Global News CTV News CBC Girls' Life and CP24Jannaultheal (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I reviewed this as part of NPP, and I'm confused we find ourselves at AFD. From the start, the article met WP:GNG according to the sources in the article. How are [3] and [4] not sigcov? Since then, she's been interviewed all over, as Jannaultheal points out, so it's even less tenable. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Spill Response (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability. None of the sources are both independednt and reliable and discuss the company. No doubt an emminently worthwhile company , but searches failed to find appropriate sources. The sort of company that probably has a low public profile. At present this fails WP:GNG but would be happy to be proved wrong if suitable sources can be found.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced article, has no citations per WP:V. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirair Ratevosian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable political candidate and former State Department staffer. He's gotten plenty of news coverage, but it mostly seems to be routine campaign coverage from local news outlets. The only national outlet is Politico and they only give him brief mentions. Outside of that, I don't see the argument that he meets WP:GNG. I'd support a redirect to 2024 California's 30th congressional district election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Health and fitness, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think it's pretty clear he meets WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. There's several reliable sources with in-depth coverage, not being a national outlet (Which the New York Times also is) doesn't by itself matter for notability unless they are so small/local that it means that the outlets are unreliable and/or inherently not independent of the subject. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources seems to satisfy GNG.Djflem (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to enough sources that satisfy the GNG requirement. Victorzyang (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. as an ATD. This is the most common outcome in AFDs on unelected political candidates. This is not my opinion, just an observation after closing hundreds of these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Deaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable political candidate. His campaign announcement got coverage in major publications, but that is to be expected of any candidate in a U.S. Senate race. Outside of his campaign, he's only been covered by minor crypto blogs, so I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Also, this article is literally a press release. My favorite lines are "Deaton emphasizes his background as a fighter for the little guy against greedy corporations" and "John Deaton's personal story is marked by overcoming adversity" (yes, they wikilinked "adversity"). I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Law, Military, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The viability of disregarding a person, which in this case is a candidate in the public interest, and my contribution deserves consideration. At least until it no longer is in the public interest. Afterward public interest/history of this person has passed, I agree the page should be deleted. People go to Wikipedia to get information about political races. Purely including pages of an incumbent and removing those that aren't for those who are established should be treated fair by editors. I'll certainly delete some of the editorial aspects included, but the page should at least remain until after elections. Dema9049 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to promote them in case they win. You're either notable or you're not. Oaktree b (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a pretty weak argument and does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of our P&G. We don't make pages about people because they are popular and then delete them when their fame wears off. That's not how it works. We create pages of people who have demonstrated lasting notability. And we're not a guide; we're not going to have pages up just to help people when the content is unnotable/unencyclopedic. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" - WP:NPOL I can't find anything in-depth on him beyond generic campaign coverage and cyrpto blogs so nothing to meet WP:GNG. There is a lot of that though so it's possible there's something hiding. Shaws username . talk . 12:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A CNBC article [5] is primarily about somoene who works for his law firm sending make-up to be tested for asbestos, which he gave a quote for, and [6] Reiterates the last article, but with the company saying there's no asbestos and he couldn't be reached for comment. A Reuters articles [7] is primarily about an XRP court case which mentions him as representing the XRP holders and quotes a tweet, another [8] referencing an amicus brief his firm filed. I don't see any of them being significantly about him, the Fox Buisness thats he's appeared on [9] is him giving his opinion on Sam Bankman-Fried and [10] is him giving his views on the Ripple-XRP court case he was involved in. It's closer than the other two to give him notability but I still don't see either of them giving him significant coverage. Shaws username . talk . 19:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect this promotional article about a nonnotable candidate, per nom. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete purely promotional American candidate article. It's the season, I guess. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Tis the season: Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. A non-notable attorney with a non-notable personal background, running for office. Looks more like trolling for business clientele rather any serious run for office. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Crypto guy/potential politician/marine... None of which are very notable. Trial lawyer is simply a job. I don't see that he's hit our notability standards yet. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Wouldn't be opposed to the Redirect mentioned by others above. Intothatdarkness 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts per nom & others.Djflem (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Deaton has been mentioned by and appeared on numerous mainstream news sources over the past several years such as Reuters, CNBC, Fox Business, and others for his legal work in the asbestos and Crypto law space. Saying that he has only been mentioned by minor crypto blogs previously is completely incorrect. 2607:FEA8:3CA0:5F00:7C7A:B693:412E:6416 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" (your words) does not prove notability. Ongoing, in-depth coverage proves notability, and Deaton has only gotten in-depth coverage from the aforementioned minor crypto blogs. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. He is presently a political candidate, but that doesn't appear to be all the coverage of him that's out there from RS. From what I can find, there appears to be some coverage in the context of a false arrest lawsuit stemming from his 2018 arrest, as well as a Lawyer of the Year award from Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly, a trade publication. This doesn't amount to WP:NBIO, but I'm having a hard time using my standard news search stuff since I'm running into a wall of cryptocurrency-specific sources. That coverage is expected given his history in the area, but it's making it harder than usual to search for RS, so I'm leaving this as a bold comment rather than a !vote one way or the other until I can figure out a better way to filter through sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - this is blatantly promotional editing - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete   Article with a clear promotional tone and fails notability guidelines yet. I may support draftification as if this candidate becomes Senator, then it is worthy to just move it back given he would be notable for being in a legislative body. Redirect is undesirable as there are others who are candidates whose Wikipedia titles are not redirects/hasn't been created. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 06:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an election guide, it is an encyclopedia of notable subjects. I'm not against an eventual redirect, but the promotional nature of the article merits a delete then redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WYGN-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG, past history as Telemundo/Univision/ABC translator notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates: this seems like the logical alternative to deletion for a not-separately-notable 3ABN affiliate. (Its pre-3ABN history of carrying various Weigel stations does not net separate notability either as it was just retransmitting other stations, and in any event even that era is as much a precursor to WCWW-LD as it is the early days of this license — WYGN and what was then WRDY-LP essentially swapped licenses/facilities in 2002.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article should have never been created to begin with and this television station was sold by Three Angels Broadcasting Network. Catfurball (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to continue to evaluate whether or not this page title should be redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates per WCQ; also note Catfurball that the list is for affiliates, whether they're 3ABN-owned or not, which this certainly is. Nate • (chatter) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKOG-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only source I could find was a passing mention in a 7,000 page FCC document.— Moriwen (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I came closer with 1990s Indianapolis papers, but not enough. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larisa Akrofie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not only has the page been created and edited in it's majority by the subject of the article but a cursory Google search reveals nothing substantive about the subject beyond self-promotions. I'm also seeing results from her personal LinkedIn and just some talks she gave. Few suitable cited sources. Fails WP:GNG. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and Ghana. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Program management specialist/advocate don't get you notability here. Seems to have been on a few lists of "Influential young people", which really don't help either. I can't find SIG (or any kind of) COV. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails notability guidelines. None of the sources has significant coverage, and search results show up this, aside from profiles and some irrelevant content. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQDE-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another HC2/Innovate station with a razor-thin operational history, no significant coverage, and no reason there could be any. Another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUDZ-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another DTV America/HC2/Innovate station started in the 2010s with no significant coverage or any reason there could be any. (When the source for the station's move to Indianapolis is a forum, that does not bode well for notability.) Another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Get After It Media#Broadcast television stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSWY-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Get After It Media#Broadcast television stations: this is another station where the entire operational history can be divided into two eras: TBN repeater, and a transmitter for the Get After It networks. No separate notability is going to emerge from either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Web Standards Project. as an ATD as suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Browse Happy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. The only two reliable, independent citations are from right when the website was created, and they reek of churnalism. Might be worth a mention on Web Standards Project but doesn't seem to deserve its own page. Apocheir (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Was an important part of getting people to move off of Internet Explorer 6 and similarly old browsers. Its Javascript code is still embedded in thousands of websites even today. I concede that when browsers moved to auto-updating every four weeks sites like this weren't as prominently covered anymore, but it was historically improtant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and even YouTube had a similar system which was covered in major sources too. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any sources supporting these claims? Apocheir (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two sources that are independent of the subject and provide extensive coverage. 2004-era CNET is reputable, and the German source is written by what I understand to be a career journalist (according to Google Translate, I can't read German). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can only find WordPress sites and blogs, nothing about this website. It still comes up in Gsearch, but that isn't notable. Even what's used now for sourcing isn't very good. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is the only book coverage I find [11], but it just uses the website as an example of how to program so that things look a certain way online. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – there isn't great sourcing in the article itself at the moment, and online there are various blogs and forums discussing it for example. CNET is also not a really reliable source. TLA^tlak 16:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to Web Standards Project (which could use the fleshing out). This is a tiny bit of web history and I'm not sure it should be deleted; I'd prefer this NOT be deleted. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails notability guidelines; merge/redirect if a reliable source confirms that it is owned by the Web Standards Project. No reliable sources found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 22:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOCB-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 5. ✗plicit 04:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Crank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable political candidate. Doesn't seem to have gotten any national news coverage or done anything that would justify him having a Wikipedia page. The only sources cited on the page are his LinkedIn, some election results pages, and articles about his campaigns in local Colorado outlets, and I can't find anything better than that on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Radio, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with BottleOfChocolateMilk above. Subject does not pass notability requirements with minimal independent press coverage and a majority of citations referring back to primary sources. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 5 I can't find anything from reliable sources beyond WP:ROTM election candidacy coverage to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Shaws username . talk . 12:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable former/current candidate, fails GNG as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 5 as viable WP:ATD. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. On a pure nose count this might be a "no consensus", but as always, this is not a vote. The majority of "keep" arguments do not argue for a reason to keep based in policy, and I think there is some well-founded doubt about how they arrived as well. On balance, the majority of argument seems to indicate that the source material, including that suggested for addition during the discussion, does not pass the notability threshold. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Alex Heckler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. He's worked for some notable politicians, though I can't find reliable, secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search to confirm many of the unsourced claims made here. All I can find is passing mentions of him in articles about Florida politics. He may well have worked for some US presidents and senators, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Florida. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't find much coverage about him, he's mentioned in a few sources given already in the article, but these aren't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Source 3 seems to be about him, but that's all there is that's sigcov. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. Is a lawyer, a party hack, and a fundraiser - none of these are actually notable, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  His notability does not derive from being a lawyer, but from his influence and political activism, of which fundraising is a part. Uppagus (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claims made here by Wikishovel and others. The subject has an entire Wall Street Journal profile about him and is mentioned on the White House website when he was appointed to serve last year on the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Not to mention he has been deputy national finance chair for the Democratic National Committee and Biden Victory Fund for many years. Also look at the awards section. It is clear these items sufficiently demonstrate notability. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being named to a planning council for a government project doesn't get you notability. Rest is routine political work. Deputy finance guy for a national campaign is office work. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sigcov is demonstrated by source 3 and 11. I also see that he was cited as a top fundraiser for President Biden and was part of a team that hosted him in Miami recently. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Andrewjacobson6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I wrote this on my talk page, but maybe it should be here.

