Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

14 March 2023

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Guide to deletion

Könyves Kálmán Primary School

Könyves Kálmán Primary School (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 · NYT · TWL)

Tagged for multiple issues for almost 10 years and created by what appears to be an WP:SPA. Primary schools are rarely notable and I'm not seeing how this one would be an exception. This Hungarian search yielded the school's own website then listings in databases with no significant, in-depth coverage. I also searched Google News and found a mention in Minap but it's nowhere near enough to build an article from. The school does not demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:NORG.

I am not keen on redirecting to Miskolc, firstly, because the school is not mentioned in that article so a redirect would only be confusing for the reader. Secondly, Miskolc is a large city with dozens of schools and I see no reason to start listing all of its schools in that article to facilitate a redirect, mostly because WP:NOTDIR is a policy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Aristar

Anthony Aristar (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF. References are of the most tenuous. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Assales Fatumaca

Assales Fatumaca (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 · NYT · TWL)

I can't find any WP:RS about this school at all and it has been unsourced since 2010. In my searches, all that I could find, other than Wikipedia mirrors, is what appears to be the school's own Facebook page. If this is the best that there is then this school fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG by quite some way. I oppose merging to Baucau Municipality because there is currently no reliably sourced content that we can merge - I oppose merging any WP:OR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Palm Towers

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Palm Towers
• Articles for deletion/Palm Towers (2nd nomination)

Palm Towers (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD resulted in soft deletion, and then the page creator recreated the page without improvement. Jfire (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Add to the nomination: merge List of tallest skyscrapers in Qatar (which has no inbound links) with List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar as previously discussed. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete - I find this kind of behaviour frustrating to say the least. Thanks to Jfire for tagging this and some of their other articles for AfD. Kazamzam (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar#Palm Towers. Or "merge" some small amount of info. Note The 2 Palm Towers are #6 and #7 tallest in Qatar. For these and other tall building AFDs, enforce redirecting and merging to existing list-articles. "Delete" decisions are almost always inappropriate IMHO, as it would be here, because wp:ATD is obvious, available. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Note in recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JW Marriott Tower Hotel, it was noted that List of tallest skyscrapers in Qatar and List of tallest buildings in Doha, Qatar both exist, and overlap, and should be merged. Make that decision part of closure of this AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

IMHO "Delete" judgement on separate building AFDs may seem attractive so that AFD editors/closer can act emphatic/harsh, but may contribute to frustration on the part of the outsider editors who create and re-create these. Let them see their material in edit history of the redirect. As part of closing AFDs on tall buildings, advice the creators that some more detail, with sourcing, can be included in the row(s) of the table in list-article. Channel their energy rather than inflaming. Obviously past practices have not cut off the churn, so how about try to help these editors make a small impact in the list-articles, instead? Or would that be appeasement, and Wikipedia should be punitive instead? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Not seeing this meeting GNG with wider coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of being notable or worthy of a being redirected. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as there's no notability indicated in any way, shape or form, be it through WP:GNG or WP:SGN. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD closed as "delete". However this has been challenged by someone concerned that those advocating deletion did not appear to view an opinion on a redirect. I am therefore relisting this for a week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Aleutia

Aleutia (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. References are routine annoucement and press-releases, PR from companies. scope_creep^Talk 17:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: Sources do exist and I've just added three of them I found. AmshitBalcon (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@AmshitBalcon: Good try but those references are routine acquisitions notices which don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. They are routine coverage and fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sylheti cuisine

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sylheti cuisine
• Articles for deletion/Sylheti cuisine (2nd nomination)

Sylheti cuisine (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 · NYT · TWL)

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. None of the sources in this article point towards a distinct Sylheti cusine; rather they talk about certain dishes which originate from the Sylhet district or happen to be popularly eaten in Sylhet. There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right. The article is also poorly written, and mentions unrelated content such as pop culture and information about nutrition. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 14 and Bangladesh. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete: @Guffydrawers: has also noted the numerous issues with the article, particularly the vague phrasing and inappropriate and misrepresentative usage of sources. A similar article by the name of Chittagonian cuisine was also deleted for similar reasons here. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Assam. Skynxnex (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Doug Turner

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Doug Turner
• Articles for deletion/Doug Turner (2nd nomination)

Doug Turner (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 · NYT · TWL)

Failed candidate, only RS relate to campaign and do not provide sigcov. No sources in article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Not much reference to support the articcle . nothing showing up in google search too Christopheronthemove (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Downey

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Morgan Downey
• Articles for deletion/Morgan Downey (2nd nomination)

Morgan Downey (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 · NYT · TWL)

article previously was keep, but confused how this person meets WP:GNG for persons... has not fulfilled any of the requirements and is merely quoted in many articles, the articles are providing sigcov of other topics rather than him. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Big Floppa

Big Floppa (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 · NYT · TWL)

Lacks WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV; most of the sources are primary and social media which are... less than desirable. WP:BEFORE gets a grab-bag of transient, internet-meme/factoid sites, nothing that'd show this subject qualifies for an article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: as being a non-notable, GNG failing internet meme.

No reliable source covers the topic significantly. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 15:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as I cannot find any reliable sources covering the cat known as Big Floppa. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am also unable to find RS. Likely merge to the species article. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Adam El Hagar

Adam El Hagar (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. Trivial mention in reliable sources; minor roles in performances. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

History of cycling in Syracuse, New York

History of cycling in Syracuse, New York (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 · NYT · TWL)

Not a notable topic, cycling is no more prevalent in Syracuse than any other major city, hence WP:N and WP:UNDUE concerns. Alternate proposal is to merge this article with the "History of sports in Syracuse, New York". LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sports, and Cycling. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete History of the cycling industry in Syracuse could perhaps be an article. This is basically a list of companies and bicyclists, given without any sort of context. I don't see anything worth saving. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Paolo Iacullo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Paolo Iacullo
• Articles for deletion/Paolo Iacullo (2nd nomination)

Paolo Iacullo (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 · NYT · TWL)

Lack of notability. Those sources that are abou him are flimsy at best; the remaining two mention him but are merely using him as an example. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Fashion, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Delete This person again? Same sources as last time, local Toronto businessman. There is an upcoming election for mayor here, I wonder if this is some sort of pre-promo (I have no proof that he's running, but just an fyi in case we see more Toronto people pop up on wiki all of a sudden). Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Lent Bumps 2023

Lent Bumps 2023 (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 · NYT · TWL)

No evidence found of notability, source in article isn't independent. Only source in Google News is Varsity, which is a University newspaper. This year's activities don't seem to receive any attention from WP:RS outside the university. Perhaps older years need to be deleted as well if they have the same issues, this AfD though is only for the 2023 edition. Fram (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Bairwa

Bairwa (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 · NYT · TWL)

Effectively unsourced. The only source is a JPG, which does not support the claims in the article. cagliost (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I see they are mentioned in Jatav. If they are indeed a scheduled cast there must be plenty of sources about them, including policy documents, official stats and reports etc aside from news items. Without searching in some key Indian languages it’s hard to know, but I think deleting without that kind of thorough search would be a mistake. At worst draftify. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 13:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

SnoBar Cocktails

SnoBar Cocktails (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 · NYT · TWL)

I deprodded this in 2012, but in hindsight I don't think the notability guideline for organisations, products and services is met. Of the three sources cited, only the CNBC article seems likely to satisfy WP:ORGIND, and I haven't been able to find any better sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and United States of America. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete I'm finding nothing on google. Doesn't appear to meet NCORP. Valereee (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Angel, Ilana (2015-06-12). "SnöBar: The Perfect Cocktail". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "SnöBar Frozen Cocktails are alcoholic popsicles and ice cream. Don't kid yourself on the punch these babies pack because they are potent and a popsicle has the same amount of alcohol a real cocktail. They are powerful, but more important, really delicious. The Cosmo is perfection, Mojito is excellent, and Margarita is worthy of every single drop. How lucky am I that the three popsicle flavors they make are my favorite drinks? Almost as lucky as SnöBar because I've been to my Gelson's three times to buy more they are so good. Based in Los Angeles, SnöBar is the creation of Eddie and Shannon Masjedi. Not only are there popsicles, but also ice cream! The ice cream flavors are Grasshopper, Pink Squirrel, Brandy Alexander Chocolate Chip, and Brandy Alexander."

  2. Rogell, Eric (2013-02-19). "SnoBar Alcoholic Ice Cream Has a Full Cocktail in Every Serving". KEAN-FM. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "We were skeptical about how alcoholic ice cream would taste, imagining it to be something slightly less enjoyable than fermented yogurt, so we tried SnoBar for you. Every flavor. Purely in the interest of thorough journalistic investigation. The results were surprising; SnoBar is actually a great flavored ice cream, with a just barely-noticeable alcohol burn."

  3. McBane, Rebecca (2012-11-26). "Alcohol-Infused Ice Cream: It's Here!". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "SnoBar is gracing Florida with its entire line of alcoholic ice cream indulgences. This isn't a frozen daiquiri or a slushy treat with malt liquor in it. These are high-quality frozen pops and rich ice creams with actual distilled spirits as part of the ingredients. ... There's the Grasshopper (brandy with crème de menthe and crème de cacao), the Brandy Alexander (brandy and crème de cocoa with cream), the Brandy Alexander with Chocolate Chip, and the Pink Squirrel (brandy, amaretto and crème de cocoa with cream)."

