Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16

< June 15 June 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free license (disambiguation)

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

Procedural nomination. Change of venue from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Free license (disambiguation). The original rationale is: WP:ONEOTHER —Alalch E. 22:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I wish we had this much participation in more AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Yours

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

Disputed draftfication. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. As state by Rambley, "All sources cited are unreliable" in their AFC comment present in this permalink. Fails WP:NALBUM. fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detagged as it has been previously tagged and contested. My !vote remains Speedy Delete. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunview, Indiana

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

The maps show this to be a NN mid-century suburban development. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Özer Türkmen

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

The article has been unsourced for over a decade, and I haven't been able to find any sources that cover the subject or suggest that it existed at all. The only existing references point to Wikipedia itself. The page was PRODed unsuccessfully, so I am resorting to an AfD. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro (born 1944)#Marriage and children. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Petrovitch Njegosh

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Montenegrin throne (deleted 31 August 2020). Missing WP:SIGCOV since creation in 2006. I found no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS (Google Scholar, Google Books, other language versions of Wikipedia), just a few monarchist blogs that don't cite sources either, meaning these articles don't pass WP:GNG. Most cites are about which orders of chivalry families descended from abolished royal and noble houses have given each other, which these days amounts to little more than giving each other a shoutout on social media. It seems Njegosh just has a job as an architect/artist in France, and is happy with it. There is no clear indication Njegosh has ambitions to claim the Montenegrin throne (his father didn't either), or that his existence has had any significant political or cultural impact other than being born from a-line-of-people-that-used-to-be-important-100+years ago, and a fringe monarchist interest group getting excited about that. So here we go: WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTINHERITED. NLeeuw (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a soft deletion due to the previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmas Muteti