I thought the article was coming along well - also thanks to your help - and I am really surprised that you suddenly decided it should be wiped out altogether. I started the article because his name comes up often in certain circles and I didn't see any write-up about him on Wikipedia. I came up with quite a bit of material about him, and the sources looked reliable to me, so it is hard for me to believe you say he is not notable.

If he was profiled in the Wall Street Journal, his appointments have been noted by the White House, and his work has been covered in all the Florida newspapers, it is hard for me to understand the arguments cited above about not being worthy of a Wikipedia article. Strange. Also the fact that the person who wants this article deleted worked pretty hard to make it better. There is always room for improvement and as I have learned since starting to edit here, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. When more information and sources become available, they can be added. But I can't see a reason why this article should be deleted altogether.--Hazooyi (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because there aren't many extensive stories just about him. Doing those things shows he COULD be notable here, but we need sourcing. We don't have enough for sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - His fundraising and activism has made him influential both in state and national politics, all this besides his official and presidential appointments, mentioned in the article and reiterated by the editors above.

Uppagus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" - Notable and definitely of interest to readers following American politics today.Developer19801 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pass notability for coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigal1746 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Per Developer19801, and Since the us elections are getting closer, the role of Alex Heckler in the Democratic campaign is not insignificant.HaOfa (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After reviewing the sources, he clearly fails WP:GNG. Almost all of the coverage is self-promotional, the rest is mere mentions. Inclusion in a "Top 100" list does not count, unfortunately for the person claiming source 3 is good, and the WSJ profile was from 2007 and while I can only access the top part, seems like an interview/man on the street type of article. Even if it's not, it would stand alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Heckler is a Known attorney, political fundraiser and philanthtopist. He was an intern at the White House under president Bill Clinton and Chair the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA).Mhagay (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's all in the article. Being a "known attorney" or fundraiser or philanthropist doesn't make someone notable, though? Being an intern to Bill Clinton might make you notable if there was WP:SIGCOV of what you got up to while in the White House, but usually doesn't... Are there any policy-based reasons for keeping this article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: It should be noted that of the seven 'Keep' !votes, most don't present policy reasons for retention, all have under 1,000 edits, one has less than 200 edits, four have less than 100 edits, one has less than 10 edits. It's a little odd that all would find their way to a random enough AfD of a little known party activist? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is, he is not a little known party activist. Being from Ireland does not necessarily indicate an expertise in American politics. If editors have responded here, it's probably because his role in American politics is not a secret. Hazooyi (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no reason why to delete this article. From what I could see, Heckler's activities extend far beyond just being a simple lawyer. He is the Managing Partner & Founder of LSN Partners LLC, a bipartisan consulting firm, including government affairs, regulatory matters, economic development, and emergency management. His roles include serving on the Biden-Harris 2020 National Finance Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the United States Conference of Mayors (https://www.usmayors.org/). He was appointed to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council (https://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum/council), where he continues to fight against antisemitism. In the context of public universities dealing with contentious speakers on campus, Heckler has advocated for viewpoint-neutral policies. (User:Shulelevin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin (talk • contribs)

@Shulalevin: I'm curious: what prompted you to post here today, after three months of inactivity? Wikishovel (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikishovel, well, I was I am curious why would you ask that and whether you ask other editors such questions. Shulalevin (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would ask the same question of User:Andrewjacobson6, whose post above was their first edit, five minutes after account creation. My guess is that there's an online discussion forum or social media thread someplace, where this AFD was mentioned. There's nothing wrong with your having posted here on that basis, but if someone involved with editing the article was WP:Canvassing for support there, then that would be a problem. Wikishovel (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We ask because we care about wikipedia's reliability and standards, this isn't a "game" to be won. We treat every article fairly and in a neutral fashion. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the point of this page is to cite relevant policy justifying that the article in question be retained, or deleted. All of what you've written above is contained in the article body. We already know what it says. There's no point in just copying it over here, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Getting it back on the log, comment TK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events (i.e. this individual easily passes WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC). Such sources include a ~2,250-word profile in The Wall Street Journal from 2008 and coverage in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from 2004 and also from 2008. There is also some less substantial coverage of him in The Miami Herald (regarding his non-political work), NBC News (2003, 2013; each regarding his role as a fundraiser), The Tampa Bay Times (regarding his appointment to Chair of the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors' Association), The New York Times (with coverage of his 2007 wedding, as well as more passing mention in 2011 regarding fundraising). Appeals to WP:NPOL are a bit spurious; his notability does not come from holding or running for public office, and he himself is not a politician in a plain sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I agree the coverage is as significant as you make it out to be beyond the WSJ article, though there are a couple articles that are paywalled for me. It's not enough for me to change my vote, though. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also not sure of the significance of those references. Most are from at least 15 years ago, and passing mention of being appointed to an administrative position of a body for which he does not qualify for membership (the DGA) also does not signify notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin note on relist I had closed this as delete, but per Red-tailed hawk's note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Heckler re: the edit conflict, I have relisted it for further discussion. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per c. Being a "party hack" doesn't have bearing on notability/notoriety. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable activist/operative. No significant news coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources identified by Red-tailed hawk, particularly features in the Wall Street Journal and South Florida Sun-Sentinel, show that the subject passes the GNG. Coverage is sustained over much of the early 2000s due to the subject's activities as a lobbyist and fundraiser. Jfire (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG given the coverage outlined most granularly by Red-tailed hawk above, including citations that are not yet listed in the article itself, such as coverage by the New York Times of his wedding, suggesting he is a notable figure. These items make clear he is not just a lawyer or fundraiser but a figure recognized by both the political and media establishment. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second "keep" by User:Andrewjacobson6 struck. We all get to post a recommendation once at an WP:AFD, and then comment on the recommendations made.