  4. Rotunno, Tom (2012-06-27). "Best of Both Worlds? SnoBar Infuses Alcohol Into Ice Cream". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "SnoBar, a line of ice pops and ice creams, don’t just replicate the flavor of alcoholic cocktails, they actually contain a full serving of alcohol. ... It took nearly 100 attempts, but the duo perfected the ice pop and ice cream mixes and the product debuted in Arizona restaurants, bars and liquor stores in December before hitting the Las Vegas market this spring. In addition to liquor stores and bars, SnoBar is making its products available at Las Vegas clubs and resorts such as Tao, Wet Republic, Bellagio, MGM Grand and Caesar’s Palace."

  5. Dean, Sam (2012-03-26). "Liquor-Filled Ice Cream and Pops, Coming Soon to a Bachelorette Party Near You". Bon Appétit. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "Alcoholic ice cream is nothing new, but the boldness (and umlauted-ness) of SnoBar Cocktails is surely unprecedented. ... After debuting in "the bar scene in Arizona," the ice cream will soon make its way to Las Vegas. If the intended Girls' Night Out audience wasn't clear enough from that provenance alone, know this: the pops come in Cosmo and Margarita flavors, while the ice creams come in Grasshopper, Pink Squirrel (a grasshopper with almond liqueur instead of creme de menthe), Brandy Alexander, and Brandy Alexander Chocolate Chip."

  6. Shatkin, Elina (2011-12-09). "SnoBar: Boozy Popsicles = Cocktail of the Future?". LA Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "Is the cocktail of the 21st Century destined to be frozen? SnoBar (and every sorority ever and possibly Grant Achatz) hope so. The company (no relation to the SnoBar froyo shop in West Hollywood) rolls out its line of boozy, cocktail-themed popsicles today at 5 p.m. — but only in Arizona."

  7. "Alcohol-laden popsicles hit AZ store freezers". KTVK. 2011-12-05. Archived from the original on 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "Have you seen the billboard in Phoenix advertising SnoBar? It's a new, popsicle made with alcohol, and CBS 5 News wanted to investigate."

  8. Gabriele, Amanda (2018-07-02). "The Best Boozy Popsicles to Buy". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

     The article notes: "SnoBar Ice Pops ($100 for 24): These cocktail-inspired pops come in three different varieties that pay homage to classic drinks: Margarita, Mojito and Cosmopolitan. You can buy SnoBar products online, but they also serve their frosty treats at events across the country, so be on the lookout for their logo at a summer bash near you."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SnoBar Cocktails to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

  Cunard (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:ORGIND requires us to discount sources in which content produced by the subject is copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties, and to instead prioritise sources displaying original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking. None of these sources seems to clear that bar; they all read to me like paraphrases of press releases. Some are also probably too brief to be considered significant coverage (#5, #6 and #8 have less than 200 words on the subject) and at least one's very unlikely to be a reliable source (#2 again, which takes its content from GuySpeed, which advertises its areas of journalistic focus as including "girls," "sex," "hot gifs" and "cleavage"). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete The sources above all sound like regurgitated press releases. Promo. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sensor Coating Systems

Sensor Coating Systems (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 · NYT · TWL)

Article exists to promote the company. What's more important though is that there are no independent, reliable sources which cover this company, even in passing. Hopelessly non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete per lack of notability. gNews shows some mentions of the company, but they're all trivial. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Air Tetiaroa

Air Tetiaroa (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 · NYT · TWL)

Private transportation company with three planes and one route. Fails GNG and NCORP, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent RS. Sources in article are promotional and to the subject's website.  // Timothy :: talk  09:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep - added independent sources.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What sources?  // Timothy :: talk  02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Four articles from Tahiti Infos, one of French Polynesia's largest news sites.--IdiotSavant (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Promotional or at best ROUTINE. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. eg: "If visitors spend only a few minutes, they will be entitled to all the comforts: refreshments, Wi-Fi, television or anything else they need"  // Timothy :: talk  09:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also an in-depth article (in French of course) from Radio1.--IdiotSavant (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete. All sources, including the new ones, are promotional. Web-search gave me a lot of pages like this, too, but I found no independent RS. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak delete however, the airlines are notable in general, and there are many not much better sourced airlines, this particular page looks not-notable. --Rodgers V (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The Love Box

The Love Box (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails NFILM and GNG. Single source in article is to an interview with the director. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS.  // Timothy :: talk  14:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Red Serpent

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Red Serpent
• Articles for deletion/Red Serpent (2nd nomination)

Red Serpent (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 · NYT · TWL)

Prevously deleted and recreated. Fails GNG and NFILM. Here are the sources from the article:

• Film database: Red Serpent at KinoPoisk
• Film database: Кино-театр.ру (2023-02-11). "Красный змей (2003): актёры и роли". kino-teatr.ru. Retrieved 2023-03-14.
• Contributor review: Валерий Кичин (2003-04-08). "Медвежья болезнь". Российская газета. Retrieved 2023-03-09.
• Youtube promotion video: BadComedian (2017-02-27). "Невский: Начало". YouTube. Retrieved 2023-03-09.
• My firewall is blocking this site and says it is dangerous. Didn't proceed. Андрей Волков (2021-04-27). "Первый боевик Невского". Postcriticism. Retrieved 2023-03-09.

BEFORE in English and Russian showed, promotional material, database records, listings etc, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS.  // Timothy :: talk  14:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Germany, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per nom. It was been deleted a little over a year ago, with pretty much the same concerns.

  Mike Allen 14:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Raa Raa the Noisy Lion episodes

List of Raa Raa the Noisy Lion episodes (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 · NYT · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Fails NLIST. COPYVIO issues in episode descriptions (from TV guide). Significant OR. Previously drafted User talk:Pam Hueste#List of Raa Raa the Noisy Lion episodes moved to draftspace but restored without improvement.  // Timothy :: talk  12:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: here's the copyvio report . At the very least, this needs reporting to the noticeboard, though the other issues make me tip towards delete. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Clear case of Not TV guide. Shankargb (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Kevin J. Doyle

Kevin J. Doyle (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 · NYT · TWL)

United States magistrate judges are hired functionaries, and are not inherently notable. In this case, the article appears to be a run-of-the-mill resume for a person in such a position, with no independent sources. BD2412 T 12:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 12:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete fails Wikipedia:GNG as having no independent sources Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Vermont. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is Perth

AfDs for this article:

This is Perth (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non notable web short. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Got a blip of local mentions, hey look at this viral video, but nothing significant, nothing of substance. No full reviews, no major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tom Hess (guitarist) ‎

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tom Hess (guitarist)

Tom Hess (guitarist) ‎ (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has been a member of multiple bands but only one is notable and he was only a temporary hired member, not good enough for nmusic. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A. M. Esmonde

A. M. Esmonde (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non notable author. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No notable works. Single vendor lists do not make one notable. (restored prod deletion) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

List of video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms

List of video game soundtracks on music streaming platforms (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Nearly all major game released these days will have their soundtracks uploaded to some music-streaming platforms. The list also relies excessively on primary sources (e.g. Twitter), and most of the sources in the articles are WP:ROTM announcements that provide no meaningful commentary as to why its release on a streaming platform is important. A brief paragraph in the video game music article would probably be sufficient to cover this topic, and I don't see the necessity of having a list. OceanHok (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per precedents found through consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl (2nd nomination). And while I largely tried to avoid first party sources when I created the article, and would work towards replacing them, looking through the article, there are plenty of third party sources discussing the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LISTN satisfying sources:

  1. https://www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/best-video-game-soundtracks-where-to-stream-them/1100-6475226/
  2. https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/12/12450594/spotify-video-gaming-playlists
  3. https://www.avclub.com/just-about-every-final-fantasy-soundtrack-is-now-stream-1835300814
  4. https://www.pcgamer.com/capcom-has-added-a-truckload-of-game-soundtracks-to-spotify/

  Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

2 of them are ROTM announcements. They tell me several Capcom games and FF games are coming to Spotify, but none of them is WP:SIGCOV. I do not think GameSpot really intend to discuss streaming in its listicle as well. It simply tells you where you can stream (and therefore access) "the best video game soundtracks". GameSpot and IGN sometimes provided links to retailers, telling readers where you can buy or pre-order certain games. That doesn't mean we should create an article named "List of video game you can buy through Amazon".