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this marathon runner to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. All I found were routine race reports like 1, 2, and 3. I tried tagging the article and engaging the creator on their talk page; both edits were reverted. JTtheOG (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOGI've removed the tags as I believe all the athlete articles I created meet WP:N. If you disagree, feel free to delete them. Wieditor25 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were informed here that NTRACK only tells us that coverage may exist. You proceeded to revert my edits instead of engage in a good-faith discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG I've removed the tags, as I do not agree with your assessment. Wieditor25 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wieditor25, it is unfortunate that you removed the tagging, as doing so really leaves editors no choice but to take the article to AfD. The tags are there to encourage a more relaxed hunt for sources and page improvement. When a page is tagged with a maintenance tag, there is this guidance: Help:Maintenance template removal in the template header. The first thing to do when your pages get tagged in the future is to take the matter to talk. Most editors do not want to hurry pages through deletion where there is any possibility the page is notable. But again, removing the tags without discussion or improvement pretty much guaranties a trip to AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(more of a dispute with NSPORT than disputing your comment) Honestly, coverage "may" exist for any topic at all. It makes no sense to have such criteria as NTRACK if every article one ever creates meeting it gets deleted unless multiple pieces of sigcov are instantly provided because "well, meeting it only means that coverage may exist (just like, for every topic that doesn't meet it, coverage may exist) – but since two Americans who English-Google-searched a Kenyan didn't find SIGCOV, that means it surely doesn't exist anywhere". BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was a staunch supporter of keeping NSPORT and refining it (Olympians getting deleted will never ever sit right with me), but I really don't see the point of keeping it if it now gets superseded by GNG. All it creates is confusion for new editors. Although to be fair, the creator can presumably also be added to the list of editors who searched for coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. De-personalizing the dispute with the article creator here, the sources exist and I found them. The subject is again also known by a different name: "Cosmas Matolo". See for example him being covered in NTV Kenya here (clip from full TV program): [1], in English prose here [2] and in German prose here: [3]
To the article creator, thank you for your contributions and three things I would advise going forward are to avoid bulleted lists in favor of prose in articles, to use the most common name for a subject (check Tilastopaja) and add redirects or alt names to the lede, and to include a prose-based coverage link when creating new articles. --Habst (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A live, 2-minute interview where the subject talks about himself; primary coverage in a WordPress blog; and a blurb by an Olympics committee, all from 2022, are clearly not acceptable sources for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, you know I have a lot of respect for your contributions. Could you strike the "2-minute interview where the subject talks about himself" part of your comment, because as mentioned previously the YouTube link is just a clip from a much longer program that includes both interview and non-interview parts about Mueti? There are other clips from the same programming here, here, and here. Also, none of the sources I linked are WordPress.com blogs -- if you just mean that one of them uses WordPress on the back-end, you know that the Vox News and Rolling Stone use WordPress on their backends as well so I don't see how that is relevant at all?
I would be happy to strike my comment and change my !vote if there's any evidence that the sources aren't notability-contributing, but as we've discussed previously these types of sources are usually exactly what we're looking for in AfDs. --Habst (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is still a primary, live interview where the subject talks about himself or the interviewee asks questions. Not secondary, not independent.
The Fast Running piece, which isn't SIGCOV regardless, is in fact an unattributed press release from Race News Service. JoelleJay (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Interviews can be used to establish notability as we've discussed before; per WP:IV they can be secondary, independent, and reliable. Taking a step back, WP:SPORTCRIT said before your change to it, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I think that the NTV Kenya piece is a good example of that significant coverage piece required; it's all about Muteti from a reliable source, so it's hard to imagine finding something more ideal than that. --Habst (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's "all about Muteti" talking about himself. It does not count toward SPORTCRIT because it is NOT INDEPENDENT OR SECONDARY. This is literally in your link to WP:IV: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. [...] Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source. This is getting tendentious. JoelleJay (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, hold up, are you now seriously suggesting that SPORTCRIT only requires coverage that is significant and reliable...............???? JoelleJay (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews can be notability-contributing (i.e., both independent and secondary) if they're published by a reliable source that provides analysis. If they can't, where in Wikipedia P&G is that stated? Even WP:PRIMARY says that an interview's status as primary depends on context. And I'm mostly relying on WP:N here, not just SPORTCRIT. In general, having significant reliable coverage certainly helps though.
Again, with the "tendentious" labeling, I urge you to treat me with respect as I have always done to you because I respect your contributions. --Habst (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The independent secondary analysis part of an interview can be contributory; the mere presence of such analysis does not render the entire interview secondary and independent. If the secondary analysis in an interview is not by itself SIGCOV then the source as a whole is non-contributory. This should be very clear from the numerous places in WP:PRIMARY stating things like They offer an insider's view of an event. JoelleJay (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I am eager to accept that but it isn't anywhere in P&G -- there's no reason to say the interview itself can't also be contributory to GNG. If we accept that only the text outside the interview can be notability-contributing, then... that isn't the interview, and doesn't pertain to WP:IV.
If a reliable independent news source with significant readership decides to interview a subject, that in itself means something as admins have affirmed in previous discussions. You're free to discount individual parts of an interview if you don't think they say anything about notability, but broadly construed interviews can be GNG-contributing depending on context as even WP:PRIMARY says. --Habst (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't understand what the term "interview" encompasses. Not worth wasting my time with this IDHT nonsense. JoelleJay (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be WP:CIVIL to me as I have always done to you because I appreciate your contributions. --Habst (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not have the required IRS SIGCOV. Sources identified above are variously deficient. JoelleJay (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is clearly notable. But Wikipedia’s system often biases against non-Western athletes who receive less mainstream press. Also some of the arguments for deletion seem overly rigid. That said, I found two new significant sources. MyBestRuns covers his Vienna 2022 win in details. And another significant coverage by SWA, which reports his 2018 Bali Marathon win, including some of his quotes. Both sources are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. Wieditor25 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All the sources, including the two mentioned above, just tell us about race results. Official results listings are clearly primary. News reporting is primary too. Many of the sources are not independent, and there is nothing approaching SIGCOV here. What is lacking is any secondary source at all that significantly covers the subject such that a page can be written without editor synthesis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, thanks. I respect your opinions so can you take a look at e.g. 52:18 of https://ntvkenya.co.ke/sports/dissecting-long-distance-running-sport-on-ep-2/ for in-depth coverage on Muteti that goes beyond just listing race results (not an official result listing), is not primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and significant by virtue of its length? --Habst (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? "He's not competing but..." followed by how he did in 2 or 3 recent races. Primary news reporting on the marathon he is not competing in, and not SIGCOV. We are looking for sources we can write an article from. This is not one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your definition of "primary news" doesn't agree with WP:NEWSPRIMARY, which says that news coverage is often secondary if it provides analysis of the subject. Open to taking this to another venue to confirm your interpretation. --Habst (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose one of us might have a problem with the definition of primary news. There is no secondary analysis there, just reporting his times. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I updated the article to include the 2018 Singapore Marathon which he came in 4th in a Kenyan sweep but was unable to find SIGCOV so this article may very well be deleted. What I suggest is folks make use of Wikidata because as it currently stands, his entry does not document anything other than he his a Kenyan long-distance runner. S0091 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for contributing! This entry and others were auto created by Pi bot. Out of curiosity do you really see a clear notability concerns here? Also what percentage of notability criteria do you think he is currently missing: 0%, 50%, 100%,or no such kinds of breakdown? I am getting the impression that some editors and their supporters find it easier to delete articles than to create them. Wieditor25 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I thought it met the notability criteria, I would have !voted keep but none of the sources meet WP:GNG and obviously I did put in effort to try to find sources. And WP:AGF is a core guideline so don't make snarky comments about other editors. As for Wikidata, yes it was created by a bot but it does offer the opportunity to cover him and Wikidata does show up in Google searches when updated by a human. It is also used across Wikimedia projects, affiliates and user-groups so while consensus could be he does not meet English Wikipedia's criteria, he could meet another project's criteria so gives it a much better chance to be covered in another language. Also, for the record, what a person says about themselves, whether directly quoted or attributed to them (I.e. accord to so-and-so, so-and-so says, etc.), is primary as noted in the WP:OR policy, regardless of where it is published and does not contribute to notability. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for the input! Agree about WP:AGF, and I assume that applies to everyone involved. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point in spending time on this discussion. That said, some of the coverage goes beyond basic stats, results, mentions, or quotes, and I don't believe deletion is warranted here. Wieditor25 (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was redirect‎ to Palestine. Consensus that copying the page to another title was not in fact the correct process for a move. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Palestinian territories