A reply would also be helpful from you, and from article creator @Hazooyi:: was there a discussion about this AFD elsewhere, online or offline, that prompted you to create an account and immediately post here? @Shulalevin: has also not yet answered a similar question above. Wikishovel (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume that the article creator, who was active a day before this was nominated for deletion, and who also was given a notification about the deletion on their talk page, was not inappropriately canvassed to this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm asking the article creator if they know anything about offline canvassing for this AFD, from which it appears that User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin responded. Wikishovel (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean me, I am sorry that I didn't answer sooner. I am still not familiar with all the terminology you are using. I have been reading up on Wikipedia policies in order to edit properly, but I'm not sure what you mean about "canvassing." I started editing Wikipedia a few months ago and until now felt like it was fun and a great learning experience. But now all of a sudden I am being attacked from all sides and my work is being disparaged and treated like garbage. I have worked hard to create an article on a person whose name kept coming up and had none. Why all this "assumption of bad faith" to use some Wikipedia lingo I have seen being used? I don't even know any other Wikipedia editors. Now it's not so much fun anymore. It feels like a threatening and unfriendly place. I do wish I could say nice to meet you...--Hazooyi (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying your work is garbage, and I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm trying to work out why there are some odd responses in this discussion. Did you mention this deletion discussion elsewhere online? That's what I'm asking you.

I'm also asking User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin to reply to my questions to them above. Wikishovel (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of discussion do you mean? Where would I mention it? I have never had any contact with anyone on Wikipedia except for someone who wrote to me on my page about something they thought should be changed in an article I edited, and I said they were welcome to make that change. The only others who have contacted me are you and Bastun, to leave me messages that I can only understand as a wish for me and my work to disappear from the stage and leave Wikipedia to those are apparently smarter and better at editing than me. Not encouraging to say the least. And the continuing hostility towards anyone who thinks the article has some value is making me rethink if I want to contribute here...And by the way, after hearing all the criticism against this article, I went to look at others that were targeted for deletion. Amazingly, articles of two sentences and one reference at most were considered fine and the motion was to keep them. So really, it seems as if this article is being singled out in a strange way. If you are asking how people got to the page about this individual, I wonder how you got there? Is there some kind of red button that goes off when someone creates an article related to American politics?--Hazooyi (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says at the top of this page: You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others. If you ask me, you have no right to interrogate anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazooyi (talk • contribs)

I'm not interrogating you. I'm asking you if you mentioned this AFD elsewhere online: on social media, maybe? Because that would explain User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin showing up and posting as they did. If you did that, because you didn't know it was against Wikipedia's rules, then that's OK. I just want to know. Wikishovel (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the rogue "keep" comments coming out of the woodwork appear to be the most notable thing this guy has done recently. It reads very much like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Not everyone that knows or works with a sitting president meets notability guidelines. WP:RESUME

Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The other delete votes provide the same explanation that I would for deleting, so see above. Slightly offtopic: The "Keep" votes, on the other hand, are laughably transparent new-account sockpuppets from a UPE farm, and if this guy Heckler didn't pay someone online to create this article and make an effort to see it not deleted, I'll eat my hat. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please strike your over-generalization about keep !voters. I'll AGF that you overlooked the fact that Red-tailed hawk is an administrator and I am an editor in good standing, and we've both provided policy-based keep !votes. Jfire (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tavon Rooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined G4. Subject was not notable enough in a previous AfD in June 2023, and I'm not sure why an article now should be warranted. I waited a couple of months to see how the article would evolve, but alas nothing appears to have changed since then. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] [19][20][21] This is the only NFL draftee from the past 10 years whose article was deleted. I don't really think this should have been deleted in the first place. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm still of the opinion from the last AFD that there is enough coverage for notability (worth noting that one of the "delete" !votes there was an intentional revenge !vote by a user since interaction banned; not sure if that would have had any impact had it not occurred as it would have been an even weaker 1k-2d discussion); also relevant that this would be the only draft pick from the last 10 years missing an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not sure what has changed since the most recent AfD, as the same below-par sources are being presented. Being drafted into the NFL does not make someone inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Let'srun: May I ask how you came across this discussion, considering in a span of three minutes you voted against me at both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant college football games, which just so happen to be the two most recent AFDs I've voted at – especially considering how often this type of thing has happened? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Let'srun: You're actively editing elsewhere. Why aren't you answering this, just like you were unable to answer similar queries here, here and here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Let'srun: Considering the G4 was declined, using the rationale that it's the same as what was previous deleted doesn't seem appropriate. As someone who can see the deleted version, this is significantly different. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Significantly different than the version that was deleted, hence the G4 decline. Passes GNG and sigcov. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Addison Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- mayors don't automatically get articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their mayoralty: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the town they were mayor of, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here.
The only other notability claim being attempted here is that he was the grandfather of a more notable person -- but notability is not inherited, and people who are not themselves notable in their own right don't get articles just because they were related to other people. And the footnotes here are both just genealogy sites, which are not support for notability at all, rather than reliable source media coverage or books about him to establish his notability.
This is different enough in form from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it isn't providing any stronger evidence that he would pass any notability criteria in his own right independently of being a grandfather. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For a rather ho-hum president, there's a surprising number of things written about the family, but not about Levi... [22]. Hits in Gbooks as well, but most seem to be family tree things, nothing extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only sources I could find were either for his relation to Ford or people with similar names in other parts of the country. While it's impossible to know what else there is in newspapers that havent been digitaly archived without looking thorugh them, I can't see anything to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. I would suggest a merge but it's already on Ford's page so there's nothing to really add. Shaws username . talk . 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, while I'd be ok with deletion per my resasons above, draftifying makes sense to me given the time and effort required to track down news reports from the era. Shaws username . talk . 20:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, it is possible for this article to be improved. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree. He initially seemed notable to me, being the grandfather of a president and being the mayor of a town, but if one cannot find more sources, I myself would encourage deletion of the page. Thanks - Roger — Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on second thought, I move we move the page to a draft, where it may be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect (optional Draftify if author wants more time to see if they can dig up some sources). The current sources do not show any notability and a quick newspaper search and google failed to find any sources to help. KylieTastic (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) — Changed from deleted to redirect per later comments. KylieTastic (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Redirect: If @RogerNotable wants some time to look up other sources, that's fine with me as an alternative to deletion alternative to deletion. Regarding lack of newspaper coverage, that's not a major concern for me since historical newspapers are usually primary sources. I'm also not concerned that this page was deleted before; the first deletion discussion was largely "per nom" and conclusory !votes. Given that Gardner was Gerald Ford's grandfather, I suggest that Roger look at some biographies of Ford to see if there's any significant coverage of Gardner in them. If he was notable during his life, there might also be entries in biographical encyclopedias, such as The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. If those searches turn up nothing, I would think Gardner is probably not notable. Changed !vote to redirect per @IgnatiusofLondon. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC), 00:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, unconvinced he will be able to. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford his daughter as a reasonable search term. There isn't really any evidence of independent notability, but it makes sense, IMHO, to send people looking for him to the couple of sentences in his daughter's article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm fairly confident we can find sources to support an article of reasonable size, though whether it will meet notability criteria is another question. I can't access The Chicago Tribune, but I am seeing hits at 1 and 2. I've added a source from the Ford Library Museum, and can see more coming (e.g. 3, 4). My instinct is that there is a possibility of notability that does not merit deletion, so preserving the page history by redirecting to a sensible target is a preferable WP:ATD than deletion, if the article cannot be kept. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also seeing local newspaper hits I can't access: 5 and 6. To be honest, these kinds of sources are probably the most likely to establish notability independent of the subject's family. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, at the time of her marriage in 1912, The Harvard Herald spoke of Dorothy as "one of the most popular of Harvard young ladies" (7), which suggests to me that there is likely plenty of historical local newspaper coverage about the family. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to pursue an alternative to deletion would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford. I've incorporated the sources I found into the article. The sources do not suggest notability independent from the subject's involvement in his daughter's marriage or his being Ford's grandfather: when the subject is discussed, it is always in either context. The sources I have added contain details about Ford's relationship to his daughter which an interested editor could merge into Dorothy's entry. As a WP:ATD, preserving the page history allows the article to be recreated if further sources emerge: there are likely to be further sources offline that an interested editor could consult, and I don't think it's unreasonable for some local historian or newspaper to run an article on the early politics of Harvard someday which might push notability. If someone could also check out the Chicago Tribune sources above that I can't access, I'd be grateful to know if they add anything. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 04:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Álvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Source in article is IMDB and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found name mentions, listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Added a few sources. Might meet WP:NACTOR. Coverage about her private life and how much she has changed since she played a nerdy teenager in a 2003-2004 telenovela also exists. So Redirect to Alegrijes y Rebujos#Main. Not opposed to keep. Rather opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Based on the article subject's location, it seems unlikely that she would receive English-language coverage unless she attains international fame, which is not a threshold for notability. WP:NONENG sources are perfectly valid. I ran the sources recently added to the article through a browser translator, and they appear to discuss her directly and in-depth, and I see no reason to doubt their reliability or independence. Left guide (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The El Heraldo source is the only notability-establishing source I could find. There are other sources mentioning her, but they either lack significant coverage or are primary sources (as is the case with all the "look at where the actors of this kids show are now" articles). I don't think a possible NACTOR case justifies keeping an article that can't be expanded beyond a stub, and redirecting to one show seems arbitrary. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ordinarily, I'd relist or close this as a Soft Delete but neither of those options are available at this point. Since there is support for a Merge/Redirect, I'm closing this as No Consensus. Editors are encouraged to take whatever editing action they think is appropriate as individual editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Thenkaraikottai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be same problems identified in previous Afd. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Tangrakottai, after retitling that article to the village name of Thenkaraikottai. This church is in the adjoining settlement of Fathima Nagar. The census village is Thenkaraikottai (spelled without the 'h' in the 2011 Tamil Nadu census handbook)[23] Tangrakottai article covers both the fort and the Kalyana Ramaswamy temple, both accessed from Thenkaraikottai. The current redirect from Thenkaraikottai to Tangrakottai looks to be the wrong way round — Tangrakottai has few Google hits, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, so that article may be wrongly titled. Rupples (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There are a few sources in the stub. It fails my own standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. Plus: the building is more than 100 years old (pre-1921). Minus: everything else. It's not on any register of Historic Places. It as neither designed by a notable architect, nor is notable for its architecture. It has not been notorious nor notable in any way. I would not oppose a redirect one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Yee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable (as notability is defined hereabouts). Until a few hours ago this article had many sources that were obvious junk; those that remain are also more or less junk. None has substantial content. Googling either "charmaine yee" or "余嘉甄" site:sg brings nothing substantial. Hoary (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding because it's not immediately obvious: The Straits Times is owned by the same company as the radio station she works for, so those aren't independent sources. The rest of the sources in the article are at the moment all primary and/or also non-independent. (Also, between this, SPH Media's {{Undisclosed paid}} tag (Update: yep--User:Sphcorp, though they at least added the disclosure on their userpage), and John Klass, who works for the identical radio station and also has an extremely-promotional article edited by none other than User:Johnklass, I'm thinking this web of promotional edits expands a bit beyond Yee alone.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