If the main point of the article is to tell readers video game soundtracks on streaming platforms are rare, then the list does not show that. It appears to be a very common occurence. If the main point of the article is to tell readers that every single game these days has their soundtracks released through streaming platforms, then there is no necessity for such a list. If the SIGCOV part of the article is about Japanese developers being unwilling to release soundtracks through streaming platforms, then a list listing nearly all western games to have ever existed since 2010 is also not appropriate. It is a simple phenomenon bloated into a gigantic list. I still don't see the necessity of having this massive dynamic list that is always going to be incomplete as well. (Despite the effort of maintaining such a list, there are a lot of missing entires (e.g. FIFA17 to FIFA 19, a bunch of Call of Duty, Far Cry 4 not being listed despite the inclusion of both FC3 and FC5). This just highlights how unimportant and trivial the whole thing is. If a soundtrack's release through streaming platforms is so important, then there should be significant coverage from our RS each time it happens.) OceanHok (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, those articles are standard WP:MILL announcements. They do not indicate the idea of releasing on a streaming service is particularly noteworthy, just alerting people that soundtracks are on streaming. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:OLIST as a list that is too time consuming to keep updated and serves no encyclopedic purpose besides advertising. The ephemeral nature of streaming music means the list needs an outsized amount of effort and is constantly changing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Sergecross comment because this article for the longest time is really helpful because not every game has a soundtrack on streaming services, and it goes to show how much there was a demand for VGM on streaming services for a long time. Its the same thing with vinyl as well. NakhlaMan (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SALAT. This is one of those lists that could've been about a narrowly defined topic early in the history of streaming, but since streaming is just the default way of releasing any music these days, it's become more or less meaningless. Like a list of music released on CD in the 90s or a list of movies released in theaters (but even more extreme than the latter). There is sourcing that would fall into two categories: sources from years ago when streaming wasn't the default, and the equivalent of "what's on Netflix this month" roundups. Years ago, when studios put an entire TV show's catalog on Hulu, it was novel. Now, a "list of TV shows on streaming platforms" would be a similar SALAT problem. In other words, if a video game soundtrack is released, it's released on a music streaming platform. We can't keep a list of them all. Beyond that, this isn't actually a list of soundtracks; it's a list of video games. That makes it a step more problematic per WP:CSC compared to a list TV shows available to stream because in nearly all cases we don't actually have an article on the subjects themselves. Not sure what I think of the vinyl article, but at least that's a much smaller group because releasing a soundtrack on vinyl is relatively unusual. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Bogor

Coat of arms of Bogor (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails GNG. Previously merged and redirected to the city of Bogor; absolutely no need to fragment this content. Reverted, so we are here. The material has already been merged, so no need to merge. No objection to a redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  11:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. This article just isn't necessary - all the article text and most of the content of the infobox is copied from Bogor. The only thing not present in that article is the Blazon (formal description) of the coat of arms but that's less that fifty words long and could be added to the city's article if it was thought necessary. Neiltonks (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete. Mccapra (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Nefret Emerson

Nefret Emerson (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 · NYT · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. No reason to think that a character in a series of novels is somehow notable, I can't find any independent RS at all JMWt (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. JMWt (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Delete No independent sources found from my search. Fails WP:GNG. Carpimaps (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Weskus Marathon

Weskus Marathon (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 · NYT · TWL)

No refs on the page. The only sources I can find are mentions promoting the race, which don't appear to me to meet the GNG JMWt (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. JMWt (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Rana Pourarab Farahanipour

Rana Pourarab Farahanipour (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 · NYT · TWL)

Pastry chef, fails WP:GNG. Local newspaper coverage of a Persian restaurant, PR newswire and national cheesecake day recipes are not that stuff of notability. There's little more out there in the great wide world than is cited in the article - and that's scant enough. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Iran, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete - I only see very brief mentions and PR guff. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete No substantial coverage and no real claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Adewale Adeyipo

Adewale Adeyipo (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable Nigerian executive fails WP:GNG, coverage is routine company announcements, directory staff listings. Promotional, to boot: WP:NOTCV! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Delete Wow, you get the same photo six times in Gnews, with the same PR fluff piece attached. Good at marketing himself, non-notable otherwise. Head of sales and various other fancy titles. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete based on pr and self promotion. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Malti Chahar

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Malti Chahar
• Articles for deletion/Malti Chahar (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Malti Chahar (3rd nomination)

Malti Chahar (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 · NYT · TWL)

We've been here twice before (and speedy, and drafts) and the subject remains non-notable, failing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Persistent attempts to create/recreate this page with just as little notability, recommend SALT this time around if only to save everyone's time. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete still not notable. I did enjoy seeing Wikipedia articles in the reflist, though. 10/10 whoever did that. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete and salt. What is this? Non-notable individual, we aren't here to promote you. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

BWC: British Wrestling Weekly

BWC: British Wrestling Weekly (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 · NYT · TWL)

Long version: The BCW acronym would appear to refer to "British Championship Wrestling", which appears to be an ongoing Professional wrestling business, though one that in 2023 would appear still not to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. It had a Wikipedia page, which was deleted in 2007 via this AFD discussion. The television show "BWC: British Wrestling Round-Up", asserted here to be the predecessor of BWC: British Wrestling Weekly was deleted via WP:PROD in 2017. I guess the question to be answered here is, "is this a notable television show"? It doesn't appear to be one that was broadcasted on terrestrial TV networks; the assertion made here is that it was on Fight Network, a Canadian pay-tv channel, which would seem incongruous in the context of UK TV show. As for the Daily Mirror reference: as mentioned before, British Championship Wrestling appears to be an ongoing concern. A passing mention there would appear not to assist an assertion of notability. Short version: no evidence given or found that this purported UK TV series meets WP:GNG. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Wrestling, and United Kingdom. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 10:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

List of United States flash flood emergencies

List of United States flash flood emergencies (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 · NYT · TWL)

A list of twitter posts, with a few other primary sources thrown in. The floods may be notable in some cases, but the "flash flood emergencies" aren't. Fram (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of these extreme weather events or "emergencies" are not notable themselves, and certainly not for a list as a whole. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep — Duplicate to tornado emergency. The alert itself doesn’t actually exist, yet it used and gathers much media attention as well as meteorological attention. If you see Flash flood warning#Emergency, notice that the actual warning is a “Flash Flood Warning”, not “Flash Flood Emergency”. Look at tornado emergency’s warning box (visible in the article). It is a “Tornado warning”, not “Tornado emergency”. Both of the emergencies are not actual products of the National Weather Service, and are just the wording form them. That said, Google “Flash Flood Emergency” or “Tornado Emergency” and you will literally see thousands of articles mention those terminologies. I can 100% tell you, if these do not pass WP:LISTN, then like half the lists on Wikipedia cannot pass list notability. Both a TOR-E and FFE are the most extreme warning types used in the world, and each time one is used, it gathers media attention.

On a 100% other side note, the nominator appears to claim the National Weather Service’s twitter accounts aren’t primary sources. I plan to spam links (not breaking WP:REFSPAM) to help show notability. Get ready for hundreds of refs. :D Elijahandskip (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The flash floods are noteworthy, the warnings though (as a general topicn yes, but as a list)? Never mind the hourly updates to them (e.g. your 8 entries for 28 July, Kentucky, some of then just minutes apart). And I don't claim that the Twitter account isn't a primary source, I claim it is a primary source, as they are the ones issuing the warnings. Fram (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I was honestly planning to ask for formatting help for the list. The way it is now for sure isn’t the best way to format it. So, you or other editors are more than welcome to reformat it into a better method. That said, this would be a notable list of unofficial (and official in it’s weird way), yet attention gathering, emergencies that are issued only in the worst of the worst (basically THE notable) situations. Again, if these lists don’t pass the notability requirements for lists, then half the lists on Wikipedia don’t either. I will note, this should be seen as the topic as a whole as the list is incomplete. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would you want a list of the emergencies issued by the NSW, instead of, say, a list of the actual floods? The emergencies are a symptom, the floods are the real issue. According to our article (and what I can see elsewhere), these emergencies aren't even issued consistently across the US, but by some local NSW offices only. So you have a list of some warnings for some (potential) US floods, that's it. Fram (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:2022 floods in the United States exists. Most of them are part of other events like Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Fiona, July–August 2022 United States floods, Tornadoes of 2022#May 4–6 (Central and Eastern United States) (That one doesn’t mention it, but it occurred as a result of the tornado outbreak system). A list of the floods that caused Flash Flood Emergencies would be redundant and probably best for a navigation template. What distinguishes those “catastrophic” floods from a general flood though? It is the flash flood emergency. Generally, any flash flood emergency is going to be catastrophic for whatever community is impacted, hence the emergency being declared in the first place. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even the solo Flash Flood Emergencies (example August 3, 2022 in California) where only a single one was issued for a fairly small population, it gathered media attention (KCRA, Yahoo, KRNV-DT, KOLO-TV). The larger ones (example St. Louis or Kentucky in 2022) have literally hundreds of articles. Both floods were notable enough for July–August 2022 United States floods. Almost any time a “Flash Flood Emergency” or “Tornado Emergency” is issued, it WILL have media attention. For sake of WP:REFSPAM, I was citing the primary sources, but since it appears that people do not see the notability, I have begun doing borderline WP:REFSPAM, citing all these news articles mentioning stuff. No idea why a chart needs to borderline refspam, but I guess it is what it is. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Events are notable, warnings are not. Plain and simple. Same reason we don't have articles detailing warnings associated with a specific hurricane. Noah^Talk 17:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Invincible error

Invincible error (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 · NYT · TWL)

The merge discussion here pertains[1] which closed with "Participants provided compelling evidence that Invincible error should not exist as a standalone article, but there is not a clearly established consensus for either merging or deletion. AfD would be a very reasonable next step." The term "invincible error" is only found in very limited cases, and two months of discussion revealed just two sources, most notably in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but even in that volume it is not treated as a subject in itself, but is merely a type of error. The limited information in the stub more properly belongs in other articles. The discussion of Vincible and invincible ignorance is covered in an article already. Beyond that, this article has no substantive information, and does not meet WP:SIGCOV for such an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete The fact of the existence of Vincible and invincible ignorance already renders this article invincibly redundant, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as above, not a notable topic (and "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"). I'd also be ok with deleting followed by creating a redirect to Vincible and invincible ignorance on which this is a not specially clever play. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect Un-cited—or mis-cited—more accurately. No hint of notability or standalone qualities. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Rokusei Senjutsu

Rokusei Senjutsu (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 · NYT · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I don't read Japanese but this appears to be something fairly recently invented by Kazuko Hosoki a famous TV astrologer see 1 and [2]. I don't think this is notable even on Kazuko Hosoki but if there is anything to be kept it should be merged there. JMWt (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Japan. JMWt (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Could not find independent significant coverage from RS to meet WP:GNG. The little I found seems to be written by its author. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing out there beyond citogenesis. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand national football B team results

New Zealand national football B team results (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 · NYT · TWL)

Results for an unofficial team that doesn't have its own article either. Really the team doesn't require a page and isn't really notable, doesn't even exist in any form or have played for a number of years now — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 07:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and New Zealand. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 07:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because there isn't an exclusive page for New Zealand B doesn't give reason to delete the page. Since it says that the B team matches are not official, why don't you remove the B team pages for example South Korea or Australia?