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

This is a POVFORK of the Palestine article and I do not see why it should be kept. In all contexts, "Palestinian territories" refers to the State of Palestine or the Israeli occupation of it. Most of the references in this article either refer to the West Bank, Gaza Strip or State of Palestine. I support converting this page into a disambiguation or redirect. One view that I had seen from my discussion of a merge on the talk page was that this page should be kept because some countries do not see the State of Palestine as a sovereign country. I agree. However, I believe we should be creating a Legitimacy of the State of Palestine similar to the Legitimacy of the State of Israel page. We should choose the title for the page which WP:ASTONISHES the reader least. If a reader clicked on an article called the Occupied Palestinian Territories, they wouldn't expect to see an article about whether or not the State of Palestine is legitimate or not. Easternsahara (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Squaremoose (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Palestine as a FORK, POV and REDUNDANT. gidonb (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article talks about an important and specific part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that is not covered in Palestine. "Occupied Palestinian Terrtories" is also a notable and widely used term by the UN [4] and many media sources which refers to different things from just "Palestine". Some parts which is repeated from Palestine and off-topic can be fixed but not by deleting it. Hitomi (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the different things from just Palestine? You just contradict me, with no evidence. Organizations use it when they won't or can't recognize the state. Also you don't have enough edits so you can't participate in this debate Easternsahara (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I respectfully disagree with the assessment that this article is merely a POVFORK of the "Palestine" article. While related, "Occupied Palestinian territories" serves a distinct and necessary purpose, focusing on a specific legal and political concept that warrants its own detailed treatment.
Here's why I believe it should be kept:
  1. Distinct Scope and Terminology: The term "Occupied Palestinian territories" (OPT) is a widely recognized and specific legal term used by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, numerous international bodies, and a significant number of states. This article is dedicated to explaining the status, legal implications, and on-the-ground realities of these territories under occupation since 1967. This is a specific focus that goes beyond the general history, geography, or political aspirations covered in the broader "Palestine" article.
  2. International Law and Scholarly Focus: The article delves into the application of international humanitarian law, UN resolutions, and the opinions of international legal bodies regarding the occupation. This level of detail on a specific legal and political status cannot be adequately integrated into the "Palestine" article without making it unwieldy or diluting the specific focus on the occupation itself.
  3. Navigational Clarity: A reader specifically searching for information on the occupied status of these territories, the legal framework surrounding them, or the administrative divisions (e.g., Areas A, B, C) would naturally expect to find a dedicated article. Redirecting or disambiguating "Occupied Palestinian territories" would force readers to sift through a broader article to find this specific information, which violates the principle of least astonishment (WP:ASTONISH).
  4. Notability of the Concept: The concept of "Occupied Palestinian territories" is independently notable and verifiable through numerous reliable sources. It represents a significant ongoing geopolitical situation with specific legal and humanitarian dimensions.
  5. Complementary, Not Redundant: The "Occupied Palestinian territories" article complements the "Palestine" article. The latter describes the overarching entity, history, and aspirations, while the former provides critical detail on a specific, legally defined aspect of its current situation. This is akin to having articles on "Israel" and "Israeli-occupied territories" (should such an article exist and be deemed distinct).
  6. "Legitimacy" Page is a Separate Topic: While a "Legitimacy of the State of Palestine" page (similar to "Legitimacy of the State of Israel") could be a valuable addition, it addresses a fundamentally different question: the international recognition and sovereignty of the State of Palestine. This topic is distinct from the status of territories under military occupation, which is the core subject of the current article. The existence of one does not negate the need for the other.
Therefore, I advocate for the retention of this article as a distinct and necessary resource that addresses a specific, notable, and internationally recognized concept. Beautifullifepl (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Therefore, I advocate for the retention of this article as a distinct and necessary resource that addresses a specific, notable, and internationally recognized concept That is not how Wikipedian users reach a consensus. This is indeed, a FORK of Palestine and for some reason I find that your response looks like one from ChatGPT. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @Beautifullifepl Only has two edits and is therefore invalidated from the discussion. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Madigan

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

Fails WP:NBIO. IMDb and interviews do not establish notability. GTrang (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He directed Fight or Flight, a notable film that received independent coverage. WP:DIRECTOR, a notability guideline, indicates that "This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if: [...]The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series". The page can therefore be kept per the guideline.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ripe Banana Skins

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Did a search per WP:BEFORE and found nothing relevant in news nor books. Google only pops up music host sites. The only sources I found with specific coverage was [5] which reads like an advertisement and [6] which looks like it raises WP:UGC issues. The article is also entirely unsourced and the external links are either dead or were taken over. 🪷 nahida 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saura (Hinduism)

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

Cannot find any significant coverage in RSes. I've looked on Google Scholar, Google News and JSTOR. KnowDeath (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Saura sect is notable in its own. Its a dead sect of Brahmanism. See this pg. 767:

    Saura Hinduism is the branch of Hinduism in which the sun is worshipped as the principal deity.
    —Thomas J. Hopkins, Encyclopaedia of Oriental Philosophy and Religion.

    Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't even close to being enough material to make an article. The sources the author cites aren't specifically about Saura Hinduism either. KnowDeath (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Nobel laureates

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

WP:OR, most of the people on this list aren’t actually Muslim. Non notable list as noted on its talkpage. It contained unreliable references including Answers.com. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC) I’ll note last time it was nominated for deletion in a bundle 18 years ago and that was closed as delete. And then it was nominated again in a bundle with other articles three years ago and that was closed as no consensus. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider the most recent comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regarding the sources presented by Ideophagous:
    • The Forbes article is by a contributor; articles by Forbes contributors are generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON.
    • The SephardicU article is clearly LLM-generated.
    • The İLKE article has dubious editorial controls (it looks like a blog post) and its accuracy is also questionable. I cannot find any reliable sources stating that Moungi Bawendi is Muslim, or any interviews in which he identifies as such - only a few sources assuming that he must be Muslim because he is of Tunisian background. It is also about the narrower topic of Nobel-winning Muslim scientists, not all Muslim Nobel laureates.
Astaire (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the İLKE article says that Bawendi was born to Lebanese parents, which is simply wrong - his father was Tunisian and his mother was French. This source should not be treated as reliable. Astaire (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astaire I won't argue the sources themselves, since I looked them up on the fly (I didn't know about the Forbes contributor thing). My point is that the subject of "Muslim Nobel Prize winners" does get brought up in multiple sources and outlets overall (e.g. check here the paragraph that starts with "7. Search for excellence"; and also here), and it wouldn't be hard to find reliable sources that bring up the subject, especially since this is a list of notable persons, and not a specific topic about a specific object/person/organization, etc. Furthermore, it would make no sense to delete this article and keep the ones about Jewish and Christian Nobel Prizes. Either they should all be kept or all deleted. In the worst case (if it's not possible to show with RSes that any of the names mentioned are confessionally Muslim), the article can be changed to "List of Nobel laureates of Muslim heritage" or "List of Nobel laureates from MENA" or such. Other Wikipedia editions have a "List of Arab Nobel Prize Laureates" which can be equally controversial, unless "Arab" is defined in purely political terms (having the citizenship of one of the members of the Arab League). Ideophagous (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline here is WP:NLIST, which says that the topic of a list must have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The three sources above don't seem reliable to me, and the two new sources in your comment devote only a sentence each to the concept of "Muslim Nobel Prize winners", which doesn't seem like significant coverage to me (WP:SIGCOV). I am open to changing my mind if better sources can be found.
I haven't looked at the notability of the "Christian/Jewish/etc. Nobel Prize winners" lists, but if people have discussed the concept in reliable sources, then it is a worthy topic for an article. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Astaire (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official portraits of Donald Trump