• IP, please review Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. However unfortunately, policy fails to say that either "Material only sparsely provided with references to reliable sources" or "Advertising or other spam" is to be deleted. "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" is to be deleted; and of course it's easy for a starstruck fan, some well-meaning but otherwise deluded person, or of course a PR company, to leaven the promotional junk with some "relevant or encyclopedic content" (not least because what the content should be "relevant" to goes unspecified). Thank you for drawing our attention to the wretched article John Klass, but this discussion is limited to the encyclopediaworthiness of Charmaine Yee. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay then.

  
  

  Specialized notability criteria

  • Don't think she meets wp:ANYBIO. (She received Trinity College's 2023 FS Alum of the Year), but the university has multiple Alum of the Year awards and I'm not sure an award from a single university counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor"--when I hear that I think of akin to the Nobel Prize, but maybe I'm wrong, and wouldn't that need secondary sources supporting it also regardless?)
  • Does not meet wp:ENTERTAINER from what I can see (she's been part of a whopping two radio stations).

  Sources in the article

  • Trinity College: An interview, so a primary source from what I understand.
  • The Straits Times: Owned by the same company (SPH Media) as the radio station she worked for, so not independent.
  • Kiss92: doesn't even support the claim that's made, but even if it did, it's her own radio station so not independent.
  • YouTube: a primary source.
  • Hotfrog: A business directory whose Products & Services describes how one can "book Charmaine for your next Dinner Dance, Wedding Event, Birthday Party...", so I suspect non-independent.

  Other sources

  • There's an AsiaOne article written from the first person (not independent), an Apple podcast episode interviewing her (again primary from what I understand), and several other Straits Times articles (also not independent). Best article I could find was https://pride.kindness.sg/kiss92-dj-charmaine-yee-growing-up-with-brother/, which I'm not seeing any immediate problems I know of with, but one source alone wouldn't count as "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", so unless I've misunderstood things or other better sources come up delete. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:39F5:C84:F994:ED49 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Campbell (settler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