Since it was not possible to develop an exclusive page for New Zealand B due to the few sources found and due to the lack of historical information, I went to develop a page only with the results because it was something more important than the team page itself. YangerAAS (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin

Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin (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 · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable religious figure. Entire article is based on a single source, and a search finds nothing more. (Would have draftified this, but that has been done before already.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Indonesia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, single source (which appears to consist in the main of lists of charismatic preachers), nothing else out there: 5 search results. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

John Foster (British singer)

John Foster (British singer) (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 · NYT · TWL)

A brief stint as singer of Bronski Beat in the mid-'80s following the departure of Jimmy Somerville is the claim for notability made here. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage is incidental, passing mentions (mostly just namechecks) in larger pieces about the history of the band or other band members' obituaries. Other than these, Discogs and Bandcamp are not RSes. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Evage

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Evage
• Articles for deletion/Evage (2nd nomination)

Evage (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 · NYT · TWL)

Nominated for deletion, soft deleted for lack of participation, refunded. And yet this Indian electric vehicle company is not notable, fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP sourcing is in the main press releases about battery supply and sales wins, routine funding - WP:SERIESA. Beyond the patchy sourcing here, WP:BEFORE reveals no reason for notability out there. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Transportation, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wormwood (TV series)

Wormwood (TV series) (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 · NYT · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I can't find anything much. Seems like an unremarkable single series TV show JMWt (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nom, there's very scant mention out there to be found. Also the plot summary. Wow. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Common Outcomes, broadcast by 10, ABC, Disney Chanel, with some coverage added to the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would you mind giving an URL to the newspapers you cited(if you got them online)? Carpimaps (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Create TV affiliates (by U.S. state)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Create TV affiliates (by U.S. state)

List of Create TV affiliates (by U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfDView log</noinclude> | edits since nomination)

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

The article hasn't be completed for a long time, doesn't have all the affiliates, and does not have enough citations or reliable sources. MenaceShock34685 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment You forgot to tag the article with the deletion banner. Dream Focus 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Already done. MenaceShock34685 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Check again. You posted the wrong thing. Look at the instructions and follow them. Dream Focus 21:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Someone else edited the deletion out, I don't know who. MenaceShock34685 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just fixed it. The article history isn't showing everything for some reason, I remember there being more edits you made there. Anyway, its working now. Dream Focus 01:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. MenaceShock34685 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to List of PBS member stations Create TV is a part of PBS. Its "affiliates" are all digital subchannels of PBS member stations. There is no need for two separate lists which will essentially be identical IMO. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Has extreme WP:NOTTVGUIDE content, including cable positions which were depreciated years ago (haven't visited this page for years myself), and oddly, ATSC 3.0 positions, which is venturing into finite detail. https://createtv.com/locate serves the same purpose and is better updated than this list. More importantly, it's only half-complete because of long-term sock activity. Nate • (chatter) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Confessions of a Go-Go Girl

Confessions of a Go-Go Girl (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 · NYT · TWL)

Procedural nomination from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Lifetime films.

Donaldd23 had previously removed a notability tag saying it should be sent to AfD, but Bovineboy2008 boldly redirected it as non-notable. RfD consensus was to send to AfD as the redirect target did not mention the film and therefore inappropriate. Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Metal Masters Tour

Metal Masters Tour (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 · NYT · TWL)

BLAR'd to Judas Priest in December 2022 due to notability concerns. The redirect was contested at this RfD on February 10 because there were four notable bands featured in this tour (Judas Priest, Motörhead, Heaven & Hell, and Testament), so this could not be redirected anywhere and participants agreed to take the page to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Canada, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the following participants: HorrorLover555, A7V2, QuietHere, and Red-tailed hawk, as well as relisters CycloneYoris and Jay. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Found this source covering setlists and these three show reviews in a brief search. There's also quite a few articles covering the announcement ([3][4][5][6][7][8][9]). This is looking really keepable to me so far. QuietHere (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

On top of that, there's this piece from Billboard, this interview in Guitar World, a mention in Rob Halford's book, and this mention in a book on Sabbath. Dunno how much all of that contributes to notability since the mentions are fairly passing, but maybe there are some juicy details worth adding in there that I skimmed past. And there's also a cover story in Revolver which I can't find an archived copy of just yet; that's gotta be worth something. I'd be willing to vote keep based on everything I've dug up so far, especially given it wasn't entirely thorough and there could easily be even more. QuietHere (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Robbins (footballer)

Ryan Robbins (footballer) (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - I found [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22], among many more British sources. Clearly significant figure in English non league football who has played and scored for his national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources above do not demonstrate notability. 1 is a quote-heavy routine match recap with barely 2 sentences on the subject, N. 2 is a WordPress blog, N. 3 is a non-independent (NPL) routine transaction announcement, N. 4 is routine news with zero independent sentences on Robbins, N. 5 is quote-heavy routine transactional news, N. 6 is a routine match summary on what appears to be a UGS, N. 7 is quote-heavy routine transaction buzz, N. 8 is quote-heavy routine transaction buzz, N. 9 is has essentially zero independent coverage of Robbins, N. 10 is routine transaction coverage, N. 11 is more routine transaction news, N. 12, ditto, N. 13, ditto, N. Stop ref-bombing garbage sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep passes GNG with significant sources, disagree with the analysis of references above from biased user.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Weak keep there is enough from Das osmnezz to show a clear pass of WP:GNG. Particularly the sources which JoelleJay incorrectly dismisses as "routine" transaction news actually contain several paragraphs of accomplishments (7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13) Y. Further, 7 is and 8 are incorrectly dismissed as being "quote-heavy" despite only having quotes in parts of (#7) 3 of 7 paragraphs and (#8) 6 of 14 paragraphs. Frank Anchor 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Calling single sentences "paragraphs" is blatant misrepresentation of the amount of coverage. I miscategorized #8 as transactional, but it is still most certainly quote-heavy and not significant. Routine transaction coverage is the formulaic "player has signed a contract with team, these are the teams he played with before, these are some accomplishments, here are some quotes from player/coach about how excited they are, info on the club's schedule/history" that is produced for every transactional change. It does not contribute to GNG.

  
  

  • 7, from Eastern Daily Press, has 3 sentences of primary transaction buzz containing barely any info on Robbins:

    Gary Setchell is backing electric frontman Ryan Robbins to become a fans' favourite at King's Lynn Town.
    ...convincing the 25-year-old to leave Coalville Town...
    Rumours have been rife for weeks that Robbins was heading to Norfolk, despite his run-ins with Linnets supporters – especially online...

  Followed by 7 sentences of direct quotes from Setchell, then a final brief sentence of routine transaction material (listing some of Robbins' history). That is exactly what routine transaction news looks like. Absolutely not SIGCOV.