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

Is the topic notable enough? We don't have individual pages for any of the other presidents' portraits. We already have a page about U.S. presidential portraits. Also WP:NTRUMP — we don't need an article on every single thing about Trump. GN22 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and... It actually does exist! We already have quite a few articles on portraits of presidents, and could probably have more. I'm usually on the side of deleting "trumpcruft" but this is fine imo. Sourcing is good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been quite a lot written about his portraits, especially the contrast between the first and second terms and the darkness of the second term portrait(s), which was also subsequently replaced. The citations are a bit overdone, and I wonder if there is any scholarly work on this yet. Metallurgist (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is clearly significant coverage from reliable sources for each of the portraits. Nominator's claim that there aren't individual articles for other presidents' portraits is false. I don't think this is a case of WP:TRUMPCRUFT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid deletion reason either. MidnightMayhem 09:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage has actually established, and as long as GNG is fulfilled, there is really no ground for an OSE or OSDE-based argument. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A President with Various Portraits of widespread notability, coverage and discussion should have a page dedicated to such images, Easy keep. Votefree (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Votefree's comment. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't have individual pages for any of the other presidents' portraits is not a good reason to delete this page. Might as well create articles that covers those portraits individually as well. Along similar lines, we also have Official White House portraits of Nancy and Ronald Reagan, Official White House portraits of Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Official White House portraits of Laura and George W. Bush. This article on Trump's portraits can eventually cover his White House portrait in the future as well. Keivan.fTalk 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree he’s done more than one and I think we should keep it. It’s irregular and probably should be documented. Yacob01 13:24, 22 June 2025 (AEST) Yacob01 (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pune bridge collapse

[edit]
2025 Pune bridge collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another everyday low fatality accident in India. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lojane

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

An "apparent" military engagement with no casualties and losses, in which one side withdrew "before the apparent engagement". Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG and can be summarized in a sentence or two at 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. Created by a blocked sockpuppet to boot. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, if the occurrence of the battle can't even be confirmed. --Local hero talk 19:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Samsunspor#Presidents. arguments for redirect prevailed (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Samsunspor presidents

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST, as it's just a list of non-notable people. Unnecessary WP:CFORK from main Samsunspor article, where all of the history section in this article could be merged instead (or a general article about the sports club rather than the football club created). Either way, this list is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Five Nights at Freddy's. The general consensus is that this is not notable now, but may become so later. I am closing as merge as preferable to draftification, because it keeps content in the mainspace for readers, and the content can of course be spun (back) out if/when more information comes out. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's: Secret of the Mimic

[edit]
Five Nights at Freddy's: Secret of the Mimic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The game has been out for a few days and hasn't received any critic reviews from reliable sources (Metacritic link) and all sourcing in the article is WP:VALNET sourcing or sites similar to it which cannot establish notability. I ran a BEFORE check to see if the game has been covered extensively by reliable sources, and all I came back with was this, which doesn't actually provide any significant coverage and doesn't contribute to WP:GNG. To further solidify this, searching for the game's title on WP:VG/SE doesn't turn up any results outside of mere announcements that the game exists. With not enough significant coverage, this fails the general notability guideline and I recommend a redirect back into Five Nights at Freddy's, per previous AFDs for non-notable games in the series, unless the game becomes notable in the future (see WP:TOOSOON). λ NegativeMP1 14:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why we can’t just delete the offending sources and put a thingy template that says that they need reliable sources Anonymousguy9593 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the reliable sources do not exist, and notability is a policy that individual games must meet in order to qualify for a separate article. λ NegativeMP1 04:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify this current version of the article, since it's quite likely that this entry in an already notable and well-known series will receive critical reviews and RS-coverage in the coming weeks. The main space term could be a redirect to Five Nights At Freddy's#Main series for now.
(Note: IGN sources have also been added to the article since it was nominated, which is considered a reliable source.) ApexParagon (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Houston

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Lots of search results for "Jessica Houston", but none appear to be this person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Ghitis

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

Badly formatted, is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page. Scientelensia (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Safar Khan Mandokhail

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

Was declined at AfC, moved to mainspace anyway. Was draftified, then moved back without improvement. Not nearly enough sourcing to pass GNG, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akkazai

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

Partisaniferus

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

Accidentally put the taxonomy template in the page itself IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindie Derseh Kassie

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT per User:JTtheOG Laura240406 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the speedy deletion to this Laura240406 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
subject meets: WP:NTRACK: Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., Diamond League / IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any Platinum or Gold World Athletics Label Road Races that are not explicitly mentioned above):
Won the 2021 San Sebastián Marathon
Finished 2nd at the 2022 Sanlam Cape Town Marathon Wieditor25 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's untenable without a piece of in-depth coverage about his person Geschichte (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte Subject's documented international wins and top finishes in sources like World Athletics and Olympics.com satisfy WP:NTRACK, establishing his notability under WP:GNG through significant, non-trivial athletic achievements.
These sources, while perhaps not "biographical" in the traditional sense, provide concrete, verifiable coverage of his significant athletic accomplishments. Wieditor25 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the part of the guideline that states All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NTRACK is not an argument that holds water in deletion discussions. And please don't bold words in your statement. Geschichte (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Svartner
    Per WP:N, "a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG), or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)."
    The subject meets WP:NTRACK#3 (an SNG), so notability is established. Wieditor25 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NTRACK states that Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below: We are trying to identify wether that coverage exists, in English or Amharic or any other language. JTtheOG (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, turns out this athlete is much better known by the name "Derseh Kindie" which this article should be moved to. Also, he's most known for challenging Kipchoge at the 2023 Berlin Marathon which wasn't mentioned in the article before but is now. Also found SIGCOV of him following his runner-up Cape Town Marathon finish. Pinging User:Geschichte to take another look, it needs some fixing up but the sources are there. --Habst (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sportspeople are required to meet GNG and their pages must actively cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. However the new sourcing is nowhere near SIGCOV: a passing mention in five highly derivative pieces focused on Stephen Mokoka's Cape Town Marathon performance, and a passing mention in another 4 or 5 highly derivative pieces focused on Eliud Kipchoge's performance at the Berlin Marathon.