lacks notability —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 05:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, South Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has an entry in the Dictionary of South African Biography, so meets WP:ANYBIO #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to Necrothesp's two sources I have found a third. There are furthermore a couple of shorter biographies in other works to be had. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. National DNB entry is definitive evidence of notability per WP:ANYBIO #3. Jfire (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DNB entry and others. Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ to allow time for improvement. Star Mississippi 03:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dad Beat Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:UNRELIABLE. Most of those that remain either greatly predate the episode and/or have very little coverage in general. The only good source is [24]. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was an attempt to move this article to draft space mid-AFD. While I am not exactly opposed to this being in draft space, this was obviously an improper way of doing it. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for a draft space move for those WP:PRIMARY reasons. Or Adam one (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not very well-sourced at all. Blubewwy (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarqueesCalaway: Can we just draftify this page for now? I can get the sources within the week: there are new reviews every day with just how much Hazbin Hotel has been blowing up. 77.92.145.214 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir, I will get on that soon. MarqueesCalaway (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarqueesCalaway: Please do not move articles to draft space during an ongoing AfD. If you want this draftified then vote for that and state your rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Editors who believe this article should be Merged or Redirected to Dialogue (group) can propose this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Ogata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm really hesitant to nominate articles for deletion, but after a discussion I just can't see how this person is notable. They don't meet WP:NACTOR since they only seem to have one possibly significant role. They don't meet WP:GNG either; of the cited sources, 1 and 7 are primary sources; 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are insignificant in their coverage and lack any commentary (just reprinting press releases or social media posts at best), and 6 is a tweet, which doesn't count for notability. This person is a member of the notable group Dialogue, but notability is not inherited from being a member of that group. I tried a WP:BEFORE search in English and Japanese but couldn't find anything better than what's already in the article. Redirecting to the aforementioned group is a possible WP:ATD, but I just don't think this person is notable yet. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Anime and manga, and Japan. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator), she meets WP:NMUSIC#6; she is part of Dialogue and Airblue, and while the latter doesn't have an article, it and the former both have releases charting in the Oricon charts ([25]; [26]) and in at least one case had at least one in the Top 10, so they should count as independently notable ensembles under the criterion. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good argument, but I'm still a bit skeptical to call Airblue notable since from my understanding the precedent among Japanese music groups is that those formed around one anime to perform its theme songs usually aren't independently notable like with 3-nen E-gumi Utatan, which was merged by discussion despite having songs chart. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That is also my understanding. Except in very rare cases where a group originally created for an anime ends up having a life of its own outside of its original anime (for example, Sweet Arms, which was originally formed to sing songs for Upotte but is perhaps best known for its involvement with Date A Live), we usually don't create separate articles for this one-time units. Having releases chart on Oricon add notability to Dialogue+, but I don't think it by itself extends to Ogata (or indeed any of the other Dialogue+ members in general). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Link20XX and Narutolovehinata5: When I meant "independently notable ensembles" while factoring in NMUSIC#6, I interpreted it as saying that the ensembles had to be considered independently notable of the members, not to the point of warranting a page. Additionally, chart positions for said ensembles, while they don't directly give automatic notability to all members, should still contribute to their notability with respect to NMUSIC#6 if they have been in another ensemble that meets NMUSIC, regardless of whether or not any of the groups have pages. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Airblue isn't a notable ensemble though as consensus in cases like this (like my aforementioned example) have shown. WP:NMUSIC 10 also implies that groups around just one IP aren't notable, but I admit that I'm not too familiar with the music notability guidelines to make any definitive judgment. Whatever the case, this person does not meet WP:GNG, so I have a hard time justifying keeping the article on possibly barely meeting an SNG. Link20XX (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not delete this article for Yuna Ogata consensus is keep this article okay Lovemuhcko (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lovemuhcko: Please see WP:EVERYONEELSE; we !vote on our own independent volition, not purely on others. Also, I'm pretty sure it's too soon to say there's a consensus since this XFD is barely a day old and there's only one !vote so far: a keep from me (the creator). ミラP@Miraclepine 22:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Yuna Ogata, however per DYK rules that nomination is hold pending the result of this discussion. I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Ogata's notability but per my above comments and Link's arguments I'm leaning towards either a delete or a redirect to Dialogue+'s article, whatever the outcome of the discussion is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NMUSIC as part of a notable ensemble with multiple hits and a separate production. Also, while I have not evaluated these since I believe that she has already met the notability threshold per NMUSIC, there are 43 citations provided in the Japanese-language article. DCsansei (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NMUSIC says that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability, thus she can't be notable for being part of a single notable band, regardless of how well that band performs. While the Japanese article has a lot of sources, none of them actually count towards notability. Of the sources it cites, five from YouTube (38, 39, 40, 41, 43), eight are from Twitter (9, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31), three are from blogs, wikis, and other social media platforms (19, 30, 34), three are from databases (1, 2, 3), 13 are from official websites or press releases (4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 28, 35, 36, 42), and the remaining are insignificant coverage that only briefly mentions the subject (6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 20, 29, 32, 33). Source 17 is not available online, but seems to be just a simple casting announcement which is also not significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Notability is not inherited. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NMUSIC#6 says being a member of two notable ensembles makes one notable. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned above, Dialogue+ is notable, but Airblue probably isn't. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, do you suggest a merge to Dialogue+ ? That would lose any information about Airblue, which appears to redirect. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Airblue (group) redirects to Cue! (video game), which already mentions and explains a bit on the topic. I don't think any information about Airblue would be "lost". I would be okay with merging/redirecting to Dialogue (group) as this appears to be the only notable thing she has done. Link20XX (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please do not delete the article was be submitted to did you know article for Yuna Ogata was a consensus for keep the article has she part of Dialogue+. User:Lovemuhcko
  • This AfD has no consensus yet and just because someone nominated the article for DYK doesn't make the subject notable when they weren't before. WP:NBANDMEMBER clearly states a person isn't notable just for being part of one band; the rest of your comment is pretty much begging for mercy, which is not a good argument as to why the subject is notable. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2024 (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!} 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now. We can mark the page as having history, and if Airblue or Ogata develop further notability, we can resurrect the existing page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect not enough notability ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTOU-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The refs should have been added then, but there's a reason this one never made it to the K04QR AfD: I found a few from the 1997–2000 period. Unfortunately that's it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources 3, 4, and 5 in the article are all secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV about the station. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Sources in the article are all mill news about operations, the type any station would receive. Sources mentioned above: #3 is mill news about the changing in the station name; #4 mill news announcement about the start of operations ; #5 mill news about the sale of the station. Nothing meets WP:N.

 // Timothy :: talk  23:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The author's responses here do not inspire confidence in their willingness or ability to address the weakness in sourcing, making draftification a poor choice at this point. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Aurangzeb Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY and is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Functionary doing very much what I'd expect, nothing for notability. I don't find mentions of this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Oaktree, are you confused about there references? Let me know what is causing you to nominate this article for deletion and I will do my best to clear any confusion? Haniya01 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User4edits,

What parts of the article caused you to think that the article failed the Notability and that the article is Unencyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haniya01The subject (individual) is not notable as explained above by Oaktree, and the entire article is pretty much unencyclopedic, and looks like created by someone having a close connection with the subject. User4edits (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I was the one who wrote it btw, I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability?

In regards to the second point, perhaps the writing style of the paper needs to be changed to make encyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER and if you are eligible, try Wikipedia:WikiLibrary. You can begin familiarising yourself with the rules of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing all this, I am still in the process of uncovering more evidence like specific names of books, official government letters, etc. on all this. This process can take months, especially since the British Library recently experienced a big cyber attack and their whole system is down.

Do you think I should just delete all my information for now and get this Aurangzeb page back to its 2019 format (you can probably see how it was gonna be deleted back then but the decision was to keep it)? Haniya01 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am no authority here. Wikipedia is Consensus based. However, you seem to deviating the subject, what is being asked is the following

Can you explain why this person is notable as per WP:NBIO?

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting the question, here is my response:

According to academic journals - during the 1860s-1900s - it was very hard for Indian origin people to enter Indian Civil Service (aka British Indian Government), particularly higher rank positions like Extra Assistant Commissioner. In fact, there are articles, books and journals from many places on how there was a tension between British rule and the Indian people. Take this statistic, for example, between 1871 and 1878, only 5 out of 46 Indian candidates successfully passed the entrance exam for Indian Civil Service.

Based on these challenging circumstances, Aurangzeb Khan (a person of Indian origin) was able to get that higher rank position, Extra Assistant Commissioner - his rank is mentioned in this book (Gazetteer of The Jhelum District 1904. Punjab Government. pp. 103–107. ISBN 969-35-1558-7)

Also, he got that Khan Bahadur title award (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=zykYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

From the articles I found there was a major project to colonize 2 million acres of land (which would be left barren) - which Aurangzeb was a part of (I am in the research process of finding more books, government letters, etc. for evidence)

I know you shared the link that newspapers are not usually valid for sources, but this newspaper called the Civil & Military Gazette was only for Government and Military news. Note that the Civil and Military Gazette are the ones who originally published the book I shared above titled Gazetteer of The Jhelum District. 1904. Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.

2. An additional/ancillary subordinate to the Commissioner (which heads a small district) is not notable. Gazette of a district looks like a WP:PSTS, nonetheless, I looked into the gazetteer you mentioned, and

the subject is no way mentioned from p103-107, but I only found an obscure running mention among other names at pg. 107.

3. I never said newspaper is not a valid source, rather it is a good one provided if it's WP:SIGCOV, what I said, and will repeat extensively

please see What Wikipedia is not, among others, it is not a family or clan archive.

4. As for Khan Bahadur title, it was a low-level local title granted to many, not a national award such as those coming within Order of the British Empire.