  • 8, from Stamford Mercury, starts with 3 sentences announcing his contract with Evo-Stik and some stats from his past season at Stamford. Then it's a 3-sentence quote from Robbins, a 3-sentence quote from the Stamford manager, then 2.5 sentences mentioning his playing for Stamford and St K&N and his upcoming schedule of WC qualifiers. Then 5 more sentences of quotes from Robbins followed by one sentence telling us he's flying out to training camp "next Sunday". This is a small-town interview of a local footballer that amounts to <6 sentences of coverage, several of them not even of encyclopedic material (like his flights and future matches).
  • 10, from Northamptonshire Telegraph, begins with 3 sentences of routine transaction material announcing Robbin's signing, plugging an upcoming local game, mentioning Robbins had played with Corby before, and listing his former teams. The next 4 sentences have nothing to do with Robbins, then there's the sentence Robbins joins other recent arrivals Alistair Worby and Robbie Parsons at Steel Park, then 2 more sentences unrelated to Robbins. Not SIGCOV.
  • 11, from Eastern Daily Press, announces the King's Lynn contract fell through and contains 9 sentences describing/quoting the coach's reaction. It has 1 sentence stating where Robbins is now likely to play and 1 sentence repeating that he scored 34 goals the previous season. Nowhere close to SIGCOV.
  • 12, from Hinckley Times, is another announcement that Robbins isn't joining the Linnets. Sentence 1 is a bird pun, 2 states Robbins fell out with King's Lynn and joined Barwell instead, 3 & 4 mention this was because of cyberbullying from Lynn fans, the last 3 are basically quotes.
  • 13, from Lincolnshire World, announces Robbins has signed with Boston United. It starts with straight primary reporting of what Robbins/the club had said, a plug about the match he might play in "tomorrow", more repeating of what Robbins/Stamford "felt", 5 sentences of other Stamford club news, and 5 sentences of the usual transaction stats (when he joined Stamford, how he did in the prior 2 seasons, and his capping during St K&N WC qualifiers). This piece also appears to be plagiarized from a Stamford Mercury article so should not be considered reliable anyway.[23] JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Modified per JoelleJay’s comments below. Frank Anchor 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete I have read through the given references and they are not SIGCOV. They do not provide enough information to write an entire biography about the subject. Carpimaps (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I just finished about two hours of going through the additional references provided above and I conclude that they demonstrate sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. If the subject wasn’t notable, then deletion could be considered. However, as other editors and I myself have explained, the subject is notable and thus the article shouldn’t be considered eligible for deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Shawn Teller, which sources do you think are SIGCOV and do not fall under routine sports news? JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - After spending more time than I planned going through the sources mentioned above, I conclude that there isn't significant coverage available. Essentially all of the sources above are routine coverage (typically from a small newspaper located in the town where he played club football) announcing his signing, his manager's/club's plans for his future, but very rarely describing his accomplishments or what might make him notable. Although he may have scored a goal for his national team, I don't think that's a claim to notability unless media sources acknowledge it as one (particularly beyond his own club's hometown paper). Jogurney (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - It's near impossible for players from smaller countries to get on here due to St. Kitts having 2 whole newspapers and nobody else who is willing to cover them. He played for the national team and played in other countries as well.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: so if he "played for other countries as well", why isn't there substantial coverage? Supposedly those other countries would have more than 2 newspapers... --Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that that country is England as well which has no shortage in football coverage at all levels. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have just spent an hour and a half doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Article expansion is 100% irrelevant if no GNG sources have been identified. That just means you've filled the article with trivial routine details that do not belong in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I have said before, other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the 13+ sources do not provide IRS SIGCOV, as shown in the keep votes above (which outnumber the delete votes). Also, WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". It's fine, we can agree to disagree. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I'd say we should keep this partially per WP:BIAS (St. Kitts and the Nevis barely has anybody with articles), partially as a pass of NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), and because as shown by the expansion, we clearly have enough material to write a biography on this player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think BIAS is applicable here. Other footballers who represent St. Kitts and play semi-pro club football in England have more comprehensive coverage (look at Harry Panayiotou who has received much more coverage than Robbins, such as [24] or [25]). If Robbins had a higher profile (or played at least a bit of fully-pro club football), I'm sure we would see more significant online coverage. I don't believe Das osmnezz's article expansion demonstrates that the GNG is met either. Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: There are not the required multiple pieces of SIGCOV to meet GNG. The sources are routine match recaps or transactional announcements, which do not contribute to NBASIC. This shows in the article based on them that is filled with minutiae around signings, penalty card counting, and goal (re)counting. 2A02:8308:30D:5000:10CD:DAF0:2B6F:FA85 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) — 2A02:8308:30D:5000:10CD:DAF0:2B6F:FA85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I find it very odd and convenient that the only Wikipedia contribution by your IP address account is just specifically for this deletion discussion... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Second @Das osmnezz:

The circumstances of this vote (IP, first edit) should be taken into account when determining consensus in this discussion. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep : as per others above Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC) — Christopheronthemove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  I don’t think the SPA tag is appropriate for this vote. The editor has made many other edits outside of this deletion discussion. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  They're a 1-day-old account that has made edits almost exclusively to deletion discussions/AfD'd articles. JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I also don’t find this SPA tag appropriate as the user has commented on a wide array of AFDs, so I am striking it. I do find jumping into AFDs as a new account to be unusual (but not in the scope of WP:SPA), but it is possible the user created a new account for legitimate purposes (e.g. forgot password). Frank Anchor 13:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Shawn Teller and JoelleJay; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. Akevsharma (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I added SPA tags to the two above accounts, although I'll note the IP is dynamic so might have contributed elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  No one has demonstrated how the coverage here, which stems exclusively from reporting on transaction announcements, actually goes beyond the routine material from local outlets expected for players at this level. Transactional coverage falls under NOTNEWS: routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage and is additionally described in ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.

  Sports orgs distribute announcements of transfers, injuries, etc. to the media (via press releases containing player stats and history, press conferences, and interviews) with the express purpose of promoting their players/clubs. If such material was acceptable for establishing GNG/BASIC, players with signings, transfers, and injuries in non-FPL leagues would always have warranted a page (potentially without ever even playing a match!) under NFOOTY, which was supposed to be calibrated to (a very weak version of) GNG. And yet some of the same editors advocating to keep here regularly !voted to delete such players under that regime. NSPORT2022 didn't change GNG, so why are the routine transactional announcements dismissed[26] for so long by NFOOTY now suddenly evidence of GNG?

  As an aside, all the non-quoted content in #8 is actually identical to the routine contract announcement published in the same small-town paper by their dedicated Stamford AFC reporter 9 days earlier (itself derived from whichever statement released by delighted Daniels official prompted this announcement from Evo-Stik), so it actually does fall under transactional news. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing this up, as it makes me reconsider my assertions above. Frank Anchor 16:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. This BLP is exclusively a list of routine sporting transactions, cited exclusively with routine sporting news. The only information we get about the person comes in a single interview. For whatever reason, users may cast wild and unfortunate aspersions against User:JoelleJay and her source analysis, but nobody in this process has successfully challenged her assertions. BusterD (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - "The only information we get about the person comes in a single interview"... clearly based on the page there is a decent amount of information about the person that comes from a variety of different sources (after I literally spent an couple hours doing WP:HEY and vastly expanding this article), many of which are not just routine sporting transactions. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep the posted sources above establish notability. I disagree with JoelleJay’s analysis of the sources no matter how much WP:BLUDGEONing this user does to try to get their point across. I agree with Frank Anchor’s above analysis of the sources presented by Das osmnezz in that there is enough significant coverage to slightly pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Juniper Publishers

Juniper Publishers (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 · NYT · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Right now there is no WP:ATD unless a section is added to list companies at Predatory publishing HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep well-known and well-criticized in multiple independent reliable sources predatory publishing group. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. While several sources are blogs, they nevertheless are reliable sources as they are published by well-known experts. Sources mentioned in the article make this pass WP:GNG. Listing publishers like this in an article on predatory publishing or even a category "predatory publishers" has been discussed in the past and was rejected. --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Telangana and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH, unreliable and primary sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Headbomb and Randykitty. As I said on a related AfD: I can follow the WP:NCORP concerns, but that guideline is fundamentally about preventing Wikipedia from being used as an advertising platform, whereas documenting shady publishers is anti-advertising. Making the evidence that a publisher is shady harder to find would be doing a public disservice. WP:NCORP warns against using routine coverage, but documenting that a publisher is predatory or disreputable is not routine in the sense of annual earnings reports, participation in trade shows, etc. Moreover, WP:NCORP has an explicit note about duplicitous conduct: it observes that an organization might have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct, fail to qualify as notable by NCORP specifically, and yet be notable by other guidelines. The conduct here is not alleged to be illegal, but it is alleged to be bad behavior, and the same ethos applies. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails GNG. My analysis of the sources is below (based on source numbering in the article as of this diff):

1 - Primary source.

2 - Not WP:SIGCOV.

3 - Just appears on a list of potential predatory publishers. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

4 - Personal blog written by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian known for coining the concept of predatory publishers. There's some decent analysis and discussion of Juniper here so, although it is a personal blog, this appears to be a reliable source.

5 - Primary.

6 - Primary.

7 - Just lists of editors for various journals. Not WP:SIGCOV, and primary.

8 - No mention of Juniper.

9 - Primary.

10 - Juniper appears once in a table of results. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

11 - Personal blog written by DH Kaye. Juniper is discussed in some detail here, although I do not think that Kaye's self-published blog post on this topic counts as a reliable source (see below).

12 - Personal blog written by Jerry Coyne. Juniper is mentioned only once (in an email address) and then a few times in the comments. The tone of the blog is more 'what the hell is this?' than an analysis of Juniper, which limits its use as a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. Also, I doubt that Coyne's personal blog counts as a reliable source on the topic of predatory publishers (see below).

13 - Personal blog written by Elisabeth Bik, based on an earlier Twitter thread. Although this post is discussing various papers published in Juniper journals - and Juniper thus gets some passing mentions - Juniper itself gets very little direct attention. I am also not convinced that Bik's personal blog on this topic is a reliable source (see below).

14 - Juniper mentioned in passing as the publisher of the journal being discussed. Not WP:SIGCOV.

15 - Verifying someone's position; nothing to do with Juniper.

16 - Discusses one of Juniper's journals in depth, but Juniper itself only gets a passing mention.

17 - A lengthy discussion of predatory journals and academic hoaxes, but no mention of Juniper - the only passing relevance is that some of Juniper's journals are discussed.