    Second place went to Ethiopian Derseh Kindie Kassie in 2:11:26,

    he was 21 seconds clear of second-placed Kassie at 35km, and just over a minute clear at 40km.

    Second-placed Derseh Kindie Kassie says [commentary from Kassie]

    Further insubstantial coverage by Olympics.org, AIMS, and World Athletics (via "MyJoyOnline") is clearly non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, as discussed previously, World Athletics and the Olympics (as well as AIMS which I am not sure where the claim to non-independence comes from) are considered independent of athletes they cover because athletes are not employed by the Olympics.
    I agree that the quotes presented aren't SIGCOV, but they aren't representative of the coverage linked in the article. His greater claim to notability is challenging Kipchoge in Berlin, not his second-place Cape Town finish. --Habst (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "As discussed previously" in the many AfDs closed as delete/redirect because these sources very obviously fail independence, as also emphasized in the guideline itself: Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players.[22][23] JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which AfDs covered in Olympics / AIMS news articles (I don't think there are any World Athletics articles in this case) have ever been closed as delete or redirect? I don't think it's ever happened before actually, which would make this a wild first. Neither the Olympics nor AIMS is a governing sports body that would have any relationship with Derseh. It's not the same as e.g. the New York Yankees writing about one of its players. --Habst (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the Olympics, WA, and AIMS are governing sports bodies. They govern the regulations and competitions these athletes compete in, that is a clear conflict of interest in what they choose to cover. We don't need AfD precedent to establish this obvious fact. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think AIMS is a governing sports body at all, actually, per their site. But regardless, there are over 100,000 Olympians in history, none of them were paid by the Olympics for competing, and in fact Kindie never even competed at the Olympics so I don't see how that connection could be made. Kindie isn't a "player" of the Olympics. --Habst (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a governing sports body, its members are the races and it partners with WA and national orgs as well. It is not an independent source on any details of races it administers. And there does not have to be a direct employer-employee relationship for two parties to lack independence. I don't understand why you would think this. The Olympics writing an article on an Olympian, as is the case for Kipchoge here, is still not independent coverage of every detail that is not about the Olympian. And in this case the coverage of Kassie is trivial anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a step back here, what "relationship", employment or otherwise, could the Olympics possibly have with Kindie? Kindie never even competed at the Olympics. Same with AIMS. I just feel like we are getting so far into the weeds that we are missing the forest for the trees. --Habst (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 12:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: His role challenging Kipchoge at the 2023 Berlin Marathon was widely covered in international media, including World Athletics, which reported: Kipchoge and Kindie continued to run together at world record schedule through the half-way point., etc, BMW Berlin Marathon official site, Olympics.com, Yahoo Sports, and Runner's World- which noted: Just one runner—Ethiopia's Derseh Kindie—stuck with him. These outlets provided significant narrative coverage of his role in the race and no original research required, and hence he meets notability requirements. He also finished 2nd place at Cape Town, so he clears WP:NTRACK and WP:SPORTBASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wieditor25 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WA, BMW Berlin official site, and Olympics are not independent sources. This is the entirety of coverage in Yahoo News: after Ethiopia’s Derseh Kindie dropped away. RW has less than 3 sentences, only one of which has secondary coverage (bold): Just one runner—Ethiopia’s Derseh Kindie—stuck with him; by 10K, they were a full minute ahead of the chase pack. The pair crossed the halfway mark in 1:00:22. Kindie, who previously had a personal best of 2:08:23, held on through 30K, then dropped out shortly afterward. None of this approaches the detailed coverage expected for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For this Subject, we can set aside those sources, as the issue is not a lack of independent coverage. There are other sources with clear non-trivial detail about him. IOL/AP provides detailed context of his role at Berlin 2023. Runner’s World SA offers even more in-depth coverage of his Cape Town 2022 performance.
    Also I came across this definition in Wiki: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Wieditor25 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IOL has Kindie, whose personal best stands seven minutes outside the world mark, kept pace with Kipchoge until 31 kilometres, where he suddenly fell back and appeared to drop out of the race, walking gingerly on the footpath as other runners overtook him. That is one sentence, with only the bolded part being secondary; the rest is a primary recounting of events in that race. Not SIGCOV.
    RW has literally no secondary independent coverage:

    Second position went to Ethiopian Derseh Kindie Kassie in 2:11:26,

    [Mokoka] was 21 seconds clear of second-placed Kassie at 35km,

    Second-placed Derseh Kindie Kassie says [account from Kassie]

    Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. They still provide coverage that exceeds the threshold of a trivial mention. Specifically, the RW SA piece offers editorial context and direct quotes, including narrative framing of his performance. Not just a name-drop or a result. I don't see any major issue with Ethiopia's Derseh Kindie Kassie notability under the policy.Wieditor25 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The example given for a trivial mention is a longer sentence than those quoted above, and anyway that's no more the "threshold" above which coverage is no longer trivial, than the book-length history of IBM example of SIGCOV is the threshold below which coverage is trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Book length," like a race result (eg. 500 pages vs 26.2 miles), is just a digit count—not significant coverage on its own. Good job! You correctly apply that standard there, but curiously twist the logic when it comes to articles that offer actual framing, context, and direct quotes. That's what pushes them above trivial mention. Remember he also cleared WP:Ntrack Wieditor25 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per JoelleJay mentions or a couple sentences or so are not WP:SIGCOV and not enough to meet WP:BASIC. S0091 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay misinterprets Wikipedia policy by misstating the threshold for significant coverage and dismissing direct quotes from the subject within editorial coverage as irrelevant. It's also important to remember that some topics naturally receive less extensive media coverage. The subject in question is a world-class marathoner who clearly meets WP:NTRACK and the broader WP:SNG, whose topic is not excluded by any guideline, and whose notability is supported by adequate independent sourcing. Wieditor25 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wieditor25 I am well aware of the notability guidelines and WP:SIGCOV. What someone says about themselves and direct quotes are primary (see note d, interviews, "insider's view", etc.) not secondary. In order for a source to contribute to notability, it needs to meet all four of the WP:GNG criteria: reliable, secondary, independent and provide in-depth coverage about the subject. None of the sources meet that bar. Also be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Direct quotes? Yes, they are primary. But when they are embedded in an editorial piece? They are not. No need to continue this discussions further. Wieditor25 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely a user with 300 edits knows every in and out of Wikipedia policy. Or have you used other accounts, perhaps? Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte don't cast aspersions. It just confuses to issue at hand which is the notability of Kindie Derseh Kassie so if you have an opinion about that, please !vote. As far as the other, if you have evidence of multiple accounts, then file an SPI. S0091 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere in our PAGs is there the suggestion that direct quotes by a subject somehow transform into not an insider's view of an event simply by appearing in RS editorials (which in fact are also explicitly listed as primary in our policy Further examples of primary sources include: ... editorials, op-eds, columns, ...). JoelleJay (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on sourcing from others not active in the discussion so far would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unfortunately, I see no evidence of this athlete passing WP:NTRACK. Per nom, he also fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. @Wieditor25 I don't see how his wins in the 2021 San Sebastian Marathon and the 2022 Sanlam Cape Town Marathon contribute to notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in the sourcing gets us to a WP:GNG pass. Neither does it meet the WP:SPRTCRIT minimum threshold. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has now been significantly improved since its deletion nomination. Among other changes, a section 'Significant Media Coverage' has been added - providing reliable, independent, secondary sources - including the reputable Spanish newspaper Diario Vasco - which go far beyond trivial mention and cover the subject in-depth. Wieditor25 (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Diario Vasco is a very brief primary race report, much of which is just quotes. DayDayNews appears to be a news aggregator that just machine-translated a piece originally from some anonymous blog. Not reliable, and explicitly prohibited from being used for BLPs. I've removed it. That whole section should be deleted as a MOS violation anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at this earlier and had the same thoughts about Diario Vasco as most of it is what he said and strongly doubted the reliability of DayDayNews because it is such a poor translation so thanks for figuring that one out. S0091 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. asilvering (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rawata Pass incident

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

Book sources appear to be non-existent. I honestly have no idea why someone would fabricate this, but there is no source that this incident ever happened. Same with:

Tawata Tiloio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of the references appear int he Kiribati bibliography. Can someone check the USP library catalogue?--IdiotSavant (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Union of the Democratic Centre (Greece). ✗plicit 14:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Centre Union (Greece)

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

Boldly redirected to Union of the Democratic Centre (Greece) by Bearian before being reverted by Soman. No references for over 15 years, single paragraph and party only existed for three years before merging into the aforementioned Union of the Democratic Centre, which still exists to this day. Seems to suggest it is notable enough to warrant a section in the UDC page, but not enough for its own page. Weirdguyz (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above rationales by OP and commenters. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheToolX

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG.   haj • talk   11:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and promotional. Madeleine (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero reliable third-party sources. I became aware of this AfD because of the blacklist hits; relying heavily on blacklisted PR sites is usually a strong sign that a topic is not notable.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Darnbrough

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

I just don't see WP:SIGCOV, I've looked over this article a few times and the build is solely done on WP:ROUTINE, primary citations. I honestly feel this is not notable enough. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Daniel Williams (musician)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, should be merged and redirected to The Devil Wears Prada (band). guninvalid (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dave Shapiro has also been nominated for merging. guninvalid (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify or weak keep: Upon viewing the article it appears there is a bit more here than on Dave Shapiro in regards to arguments for keeping it. 15/23 articles are in relation to the crash. This may not be enough to qualify WP:BIO1E. I would vote to draftify, expand with more non-crash related references if possible and potentially submit to WP:AfC. If not, I would not oppose to a weak keep at this stage, subject to reading more experienced editors opinions. (Having said all that. WP:BANDMEMBER as OP says would say to redirect, but I'll stick to my initial vote despite this). 11wallisb (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit on 08/06/22 after relisting: I have changed my vote to weak keep which I originally put as an alternative vote at initial listing. My reasoning is in line with what I said previously, I believe there is just enough in the article for it to be kept. 11WB (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is reasonably well-sourced with independent coverage that provides substantive biographical details about Daniel Williams. While WP:BANDMEMBER is a useful guideline, it is not a strict requirement, especially when WP:GNG can be met independently. There is evidence of coverage beyond trivial mentions, and the article is not a mere coatrack. WP:NOTPAPER reminds us that the threshold for inclusion is not limited by space constraints, and WP:IAR allows for flexibility when strict application of a guideline would hinder the encyclopedia’s goal of sharing verifiable knowledge. Merging to the band article would likely result in the loss of meaningful detail specific to Williams’ contributions and post-TDWP activity. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 00:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your point on WP:NOTPAPER. I find preference to keeping articles than outright deleting them. If an article can be sent back to draft and improved there, that is always preferable to just deletion. 11wallisb (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that there's very little extra content on Williams himself other than his death and a brief discussion of interests. There's really no reason that can't also be merged into the Band article, and it's also trivial enough that it's not worth keeping, as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guninvalid I think both points are definitely valid. Personally, I believe Williams' article should be kept over Dave Shapiro as there seems to be more on him. 11wallisb (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see equal arguments for Draftifying, Merging and Keeping so I'm relisting this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the article is well-sourced and it also shows that Williams is not entirely known for the band or the plane crash, even though both are by far the most well-known parts of his life. In this case I'd be lenient and say the article can stay. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 10:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I endorse the reasoning that editor TrueCRaysball put forward in support of this article. Ref (chew)(do) 23:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Opting not to draftify deliberately. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Green (entrepreneur)