Finally, These do not answer the question of WP:NBIO. User4edits (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please look again at the gazetteer I mentioned (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) On page 107, it says "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." After that there are 10 other names mentioned.
2. Also, listen we are both on the same page in the sense of enjoying to ensure things are done in accordance to guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, I am in the middle of the process of collecting evidence (book names, Government letters, etc.) and that the British Library experienced a major cyber attack and this has slowed down my process for months. Even though Aurangzeb Khan was just a Assistant Extra Commissioner, his impactful work caused the British Government to treat him like first/second class Military Grantee and award him accordingly. Again, I am in a middle of a process of collecting more evidence so here is a resolution. You can delete the page for now and later (in the future), I will re-write this page on Wiki and I will even invite you to come and check my page and all that evidence.

Haniya01 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for advertisement. I am unable to find subject's mentions anywhere. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Macbeejack ☎ 09:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: On three observations I made, kindly don't disappoint because I don't go for delete all the time.
  1. Comparing with 2019 revision and this current version, and per @User4edits: mentioned before, the user added most of the information with citations which are failing WP:N. But still, I think we must keep it.
  2.The main thing we can do is cleanup the mess, yet keeping some valuable information, if passed per WP:N.
  3. The user seems to be much defending that normal users does on defending. So if they are connected to the person, kindly follow the WP:COI and do the necessary measures. And if you want to expand it, kindly follow WP:GNG, WP:N and the content along with citation, which will be verified by an experienced user.
  User4edits, correct me if I'm wrong. CSMention269 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Major problem here is not just notability but the sources itself that incline more towards unreliability. See WP:RS. Even the verification is impossible. Links provided do not have any mention on the subject. Even a simple Google search does not give any detail about this subject's background or enough for this subject notable enough to have a page of his own. RangersRus (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My question here is as their are multiple pages at wiki but noone take responsibility of them or not even bothers to check via Turnitin them. Either you are a person from the author family who create several accounts and just keep putting obligations for a fun😊 or hired person?

  Else author provided so many resources citations here. The author is not going to use this info to gain any position since it’s 100 years old history than 😇😄please be up front here👌😇🤔 Delta 2040 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Delta 2040 Welcome to Wikipedia. This is your first edit. WP:SPA or WP:SOCK ?? User4edits (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi please reply with above concerns answers solution? Regards, 167.86.137.192 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, as a nice piece of personal original research. It's been pieced together from primary sources and deductions. It ought to be published somewhere; the world really needs a place for this sort of article, but it's not Wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and can only have an article on him after he's been discussed by historians in secondary sources. Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Elemimele . Even though you are voting 'Delete', you did this in a polite and respectful manner. People like you restore my hope for Wikipedia.

I was shocked by the disrespect @User4edits showed to me earlier. This person said I was lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned on page 107 in this book (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) and calling it a 'obscure running mention among other names'.

Then, I called User4edits out by directly quoting the line where it mentions Aurangzeb Khan's name, "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." User4edits did not even apologize for what he/she said. Haniya01 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Secondary Source Found: Thanks to the explanations about what a secondary source is by @Elemimele and @DarmaniLink , I found one secondary source that mentions Aurangzeb Khan. This article was published in 2015. Is this source acceptable?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156

This secondary source is about Aurangzeb Khan's son and how he used his dad's land/house to establish a college in a rural city called Chakwal.

This article says "His father Raja Aurangzeb Khan served on top civil positions during the British rule. His father also served as first colonisation officer during the establishment of Lyalpur city...All his life, he patronised Islamia High School Chakwal which was founded by his father Raja Aurangzeb Khan...Currently the grand bungalow built by his father, Raja Auranzeb Khan, is the oldest preserved building in the city...The bungalow which has 52 rooms and a spacious lawn used to serve as the court of Raja Auranzeb Khan who was also appointed the honorary magistrate."

Earlier User4edits said that, 'Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.' Well, this secondary source article states that Aurangzeb Khan served as the first colonization officer alongside other key aspects like being a honorary Magistrate.

Lastly, here is a Wikipedia page about the list of Indian people in Indian Civil Service (List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service). This list shows Wikipedia pages about people who were also magistrates such as Brajendranath De and Maharajadhiraj Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur . Haniya01 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 NEW Secondary Sources Found (if Dawn article included - see my comment above-, then it adds up to 5 secondary sources)

1. Book: Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.531219/page/n49/mode/2up). On PDF page 50-51 (book page 34-35) it says, "...when Captain Popham Young was leaving the colony in 1899. The Raja referred to is Choudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, then Assistant Colonization Officer" - this ballad shows how these three established the city of Lyallpur (current day Faisalabad, the industrial city and 3rd largest city of Pakistan).
2. Pakistan Government Website for the 'Brief History of Faisalabad' (https://faisalabad.dc.lhc.gov.pk/PublicPages/HistoryOfDistrict.aspx). "The first colonisation officer Aurangzeb Khan made sure that no individual in this district owned more than 25 squares (625 acres (2.53 km2)) of land. The merit or method of allotting the land was to check each individual's hand who was applying for some land, and if the hands showed that individual had worked hard in the past, only then was land given to him, which has led to a district where there aren't any big land owners, as the land has been equally distributed amongst hard working men and it is their hard work that has led to Faisalabad becoming the third richest district in Pakistan." This paragraph shows how Aurangzeb Khan's land allocation system allowed Faisalabad to become 3rd richest district in Pakistan. Also, that he is the first colonization officer (this point is also mentioned in the Dawn article).
3. Pakistan Government Book called 'District Gazetteers Faisalabad 2021' (https://bor9.pitb.gov.pk/system/files/Faisalabad.pdf). It repeats the same paragraph as my bullet point 2 and on page 225, it mentions 2 of Aurangzeb Khan's sons - Raja Sher Muhammad Khan and Raja Akbar Khan.
4. Book: Animal Labor and Colonial Welfare by James L. Hevia published in 2018 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=hglkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=IOR/L/MIL/7/6687:+report+of+the+transport+committee+1897+Government+Central+Printing+Office,+1897&source=bl&ots=7rkuc33hqS&sig=ACfU3U25pwNFyyziPqztyb19ZBokffVwSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi20PPZi8eEAxXEVqQEHcugCGMQ6AF6BAgNEAM#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan&f=false). In Chapter 6 titled 'Indian Army Reform and the Creation of a Permanent Transport Establishment' - Aurangzeb Khan's transport and animal breeding proposal is discussed in detail and how the Stanford Transport Committee ended up picking his proposal. This is done from pages 167-170 and on page 167, its starts as, "Choudri Aurangzeb Khan, the assistant colonization officer in the Chenab canal colony..."
5. Dawn article: https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156 - please see my comment above

Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 MORE Sources Found (this is a total of 8 now - please see list above)

1. Book: Life in Transition by Prof. Jasbir S. Juggi published in 2022 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-BBlEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=aurangzeb+khan+lyallpur&ots=MICsOnsCzM&sig=Z5GjYm8zw6N_JIz0yucBwMsQW7o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan%20&f=false). On page 13 it says, “My grandfather was in the employ of Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, one of the descendants of Chaudhry Subhan Kuli Khan, and later on his son Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan as administrator of their estates in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad, Pakistan) area of British Punjab around 1900…The father of Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan, Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, built a colonial bungalow on the flatlands, facing the Kot, south of old Chakwal city in 1873. The house is still used as a family home of his descendants and remains the oldest building in the area and seat of the Chaudhry’s of Chakwal, sometimes referred to as Chaudhrials.”. Raja Sarfraz Khan, also known as Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, is mentioned in the Dawn article I shared in my comments above. That Dawn article also mentions how the bungalow is the oldest building in Chakwal and that this was built in 1873.
2. Book: A Journey to Disillusionment by Sherbaz Khan Mazari published in 2000 by Oxford University Press (https://www.amazon.com/Journey-Disillusionment-Sherbaz-Khan-Mazari/dp/0195790766). I am referring to the 2nd edition - please see this link (https://sanipanhwar.com/A%20Journey%20to%20Disillusionment%20-%20Sherbaz%20Khan%20Mazari.pdf). On PDF page 20 (book page 17), it says, " During the minority of my brothers and I, Rahimyar Khan managed the tribal affairs in our stead. Our property was placed under the management of Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, a Punjab civil service officer, who reported directly to the District Deputy Commissioner, who was our official guardian.". In the Wikipedia Aurangzeb Khan article, look under Section Early Career and Education, Sub-Section Social Welfare. There I mention how Aurangzeb Khan looked after an estate with the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Journal/Newspaper: The The Khalsa Advocate (September 21, 1907) -Source: South Asia Open Archives (https://www.jstor.org/stable/saoa.crl.35194545?seq=1). On page 2, 2nd column (in the 2nd paragraph), it says, "...Raja Aurangzeb of Chakwal is a retired Government officer (probably an E. A. C) who wields enormous influence in the ilaqa. Three of his relatives are said to have been amoung the incendiaries. There is little wonder therefore that Sheikh Fazal Shah, the Inspector deputed to make inquires, postponed the statements of the aggrieved Sikhs, after they were half taken down until the arrival of Raja Aurangzeb who was away from Chakwal."