18 - Part 2 of the previous source; same as above.

In all, I make that one independent reliable source (#4) giving significant coverage to Juniper, which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. I should make a comment on some of the other blog posts, since Randykitty argues that they nevertheless are reliable sources as they are published by well-known experts. This applies specifically to sources #11, #12, and #13. WP:RSSELF says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Kaye, Coyne and Bik are certainly experts in their respective fields but I do not think that this means they have expertise in the field of predatory publishing (which Beall, by contrast, does have). As a result, I do not think we should count these personal blogs as reliable sources for the purposes of WP:GNG. If there were additional reliable and independent sources, then we could perhaps use these blog posts to evidence how academics in various disciplines have responded to Juniper (and in this sense they'd become more like primary sources) but I do not think we can use them to determine notability. WJ94 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

These are plenty reliable sources, those you dismiss as blogs are all valid as expert blogs (particularly those of Beall, Bik and Kaye, all three specialize in predatory journals). Also not all sources are there for purposes of WP:N, many are there simply for WP:V. Likewise, discussion one/several of their journals, as in 14/16/17 is a de-facto discussion of the publisher as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the Beall blog is a reliable source; to pass WP:GNG we'd then need at least one further reliable source.

You suggest that Bik and Kaye specialise in predatory journals. If they are established experts in this area then I'd be happy to accept that their blogs are reliable sources. According to WP:RSSELF, the way to determine whether a the author of a self-published source is an expert in a field is to look at whether they have also published on the topic on independent reliable publications. Have Bik and Kaye done this on the topic of predatory journals? If they have and I've missed this then I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote, so could you point me to anything which would establish their expertise?

With regards to sources 14/16/17, I disagree that discussion of one of Juniper's journals is de facto discussion of Juniper themselves. Notability is not inherited, so just because something associated with Juniper (such as one of their journals) is notable it does not mean that Juniper itself is notable.

Finally, with regards to your comment about sources being used for WP:V rather than WP:N - that's fine but not what is at issue here. I'm not necessarily advocating for the removal of any of these sources, I just wanted to go through them to work out which ones would meet WP:GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• INHERITED does not enter into this. It's a publisher who determines how the general running of their journals is done (for example, how peer review is handled, so this is different from editorial policy), so if any discussion of this for a publisher's journals reflects, as Headbomb says, de facto on the publisher itself. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Randykitty. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, then. To my mind, discussion of a specific journal does not confer notability to that journal's publisher. In the same way, if a minor book publisher published a book which received a lot of coverage, the book would be notable but I wouldn't say that its publisher automatically was too, without the publisher itself being discussed in reliable sources. Or to use another example, the manufacturer of a notable product is not necessarily notable (per WP:INHERIT). The manufacturer will have a significant input into how the product is deigned, made, quality-controlled, marketed, etc (just as the publisher determines the general running of a journal) - even so, without reliable secondary sources about the manufacturer specifically, they would not be notable. WJ94 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Have Bik and Kaye done this on the topic of predatory journals?" Elisabeth Bik's most famous for dealing with shady shit in journals and won prizes for it. Kaye is an Emeritus professor specializing in ensuring scientific validity in courts and other legal contexts. If he says something is shady, it's not a random guy on Twitter. See also another source I added [27]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost all of the article seems to be designed to confirm that this is a predatory publisher. As such it is worth mentioning in an article about predatory publishers, but doesn't merit an article of its own. Athel cb (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Any article on any predatory publisher would be appear to be "designed to confirm that this is a predatory publisher." because that's what predatory publishers are known for. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think that one can say that "Bik and Kaye specialise in predatory journals". For Kaye, I don't know, but Elisabeth Bik's emphasis in her recent work is on detecting fakery in published papers, often in serious journals like Nature. Predatory journals are certainly relevant, but her concerns are more general than that. Athel cb (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Austin Publishing Group

Austin Publishing Group (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 · NYT · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Right now there is no WP:ATD unless a section is added to list companies at Predatory publishing HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep well-known and well-criticized in multiple independent reliable sources predatory publishing group. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Any examples? Anything I saw was a brief mention only. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Flaky Academic Journals is a blog by David H. Kaye, an exceptionally well-regarded professor at Penn State Law and easily passes meets the criteria for expert blogs. The in-depth Beall's list information is at Beall's blog here. Likewise individually these sources might not cover Austin in depth, but collectively they paint a picture. E.g. doi:10.35122/001c.13267 details that APG violates consent, engages in plagiarism and journal hijacking, pretends to be located in the US while there are actually based in India. This is substantially more than an in-passing mention. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Good points but for me, I disagree that those mentions meet the criteria for in-depth coverage on *this* company and fails the criteria, etc. In my opinion, a list of companies accused of being a Predatory publisher belongs either their or in a separate list. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Enough sources in the article to make this pass WP:GNG. Listing publishers like this in an article on predatory publishing or even a category "predatory publishers" has been discussed in the past and was rejected. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• There are currently 12 sources in the article. Three are primary from the website. The others are as follows:

• Flaky Academic Journals is a blog, fails as a WP:RS
• Beall's List is just that, a list. No in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
• Canadian Journal of Surgery contains in Table 1 "Summary of phishing emails" 45 companies including the topic company. No in-depth information provided, fails CORPDEPTH
• American Academy of Opthalmology article "Predatory Publishing: Shedding Light on a Deceptive Industry" contains an extract from Cabell's Journal Blacklist which lists the topic company. No in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
• The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity paper entitled "Unmasking the Hunter: An Exploration of Predatory Publishing" analyses soliciting emails for journals and there are several mentions of journals related to the topic company. There is some classification on the soliciting journals but there is really no in-depth information or analysis on the company itself. Fails CORPDEPTH.
• National Library of Medicine published "Not All Young Journals Are Predatory" lists, in Table 5, one of the groups journals but fails to provide any further mention of the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
• Science article doesn't even mention the topic company.
• Business Insider article mentions "Austin Addiction Sciences" in passing, fails CORPDEPTH

None of the sources in the article meet GNG/NCORP criteria, nor is there a quantitative criteria of "enough sources" (which are nothing more than mentions). In a previous discussion some years ago, you said that the vast majority of predatory publishers were non-notable and including a list of all publishers would likely overwhelm any article - well it appears this company is one of the non-notable ones. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH, unreliable sources, some brief mention and irrelevant sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep The sources look reliable and on-point enough to me. I can follow the WP:NCORP concerns, but that guideline is fundamentally about preventing Wikipedia from being used as an advertising platform, whereas documenting shady publishers is anti-advertising. Making the evidence that a publisher is shady harder to find would be doing a public disservice. WP:NCORP warns against using routine coverage, but documenting that a publisher is predatory or disreputable is not routine in the sense of annual earnings reports, participation in trade shows, etc. Moreover, WP:NCORP has an explicit note about duplicitous conduct: it observes that an organization might have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct, fail to qualify as notable by NCORP specifically, and yet be notable by other guidelines. The conduct here is not alleged to be illegal, but it is alleged to be bad behavior, and the same ethos applies. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Your argument has merit but is misplaced. I agree this type of information is useful in aggregate but a list of Predatory publishing companies rightly belongs on that page, not for each company to have their own page in circumstances where those companies aren't notable in their own right. In this case it seems to me that if a list of companies was rejected at the topic page then you should take this argument to there. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

    a list of Predatory publishing companies rightly belongs on that page No it does not. There are literally thousands of such companies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Well whatever the answer, creating individual articles on companies that don't meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability certainly isn't it. The statement about the guidelines being "fundamentally about preventing Wikiepdia from being used as an advertising platform" has some merit but ultimately (and also fundamentally) the guidelines aren't about that, but simply guidelines containing the criteria for establishing notability of any company or organization or product. The impression I'm getting with this article is that it is to serve a purpose, to highlight that the company is regarded as a predatory publisher, as a public service. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Providing the information that a publisher is predatory doesn't advocate any particular course of action be taken about it. It's informing, not soapboxing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree - if that company is notable to begin with. My point is that this article has been created *solely* because it is seen as some sort of "public service" to highlight predatory publishers. That's advocacy and soapboxing. We have analysis of predatory publishing in general including the techniques used, we have hundreds of companies named under various categories classified according to their activities. We have blogs containing lists of companies. All great material for the Predatory publishing topic. But none of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" about this company and the arguments being put forward to Keep the topic are simply ignoring that fact. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's plenty of in-depth coverage. You just don't want to recognize it for some reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I can see there's plenty of in-depth coverage on predatory publishing but I don't see in-depth "Independent Content" on this company. I've read the blog posts and the other pieces. Sure, if you ignore WP:SIRS and combine them together we have something decent. But I don't see how any individual source meets GNG/NCORP criteria. Point to a specific source/section/paragraph which you believe meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia as a whole is a "public service". If an article here wasn't written out of ego, it was written because somebody thought the world would benefit from it. We have too much information on predatory publishing for it to all fit into one article; the sensible alternative is to organize that information by the natural unit, the publisher. XOR'easter (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sure, and lots of advocates and editors with strong views would say the exact same thing. Not ego-driven, public good, world will benefit, etc, etc. I've no problem with an article on a particular publisher, I'm simply pointing out that the sources fail GNG/NCORP and for that reason, this topic does not appear to meet our criteria for establishing notability. After that it has become clear from this AfD that there's a different motive than "notability" at play in arguing to Keep this topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there were, so what? The question of what to include in an encyclopedia that covers all human activities and how to organize that material can't always be reduced to a set of bullet points. That said, the argument above is (a) that GNG is met and (b) the caveats and subtleties acknowledged by NCORP make room for this. For example, NCORP advises In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. Journal publishers, predatory or otherwise, are known for the journals they publish. Accordingly, coverage of specific journals should be attached to the publisher unless those individual journals have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy. NCORP supports the position that the publisher is the natural unit, and so any CORPDEPTH concerns about sources that discuss the journals rather than the publisher aren't really germane. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Right now, the article only mentions one journal, the "Austin Addiction Sciences" journal because it has a fake scientist on its board. Are you proposing that this article should be rewritten to focus and include coverage of specific journals under the umberella of the publisher instead of attempting to establish the publisher as notable based on information about the company? If so, I like it. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak delete Many of the sources do not even mention the publisher or list specific journals. I only see two good sources that include this publisher (Bramstedt KA. 2020. Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity. 2(1). DOI: 10.35122/001c.13267) and (McKenzie M, Nickerson D, Ball CG. Predatory publishing solicitation: a review of a single surgeon's inbox and implications for information technology resources at an organizational level. Can J Surg. 2021 Jun 9;64(3):E351-E357. doi: 10.1503/cjs.003020. PMID: 34105930; PMCID: PMC8327997), but there isn't any more about the journal than is in the article here and neither are specifically about this publisher. The connection between this publisher to the Dr. Dog incident is only made in a blog post. The possibly reliable sources listed about that incident don't name the publisher or the journal.