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

No sigcov in the article or after a Google search. It doesn't seem like this guy or his blockchain company meet GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets GNG as subject has received substantial coverage specifically in Korean and Chinese language multiple reliable media sources, TV programs, etc. Those newspapers coverage goes well beyond routine business appointments. Also his role as CEO of io.net also adds to the notability. He also worked on top positions for big firms (Disney, Oaktree Capital, Merrill Lynch) and the not all sources were added.--Mozzcircuit (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability isn't inherited from being CEO of a company or being an executive at other companies. If there are reliable sources like newspapers, it would help to share them here. I couldn't find them by searching and they aren't in the article, so no one here can assess them. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG thanks to multiple independent reliable sources available and added. The Subject is CEO of a notable tech company with substantial media coverage.--Slarticlos (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the GNG. I've gone through all the sources in the article and summarized my results in the table below. Toadspike [Talk] 23:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Obviously promotional tone ✘ No
No Interview ✘ No
No Written by an "independent contributor publishing via our business blogging program" ✘ No
No Seems to be based entirely on a company press release. ✘ No
No byline ~ One paragraph on Green, probably not sigcov. ? Unknown
No No information on Green beyond the fact that he was appointed. ✘ No
No An opinion piece written by Green himself. No Doesn't contain any info about Green. ✘ No
No No Just some quotes from Green, no indep. sigcov. ✘ No
No Less than a sentence is about Green. ✘ No
No Clearly a recycled press release. No No byline. ✘ No
No No sigcov of Green, simply says that he was appointed and includes a quote from him. ✘ No
No Doesn't say much beyond that Green was appointed CEO. ✘ No
No No Seems to be a wire report based entirely on press releases; strongly promotional tone. ✘ 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}}.
@Mozzcircuit, you say "not all sources were added". Do you have further sources beyond what I reviewed above? Toadspike [Talk] 23:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I ask for the page gratification in order to review the Asian Korean Japanese and other sources, as I did not see them before and I think I may improve the draft /page.--Ticielli (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on the source analysis presented would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction Colorado Temple

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

1. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as per WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. A dash of WP:TOOSOON as it would appear the church is not even open yet.

2. WP:PROMOTIONAL tone.

3. Overt reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. It would appear that only two secondary sources are here.

Regardless, while points two and three might be addressed, point one will not be.

MWFwiki (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion, although these concerns could be fixed with a re-write so maybe move it to a draft. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, possibly until September It looks like this temple will open later this year. That said, you may have a case that the articles on these buildings are overly reliant on LDS Church sources. Looking at this one, we have three articles from two sources (KJCT and KKCO share a newsroom — if I had a nickel for every time Gray Television came up at an AfD I'd reviewed in the last week, I'd have two nickels, but whatever). Every remaining reference is direct from the LDS Church or an affiliate like Church News or LDS Living. There is a substantial amount of puffy wording that could be cut down. I note an earlier redirect attempt was reverted by the creator of the current text. I want to see Happyrain2121 contribute as they have been very active in temple articles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Draftify': There is likely to be sufficient independent WP:SIGCOV generated after the temple's completion to result in a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot assume whether or not there will be SIGCOV. Draftspace doesn't exist to park a topic until SIGCOV materializes. If it were opening in a week, sure, I'd support this... but outright claiming that will "likely be sufficient independent SIGCOV" is TOOSOON with a dash of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Regardless, SIGCOV arguably already technically exists, but we don't have it in the form of independent RSs. I'm not arguing to salt the subject, but I also didn't submit this article. MWFwiki (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what draftspace is for. Every other LDS temple has an article. I'm not saying this one should have an article in the absence of SIGCOV. I'm just saying that it's almost certain to have it by the time it's completed. No point in deleting and then having to undelete it later when we can just draftify it until the right coverage emerges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftspace exists to "improve" an article. It is not "exactly" for parking an article to wait for SIGCOV to materialize. We also cannot assume SIGCOV will exist or not. It doesn't, presently. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a replacement for SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Improvement" includes looking for and waiting for sources. If in six months there are no sources and the draft is not improved, it will be deleted. If returned to mainspace without improvements, then it can be deleted. I participate a lot at AfD and I've !voted plenty of times for deletion, but it always makes more sense (and is more welcoming to page creators and thus supportive of new editor retention) to give articles on topics likely to be notable in the near future a chance to hang out in draftspace. Regardless, I looked at the history of this page, and it was a redirect before the article was created. Restoring a redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado#Temples will have the same effect as draftification (the expanded article created by @Happyrain2121 remains in the article history, ready to be revived once sufficient sourcing is available) while allowing us to avoid a rather talmudic debate about the purposes of draftspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate everyone for taking the time to give feedback on this article.
With all that was mentioned, it seems like the main concern is whether the article meets the general notability guidelines. To align with that, I’ve added several independent sources that demonstrate the consistent coverage of the Grand Junction Temple—not just quick mentions or announcements, and removed the source that is marked as generally not reliable in Wikipedia. I’ve also made some updates to the article itself based on the comments given earlier, including neutralizing the tone, adjusting the language that might have come across as promotional, and improving the source formatting.
Before we wrap up the discussion, I am hoping that you could take another look at the current version of the article. I put in a good amount of effort to find additional independent sources to directly address the concerns mentioned. For example, I added two sources from Western Slope Now, a local news outlet—one from late 2022 and another from April 2025. The fact that they are published in different years and not church-affiliated, shows that this isn’t just a one-time mention.
Regarding church-published sources like Church News, I’ve used them to support basic and factual information. I find that it’s generally consistent with the guidance given in WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources, and it aligns with how similar articles use them. If there’s anything that still stands out to be insufficient, I’m more than happy to rework it. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newly added independent sources show a WP:GNG pass, even before completion. As noted above, LDS temples are almost always notable so it's no surprise that sufficient coverage was found, even pre-completion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems the central point of the argument for deletion revolved around independent sourcing, and the two articles, focused on the temple, both span across multiple years, which meets WP:SIGCOV. This shows enough notability even before the temple will open. HappyRain2121 met the major points addressed, including the tone of the article being too promotional. An article with a "C" grade only needs to cite more than one reliable source (and the article has at least two from that independent source). It seems to already meet the standard of significant coverage, so the page should stay. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until completion, not just an estimated future date. WP:PROMOTION - This never should have been in main space. As is, this reads like a press release, and should not be in main space. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve again made additional edits trying to further address concerns related to WP:PROMOTIONAL tone. Regarding WP:TOOSOON, while the Grand Junction Colorado Temple has not yet been dedicated, it has already received significant, independent, and reliable media coverage—satisfying the threshold established by WP:GNG. For instance, The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel published a detailed article in June 2024 discussing construction progress and community impact. Multiple other news outlets have reported on public interest, architectural design, and the temple’s anticipated role in the region.
    This demonstrates that the temple is already notable, even prior to its dedication, due to its documented regional significance. I believe that addresses the concern of WP:TOOSOON. The coverage cited is from independent, reliable sources and includes in-depth reporting, which meets Wikipedia’s general notability standard.
    To further illustrate, as with many others, the One Bloor West article covers a building that is still under construction, yet it has its own well-sourced Wikipedia page. This suggests that the inclusion standard is not whether a structure is complete, but whether it has received sustained and significant attention in reliable sources—which the Grand Junction Temple demonstrably has.
    If there are lingering concerns that parts of the article still read as promotional, I’m more than willing to make additional revisions. I’ve already rewritten much of the content to address tone and ensure everything is grounded in what has been independently reported. Where Church sources are used, they are properly attributed and are generally accepted according to the Latter-day Saint perennial sources list.
    At this stage, the conversation seems to be repeating previous points. If no new policy-based objections are being raised, it may be reasonable to consider whether the discussion has run its course.
    Lastly, just so I fully understand: is there a specific Wikipedia policy being violated here? I’ve reviewed WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and the Manual of Style, and I haven’t found anything that prohibits coverage of a building—religious or otherwise—before it officially opens. Happyrain2121 (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. This is a substantial structure going up in Colorado that has received non-LDS coverage. The article still needs to be purged of some PROMO content, but we have hit the threshold of clearing GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shifera Tamru Aredo