Haniya01 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URLs Found for Some Old Sources

The references I used when I published the article during Jan. 2024 did not have a URL because I accessed them from the British Library. Even though Wikipedia's Notability clearly states, "Sources do not have to be available online ", some editors did not understand this.

Today, I found a database for The Civil & Military Gazette where the URL shows that Aurangzeb Khan's name is mentioned.

This is what I found so far:

1. 28 August, 1897 - Page 7 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221897%22&mode=PHRASE)
2. 24 June, 1899 - Page 8 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221899%22&mode=PHRASE)
3. 13 March 1900 - Page 3 - Under 'Out-Station Items' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
4. 8 June 1900 - Page 5 - Under 'Civil' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
5. 21 July 1900 - Page 9 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
6. 31 January 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
7. 18 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
8. 21 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
9. 23 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)

Haniya01 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 ADDITIONAL Sources Found (4 Books, 6 Gov. Reports and UK House of Commons doc.)

If you look at my comments above and add everything up, then this is a total of 19 new sources.

1. Book: 'The Pakistan Gazetteer Volume 4' published during Year 2000 by Cosmo Publications (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YwEwAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aurangzeb+khan) - Its the same information as the Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904.
2. Book: 'Who's who in India, Containing Lives and Portraits of Ruling Chiefs, Notables, Titled Personages, and Other Eminent Indians' published in 1911 by Newul Kishore Press (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YbssAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him.
3. Book: 'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, ʻOmān, and Central Arabia: Historical. 4 v' published in 1970 by author John Gordon Lorimor and publisher Gregg (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=NL0sAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You also need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him in this book.
4. Book: 'History of Services of Gazetted Officers Employed in the Punjab' published during 1897 by Civil & Military Gazette (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/History_of_Services_of_Gazetted_Officers/RDlFAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is a open access book where on page 285 there is a table for Aurangzeb Khan. It says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudhri, Khan Bahadur, Rajput. Home of family: Jhelum District - Joined the Service, 5th Jan. 1869. Born, 1849...." Then, the table gives exact dates of when he got what position. This is a big discovery and I will update the wiki page to match this timeline.
5. UK House of Commons Papers: 'Parliamentary Papers: 1850-1908 Volume 76 Part 2' published by Great Britain Parliament House of Commons during 1908. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Parliamentary_Papers/679DAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is open access where on pages 2 and 75-79, Aurangzeb's Interview can be seen. This is the same interview that I already mention in the Wikipedia article about Aurangzeb Khan.
6. Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' by Punjab Department of Revenue and Administration on 1893. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/Ipg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=aurangzeb+khan&pg=RA2-PR27&printsec=frontcover) This is a open access document. On pages xxvii, there is mention how during year 1892-93 they were colonizing around 602, 659 acres of land for Chenab Colony. Aurangzeb's name is mentioned for survey, demarcation and colonization. On page xxix, it mentions how Munshi Aurangzeb Khan was appointed as 2nd class Magistrate on 1st July, 1892 and during that year, he gave decisions for 41 cases. He also toured 197 officers that year.
7. Gov. Report: 'Quarterly Civil List of the Punjab' published during 1898 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Quarterly_Civil_List_for_the_Punjab/CeUSAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0). This is open access document. On PDF page 58 (report page 61), Aurangzeb Khan's name is in the Extra Assistant Commissioner, 7th Grade list where his year of birth, 1849, is mentioned and that he is a, "Magte., 2nd class, Asst. Colonization Officer, Chenab Canal"
8. Gov. Report: 'Report on the Working of Hospitals and Dispensaries' published in 1900 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Working_of_Hospitals_and_D/OlE_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page 9, it shows, "Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, late Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chakwal" gave Rs. 160 for hospital funding
9. Gov. Report: 'Documents on Punjab: Political Movements (1907-1920)' published by Anmol Publication during 1994. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Documents_on_Punjab_Political_movements/E2huAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=aurangzeb%20khan%20chakwal) On page 154, under Jhelum for bullet point 4. When searching the document, type 'Aurangzeb' only.
10. Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1897. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/aJg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page xix, it says, "...I have more to express my indebtedness to Chaudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, Assistant Colonization Officer, for a year's of excellent work"
11. Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1891. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/K5Q-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1) On pages 38-39 it says, "Very considerable attention has been paid to irrigation during the past year, the greatest activity having been shown as usual in the Pasrur tehsil. The tahsildar, Aurangzeb Khan, has continued his efforts to restore old embankments and erect new ones where necessary. The great Satrah band has been strengthened and improved, and a number of new embankments have been made in the greater kalar plain to the south-west of the tehsil. The results of this energy are very apparent in the area and crop returns… The work done by Aurangzeb Khan is more especially deserving of praise."

Haniya01 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Based on my previous comments, you see that 19 new sources have been recently discovered. Naturally, the Wikipedia page for Aurangzeb Khan needs a update/edit so these new sources are incorporated. I have started this process. Today I re-wrote the beginning of the article. I hope that in the next few days, I gradually update each section (for example, Background, Early Career and Education, etc.). I will respond to this comment when I am done with this process and/or if I have any question about this process. Haniya01 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Give the author a chance to make it notable, and for the article to be cleaned up. Deleting it won't free up space, so there's little reason not to. This article is extremely well written and frankly it just needs some secondary sources to establish notability. It should have to go through AfC however before returning to mainspace, with a special note that there must be secondary sources. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DarmaniLink. I am the author of this page.

Even if this page becomes a draft, @User4edits will not allow it to be published.

I am saying this based on 2 things User4edits has done:

1. During Jan. 2024, I created another page about Jehan Khan (Aurangzeb Khan's father) and submitted it for publication; HOWEVER, User4edits came in and stopped it from being published and accused me for lying and saying that Jehan Khan is not a Raja - I said Jehan Khan was known as either Raja Jehan Khan or Choudri Jehan Khan.
2. Please look at my response to Elemimele's comment where I describe another example of when User4edits accused me for lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned in a published book.

Haniya01 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these 2 points, I do not trust User4edits. If this page about Aurangzeb Khan becomes a draft, is it possible for me to ask either you @DarmaniLink and/or @Elemimele to check the draft and see if its good for publication? Haniya01 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could be a bit more civil towards user4edits, but, yeah, sure, I'll check it. But just so you know, I'll actually check it. :) If it needs more secondary sources, or the sources aren't clear enough, I'll tell you. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Haniya01 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could also go through AFC after and get a far better opinion as well as instructions than I could give. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to draftification and would also recommend AfC; it's slow, but it's a good way to get help and an independent evaluation. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Holúbek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sources I found are limited to passing mentions (1 and 2). Google searches also come up with silly namesakes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. The original article only mentioned the subject's participation in the Olympic relay. But Holúbek actually does meet WP:NSPORT, specifically WP:NATH, because he is a four-time individual national champion per the sources I added in the article. Furthermore, he is covered in this book providing SIGCOV for WP:GNG: Grexa, Ján (1996). Olympijské hnutie na Slovensku: od Atén po Atlantu. Q111. ISBN 978-80-85401-56-1.