I agree that it would be good for Wikipedia to be a place where people can come to check if a journal is legit. I just can't think of a good way to do that. Lamona (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"Many of the sources do not even mention the publisher or list specific journals" literally all sources (save Science, which I've now removed) mention APG or one of their journals.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, you are correct and I apologize - I missed some of the references to the Austin publications. The problem that I still see is that the only in-depth sources about Austin are their own sources and Beale's blog. The latter should not be considered a reliable source, IMO. Not only is it the un-reviewed thoughts of a single person, he was known for expressing some pretty prejudiced views. The other articles list one or more Austin publications but don't say much specifically about them. I'm still leaning delete. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Beall pointed out some of the nefarious consequences of open-access publishing and for that some OA zealots claimed him to be biased/prejudiced. However, he was careful in his evaluations of publishers and if shown to be in error (like with MDPI, for example, not really predatory but bottom-of-the-barrel anyway) he changed his opinion. I find his blog reliable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Today, two references were added, one from the Irish Times, one from the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. This adds to the previous references, Canadian Journal of Surgery, The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity, Eynet (from the American Academy of Ophtalmology), The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, and Business Insider Australia. Kjalarr (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Added one more reference, a position statement from American College of Clinical Pharmacology, published in Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development. Kjalarr (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In all of these the name of an Austin journal is given in a list of journals, but there is no further information about the Austin publisher or its journals. In the list of "Representative publishers" in the Pharmacology journal it is one of about 20 such publishers. I rather doubt that more mentions of this type will help establish notability. Lamona (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I partially agree, but also have some objections. The cited sources provide characterizations of Austin publishing group as fraudulent, predatoy, incompetent, or opportunistic. Indeed, they do not contain extensive or in-depth descriptions of that publisher, and some mention Austin publishing group only in a list. Nevertheless, the academic sources seemingly base their judgements on careful analysis, and the anecdotal evidence was published in several newspapers. Moreover, the fact that so many sources see themselves obliged to deal with Austin publishing group, might be considered as a hint to a degreee of relevance also sufficient for a WP entry. Kjalarr (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kjalarr: presumably you mean to support a keep position? If so, would you mind stating it explicitely? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb:Thank you very much for your notice, but since I created the discussed article, my keep vote might be considered partisan. Kjalarr (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails GNG and, ORGCRIT, NCORP. Looking at the sources, I see brief mentions, primary, nothing that meets SIGCOV from Ind RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. The keep !vs above have words and opinions, but not sources showing notability. HighKing has responded to keeps with an eval of the sources, showing these are mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  11:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Flaky Academic Journals and Scholarly Open Access are both direct and in depth discussions of APG. These, plus the vast ammount of coverage of individual journals are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply: The sources you mention [28] and [29] are blog posts. A very detailed blog posts, but they still are opinion without the needed editorial oversight to meet notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  22:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

    Opinions of qualified experts, see WP:EXPERTSPS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    You just linked to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable which is a redirect from WP:EXPERTSPS and provided no references to show the above blogs meet the criteria.  // Timothy :: talk  02:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Jeffrey Beall is the librarian that coined the term 'predatory journal's and literally every academic publications on predatory journals cites him, his blog, and his various peer-reviewed publications. Likewise DH Kaye is an Emeritus Professor at Penn State that specialized in scientific standards of proof, author of several books and chapters on the topic. His blog is routinely included in resources to help researchers find predatory journals (e.g. https://libguides.csun.edu/predatory_publishing) and is also routinely cited. These are as experty as it gets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    By that logic any publisher/journal will become "notable" if they are in their blog. No thanks.  // Timothy :: talk  10:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Here is the list of 1066 journals / publishers on Bealls list, [30]. Flaky has 206 articles on journals / publishers.[31]. Inclusion on their blogs does not make these journals / publishers notable.  // Timothy :: talk  10:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. I get a lot of emails from Austin Publishing Group, which I mostly discard unread, so I'm familiar with them. It's a very similar case to that of Juniper (above). Worth mentioning in a list of predatory publishers, but not worth its own article. Athel cb (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above comment - a publishing company being 'predatory' doesn't necessarily confer notability upon it - and where that company is a small and marginal one, even more so. Disintermediation is inevitable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete the publishing company is not notable via the avaialbe half-reliable sources. Rodgers V (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour

Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour (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 · NYT · TWL)

Procedural nomination, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know that a procedural nomination was necessary here, as the subject was previously redirected due to a longstanding absence of citations, whereas my restoration of the article was accompanied by the addition of about a dozen citations, and a fleshing out of what happened with ZZ Top's end of the tour after Aerosmith bowed out. On its merits, I think this should be kept as a concert tour that is specifically notable for the well-sourced number of things that went awry. BD2412 T 02:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Lamin Massaquoi

Lamin Massaquoi (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Delete No sources found from my search. Fails GNG. Carpimaps (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Leland Milling Company

Leland Milling Company (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 · NYT · TWL)

A company that appears not to have been subject to substantial 3rd party coverage. The one source of historical information is in the form of a one-page personal reminiscence in a local paper; everything else is either primary or WP:Run-of-the-mill, and I'm not turning up anything better. Not seeing a notable subject here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Merge. Either a sentence or two into Spanish Fork, Utah on it being presumably one of the oldest established businesses in the area, or more of the article into Leland, Utah, which is a stub. My searches haven't been productive in establishing notability for the business. Rupples (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see much notability here or good sources. And the page is created by WP:SPA even using his userpage as a backup, so COI isn't off the table, too. Speaking about merging, I'd also consider Archibald Gardner. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Additional 3rd party reference added. Plaidchampion (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Plaidchampion, do NOT mess with the AfD template or add spurious AfD messages to the talk page. An admin or uninvolved user will close this discussion and determine the outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As for the additional sources: you added two business directory entries. Hey ho. These do nothing to demonstrate notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. The phone directory listings don't contribute to notability, but taken together the news articles from KSL radio and television and from Spanish Fork Press (posted on the Daily Herald website) seem sufficiently detailed to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Response As per WP:SIRS, we don't combine sources or aggregate sources in order to establish notability, each individual source must meet all the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. Although this is an old business, I am still unable to find a single source that comes close to meeting the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, the KSL radio article is very obviously a paid piece of churnalism, it is incredibly promotional. Spanish Fork, Utah is a small town of less than 50,000 people, meaning it is highly unlikely that its local newspaper is a reliable source. As a result, this company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider a possible Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete It's a local feed mill, not unlike any hundred of other ones. It will have some mentions in the local press, but nothing that makes it stand out from any other feed mill. If the building was a registered historical site, it could perhaps have an article, but the business isn't. And a phone book listing to prove notability is about as far away from GNG as we can be. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Indeed, a feed mill. Sourcing insufficient to stand up the article let alone prove a GNG pass, which it doesn't. AFAICS the company's premises is not the original 1890s building, either, so the historical angle doesn't really play. "Leland Milling Company continues to create opportunities for their animal feed to be available" is a nice testament to the power of capitalism, but this is not a notable company per WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Anna Buturlina