Note that he is named in reverse order as "Holúbek Radoslav" in the book and in other sources I have found, I am not sure what Slovak naming conventions are or if a page move is appropriate. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: All countries in Europe use Western order except Hungary. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are currently zero non-database sources in the article. For that reason, the closing admin probably won't let it pass muster. The article is also severely subpar (as can be expected from a Lugnuts creation) in that it doesn't mention his two most significant competitions as an individual hurdler, the 2000 Olympic Games and the 1998 European Championships. Now, the book is interesting, but how is he covered there? 3 lines or several pages? Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Geschichte, thanks, I tried to update the article since its nomination to add some more of his achievements. The book is 211 pages long, and there were only 71 Slovak athletes at the Olympics prior to and including 1996 when the book was published. It's interesting that Holúbek is included because our records show he didn't compete at the Olympics until 4 years later, but he was certainly a top Slovak athlete and national champion before 1996, so he is probably discussed in that context. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think an administrator would most likely close this as keep if that was the consensus, even if we can't actually access the book as NEXISTS allows for. --Habst (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Then the so-called "discussion" might be a sentence that "athlete X beat Radoslav Holúbek at Y track meet" or "athlete X trains with Radoslav Holúbek". Not exactly significant coverage. We don't know, but can he be excpeted to have a full profile when the book is about Olympians and he was not an Olympian at the time? Being a random national champion is not that special, there are 50 of them every year across all athletic events. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: Was Holubek a non-starter at an Olympics or was his only selection after the book was written? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good question, it's very possible. I noticed that up until late last year, He Pan (runner) was listed as a member of the 2008 Chinese Olympic team on an archived website, known to people at the time, but she ended up not starting nor appearing on the Olympic start lists. It's plausible that Holúbek was named to the team at the time of the book-writing, but may have withdrawn due to injury. @Geschichte isn't wrong that I am guessing – but to be fair, I think they would have to admit that they are guessing just as much as me about their speculated sentence of coverage. The simple fact is that until someone checks the book out from a library, all we know is that the subject's name is definitely in Google's internal scanned copy. --Habst (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've submitted a request for the source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean keep as Habst says he found SIGCOV in the book, which I am not able to access. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Habst is just guessing Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The presumption of WP:SIGCOV does not mean that there is any. For now, the only sources are from databases or are very brief recaps. While the book source may have coverage, we can't say that for certain. If better coverage is found, please ping me. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: May I ask, how did you find both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľubomír Pištek, your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me? Additionally, tell me, what is the purpose of having a presumption of WP:SIGCOV if it has no weight and can be simply disregarded without even searching for any relevant sources, which is essentially what your vote is implying? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun, thanks for your comment. I think the "presumption" of SIGCOV actually does mean that SIGCOV exists, that is what I think the definition of the word presumption means. Per WP:NEXISTS, if coverage is known to exist e.g. in a book, then I think that is valid grounds for keeping the article. Now, if the book text is retrieved but there is only a mention, then I think we would have to look for other sources, but that hasn't happened. --Habst (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait I am tempted to say keep based on the presumed notability of winning at European tournaments twice, but let's shelf this until that source request mentioned above comes through, for a better picture of the landscape of coverage. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are referring to the European Cup Second League, which was a nations tournament below the Super League and First League. The Second League was a container for the lesser track nations in Europe Geschichte (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus, are there ATD possible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ATD: Close as no consensus. --Habst (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia School (Architecture and City Planning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Much of this article appears to be a very close paraphrasing (and at times, blatant copy-paste) of a book referenced in the ref section. One of the previous editors is the author of that book, which leads me to believe this is a lot of original research and violates WP:MOS in several ways. This should be sent back to drafts at the very least. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: I've found that there is a question about the existence of a "Philadelphia School" of architecture. A magazine article asked as much in 2017: Was There Really a “Philadelphia School of Architecture”? - Philadelphia Magazine (phillymag.com)

Much of these points could be best summed up as a section in the Architecture of Philadelphia article. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:TNT it. Going off the book preview alone, I've already found paragraphs worth of copyright violations. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, but has also run its course, WP:HEY job done, copyvio problems sorted out. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the sources establish notability (one is AI generated), no recognition from any breed club, German article has no useful sources Traumnovelle (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. listed in the International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds [27], and described in Horses of the World[28], and Wissenswertes über Pferde[29], which notes, as French Wikipedia does, that the breed merged into the regionalized Deutsches Sportpferd, apparently in 2003, which is why you're not finding a current breed club or stud book, but notability is not temporary, and we don't have a Deutsches Sportpferd article yet anyways to use as a merge target.--Jahaza (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently most of the article had to be removed due to a copyright violation. Are you familiar enough with horse breeds to be able to rewrite the article based on reliable soures? Traumnovelle (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of that I'll change my stance to neutral although the article is in a semi-incomplete status due to the copyright violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly notable even if now merged into another entity, the Deutsches Reitpferd. I've rewritten the page with ten solid sources after removing the foundational copyvio. A further nine links listed on the talk-page in 2008 seem to be fairly comprehensively dead. There are mentions (at least) in older sources such as this and this, but I can only get snippets so not enough to add them to the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my stance to keep but I'd like for this to have a consensus reached before closing it. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Traumnovelle! You can if you wish withdraw this, or indeed close it yourself – please see here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have it closed with a clear consensus for the record, although if it's better to withdraw I will do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously speedy-deleted as G11 (advertisement) by User:Jimfbleak. This was overturned at DRV with a decision to send to AFD. I am completing this nomination and am neutral. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination is a neutral, administrative one based on the result of DRV, not on the article or its sourcing. If you believe the article should be deleted, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than a "per nom" this time. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. CSMention269 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So, did a bit more digging, looks like the film now has a release date (8 March 2024), and this release date announcement has been covered in a couple of independent publications, along with the announcements of when the film finished principal photography and when the edit lock happened - but then again, WP:RSNOI. If it's ultimately deemed non-notable now, chances are that the situation might change with its release next month, so maybe WP:DRAFTIFY if the current state of it is deemed non-notable, maybe 'just let it fester for a few weeks and take a look at it post-release' if it is deemed potentially-notable enough right now, idk what the correct course of action in these situations actually is. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Draftify. Sourcing remains less than stellar but I see enough to plausibly claim to meet WP:NFILM with an immanent release date. Alternately send to draft until release to wait for a couple of reviews. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Eluchil404. This film is releasing soon but just needs to be expanded. DareshMohan (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Upcoming movie in March. Notable coverage [30][31][32] Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Eluchil404 & DareshMohan, as the trailer came out yesterday, sources & references are improved now. Will expand on article. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article, references and citations that are required to meet WP:NFILM as Significant coverage. and in terms of "presumed notability" the article already has IMDb link listed in the article.bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Gagauz people. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauz people in Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Gagauz people in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary pages. Most Gagauz people live in Moldova, except for five Gagauz-majority villages in Ukraine. Gagauz people in Moldova is basically a duplicate of Gagauz people with basically the same scope while Gagauz people in Ukraine is an article dealing with five villages with a very narrow scope and which can be perfectly integrated into its parent article. Therefore I propose that both articles be deleted and their information merged into Gagauz people. Super Ψ Dro 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Moldova, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Gagauz people in Moldova, keep Gagauz people in Ukraine. As you have stated, Gagauz people in Moldova is just the same with with Gagauz people as almost all Gagauz people live in Moldova. It is like creating an article like Moldovans in Moldova, ridiculous. Though, I think Gagauz people in Ukraine can be kept even though the amount of content is low. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ethnographic or linguistic features separating the Gagauz in Moldova from the Gagauz in Ukraine. All Gagauz people in Ukraine can ever deal with are census statistics and local politics of the Gagauz which actually do not exist as they do not have any party of their own, or the five villages' history which can be dealt with in their own articles, or the history of how the Gagauz got divided which can easily be explained in the parent article, or notable personalities which are currently a total of four in Ukrainian Wikipedia. I simply don't see a need for a separate article, everything it covers or can cover can be integrated into another article. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, it’s a small article, but why delete it? There is no need.

Youprayteas (t • c) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for the article? Is there any information we cannot cover anywhere else? I've just argued for the opposite view. Super Ψ Dro 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. AryKun (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I think a redirect/merger would be good too. The resulting redirects would be inoffensive. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]