Anna Buturlina (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 · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Nswix (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Has 4 other pages and her photo is even available on here. Not to mention that she has a variety of sources listed. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment You know that having other Wikipedia pages proves nothing, and doesn't establish notability. Nswix (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: significant coverage in reliable sources, even if little in English-language ones. Moonraker (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as other users have pointed out. I think the page should be improved with a deep dive into Russian-language sources. It appears that the OP has not adequately explained reasoning apart from claiming it fails GNG, but not even saying why, which is unfortunate to see.Historyday01 (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Note to closer, working on a source assessment table, need a couple of hours  // Timothy :: talk  13:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. It is painfully obvious the keep voters above did not read the sources or do a BEFORE. They present no sources, just make claims and attack the nom. Here is an assessment of the sources in the article:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:TimothyBlue
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Анна Бутурлина" (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-07-25.			promotion	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина: "Не могу заниматься простыми вещами"". www.muzklondike.ru. Retrieved 2018-03-23.			promotion, interview	✘ No
"Блиц-интервью накануне концерта: певица Анна Бутурлина о трех котах и джазе". m24.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-03-23.			promotion, interview	✘ No
""Летний джаз для большой компании". Звёзды российского и мирового джаза" (in Russian). www.meloman.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotion, lists name.	✘ No
Анна Бутурлина: Джазовое «меньшинство» тонет в массовой культуре!			promotion interview	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина, биография, лучшие записи, ближайшие концерты, фото и видео, сайт, Вокал			promotion	✘ No
"Диксиленд" (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotion	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина - "Осторожно "". Новости шоу бизнеса и музыки NEWSmuz.com (in Russian). 2018-03-31. Retrieved 2018-06-21.	?	?	Brief promotional review of album, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	✘ No
"ДжейДи Уолтер: Цель музыканта - привлечь людей, а не отпугнуть — Пенза-пресс". www.penza-press.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			Interview with another person, they list several names, including subject, but just the name.	✘ No
"Как российская певица стала звездой мультфильмов". Дни ру. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotional interview	✘ No
McPhee, Ryan (2020-02-10). "Watch Idina Menzel and 9 Fellow Elsas Sing Frozen 2's 'Into the Unknown' at the Oscars". Playbill. Retrieved 2020-02-10.			names is listed with dozens of others, nothing about the subject.	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина: «Чем больше любви вы дарите, тем больше её становится!» - "Игры и Игрушки" №3-2018" (in Russian). www.i-igrushki.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			promotional interview	✘ No
"Как звезды отдохнули во время майских праздников". www.womanhit.ru. Retrieved 2018-06-21.			Does not mention the subject.	✘ No
Принцесса джаза Анна Бутурлина			WordPress login page, nothing more.	✘ No
""Осторожно "музыка"" Анны Бутурлиной покажет совместимость джаза и русского языка". 2018-01-22. Retrieved 2018-03-02.			promotional quotes and album info.	✘ No
"Анна Бутурлина прокомментировала выход своего диска на фирме "Мелодия"			promotional, written by subject.	✘ No
"Новый альбом "Ключ от королевства" Анны Бутурлиной			promotional	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

All of the sources above are promotional, if they mention the subject. BEFORE in English and Russian showed only more promotions, listings, interviews. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need reliable sourcing. This might even qualify for a speedy delete, there are not Ind RS for notability. This is basically an unsourced BLP.  // Timothy :: talk  14:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete. We have zero sources in the table we can use, and I can't find any. Nothing notable here I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The only mentions I find is when she joined the other versions of the her character from Frozen onstage at one point to sing a song. It's something, but not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Otto Oeldenberger

Otto Oeldenberger (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 · NYT · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the six references included, four of them are sports database entries, and the other two are passing mentions. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but was returned immediately without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Played in the 1931 German football championship and was on the 1940–41 Gauliga Bayern winning team. Nearly every current member of the team has an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSV_1860_Munich#Players), so it's odd that they would be relevant, yet this person wouldn't. Obviously, there's limitations on sources due to being old and in another language. Use Common Sense and Wikipedia:The rules are principles applies. This is one of 3 articles OP has tried to delete of mine today so, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole. Doesn't seem to answer Wikipedia:The one question. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  As previously discussed in multiple locations, participation based notability standards were removed as part of WP:NSPORTS2022. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Definitely has offline sources having had extensive career in 1920s-40s including top flight professional football in Germany. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oeldenberger is mentioned in Legenden in Weiß und Blau. 100 Jahre Fußballgeschichte eines Münchner Traditionsvereins and it says the following on him (translated): "Otto Oeldenberger, who had just outgrown his own youth, made his debut in the first team in September 1928. He was initially seen as Sebastian Gabler's successor on the left wing, but that didn't work out and he moved to the left half-forward position in the following years. In the final match against Hertha BSC, he scored the opening goal for the Lions. He had actually already retired after the 1933/34 season, but was persuaded to continue in 1935 due to the difficult sporting situation at 1860. Although actually only in the Altherren team (seniors' team) of the Lions active, he also stood in for players in the first years of World War II again and again, if not enough players were available." BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Played in a top German team, multiple offline sources exist, information on German wiki, Govvy (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Some people are voting simply based off participation but the participation based criteria (WP:NFOOTY) was deprecated based on WP:NSPORTS2022. This has all the same issues as Fritz Neumayr did. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per above references in Legenden in Weiß und Blau. 100 Jahre Fußballgeschichte eines Münchner Traditionsvereins.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: BLP with no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fail GNG, NSPORT, NSPORTS2022. BLPs need completely clear and reliable sourcing: WP:SPORTBASIC Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources..  // Timothy :: talk  12:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't find the entry in a book dedicated to the history of his team to be substantial enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage doesn’t substantiate claims to notability and falls short of satisfying WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Per above. I don’t see enough SIGCOV to justify an article. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect to TSV 1860 Munich#Notable famous or former players. I feel like there should be better coverage of a player who spent two decades in high-level German football, but there isn't, and WP:NFOOTY isn't a thing anymore. As a longtime former player, his name is a reasonable search term and he is included in this section (and other players without articles are included in this section as well, so there is no need to remove his name from that list if the article is deleted/redirected). Frank Anchor 13:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the entry in Legenden in Weiß und Blau isn't SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Uwe Bengs

Uwe Bengs (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 · NYT · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the six references included, three of them are sports database entries, one is a passing mention. The other two are books, one of which is available on Google Books, but a search of this player's last name resulted in 0 results. However, the book seems to be simple listings of teams, with no in-depth coverage of players. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but was returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Played for a top division team. This is one of 3 articles OP has tried to delete of mine today, so Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole. Doesn't seem to answer Wikipedia:The one question, since deleting three articles provides less information. Use Common Sense applies towards source concerns and Wikipedia:The rules are principles KatoKungLee (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, you moved the article back to mainspace with no improvements and wrote on your edit summary Please create an AfD if there's an issue. so having a pop at Onel for essentially taking your advice is quite disingenuous and doesn't paint a fair picture of the situation at this AfD. For what it's worth, I was shortly going to AfD this myself anyway for the same reasons. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

All 3 articles were marked as drafted without any outside opinions on the situation. It's better to do it publicly here where we can get multiple points of view.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Definitely has offline sources having had extensive career in 1950s-70s including top flight professional football in Germany. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• The German Wikipedia has a more decent article and lists several offline sources as references:

Deutsches Sportecho: Jahrgänge 1962–1974. ISSN 0323-8628

Hanns Leske: Enzyklopädie des DDR-Fußballs. Verlag Die Werkstatt, Göttingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-89533-556-3, S. 68.

Andreas Baingo, Michael Horn: Die Geschichte der DDR-Oberliga. 2. Auflage. Verlag Die Werkstatt, Göttingen 2004, ISBN 3-89533-428-6, S. 335.

• I'd be quite shocked if a top-level player with a 20-year career didn't have sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Encyclopedia of East German football only has strict stats for Bengs, no prose. Do we have evidence any of the other sources provide more than a laundry list of his league appearances (which is all his de.wp article is)? JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per de:Uwe Bengs another truly shocking AfD. Govvy (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV while appearing to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Participation is not enough to establish notability (per WP:NSPORTS2022 and the removal of WP:NFOOTY) and votes based on such should be ignored. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per sources listed on German Wikipedia, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. The German page is exclusively a prose list of which teams he was on and how many games he played and doesn't reference a single piece of secondary independent commentary. A snippet: In the 1963/64 season, the Neubrandenburgers managed to get promoted to the East German Oberliga, in which Bengs was involved with nine appearances. For the 1964/65 premier league season, in which the BSG was converted into the Neubrandenburg sports club, Bengs was again only a replacement for Jüsgen and only played one premier league game. SC Neubrandenburg was relegated from the Oberliga after just one year, and Bengs returned to BSG Empor Neustrelitz, which had just been relegated from the DDR-Liga. A biography based solely on that material is not encyclopedic as it does not contain any secondary analysis. Absent sources identified as SIGCOV, the article does not meet any notability criteria, in particular the clear requirement of NSPORT that a definite SIGCOV source be cited in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: BLP with no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fail GNG, NSPORT, NSPORTS2022. Nothing in the article is SIGCOV, BEFORE showed stats, database entries, listings. As nom mentioned the book refs do not mention the subject. The sources on de wikipedia mentioned above are brief mentions. BLPs need completely clear and reliable SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  12:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG per above and nom. I must say, referring people to the German page as a keep argument is interesting as that page is in a shocking state. The usual post WP:NFOOTY confusion applies, one suspects. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - I've followed this discussion since the beginning and it's becoming increasingly clear that there is no evidence that this person has ever been the subject of significant coverage in any language. As with all similar cases, the deletion should be done without prejudice against restoration if someone, at a later time, does produce SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)