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

No evidence of this marathon runner receiving the sufficient amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinde Atanaw

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this marathon runner to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. All I found were routine race reports like 1 and 2. I tried tagging the article and engaging the creator on their talk page; both of my edits were reverted. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it seems like this dispute between the article creator and the nominator needs to be settled separately but the article topics can stand on their own. Subject is covered, I improved the article with a picture and some new sources such as [38]. Some of these reports go in-depth about the subject with analysis which crosses the boundary out of routine IMO. I have no issue with keeping tags until the article is improved further, but I don't think deletion is a solution for this 2:03 marathoner. --Habst (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine, local event coverage comprising two sentences and a quote is nowhere close to SIGCOV, let alone GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay
    I strongly disagree with your characterization of the coverage as "routine, local event coverage." WP:GNG doesn't demand a strict biographical deep dive into details like his training or extensive personal bio. Instead, the provided sources offer significant coverage that clearly exceeds mere mentions.
    His 2:03:51 Valencia win was a course record and the third-fastest marathon debut in history. Reports were not just simple result listing but they analyzed his 'stunning' performance (WP:GNG's requirement) and his consistent top finishes in World Marathon Majors further solidify his notability under WP:SPORTBASIC.
    This nomination (and others) appears to stem more from a prior content dispute regarding a deletion tag (which I did not agree with) than the subject's actual notability. Wieditor25 (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above article contains barely two sentences of independent coverage of him, strictly in the context of this one marathon. That is not even close to the level of detail expected for SIGCOV; while there is some nuance, "mere mention" is not the threshold above which coverage automatically becomes "significant", just as "book-length treatment" is not the minimum requirement for significance.
    While the other sources do contain some more details reporting a couple other results, AFAICT they are all also either limited to twoish sentences, which is not enough, and/or are non-independent republications of World Athletics or other event organizer press releases.[39][40] GNG requires multiple sources each containing IRS SIGCOV and additionally there must be SUSTAINED coverage. GNG has nothing to do with value judgments like "stunning"; it is about the amount and depth of coverage. SPORTSBASIC requires active citation to a GNG-contributing source in addition to the subject meeting GNG, regardless of whether they meet a sport-specific criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay
    Thanks for your response. Again, I strongly disagree with your assessment.
    My view stands that the subject's article clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
    These sources aren't "barely two sentences" of local coverage; they show significant depth:
    • Track & Field News didn't just mention the Valencia win; they analyzed it, calling it "stunning" and the "third-fastest marathon debut in history." That's solid, independent analysis.
    • LetsRun.com specifically reported on the subject's COVID withdrawal from the 2021 London Marathon. This shows they are newsworthy beyond just results.
    • Noticiascv.com includes a direct quote from the subject, indicating actual journalistic effort, not a simple listing.
    These are genuine, independent pieces establishing significant coverage.
    Also the assertion that there is a lack of "sustained coverage" contradicts the available evidence. The subject has consistently appeared in big events over several years:
    • Winning the 2019 Valencia Marathon (historic debut).
    • Being part of the elite field for the 2021 London Marathon, with their withdrawal being a notable news item.
    • 4th at 2022 London Marathon.
    • 10th at 2022 Boston Marathon.
    • Being a featured entrant and top contender in previews for high-profile events like the 2024 Mumbai Marathon and Shanghai Marathon.
    • Also included in the elite field for the 2025 Hamburg Marathon, further demonstrating continued relevance."Brigid Kosgei and Amos Kipruto head Sunday's Haspa Marathon Hamburg's strongest ever field". Race News Service (rrm.com). 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-06-05.
    Hence, the subject meets WP:GNG via significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, and hence WP:SPORTBASIC. Wieditor25 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wieditor25, while I agree that the case for deletion isn't strong in this instance and I'm thankful for your contributions, I don't really agree with this line of argument. For example the LetsRun.com piece is a republished press release, so it isn't the strongest example we have of coverage like the Noticias piece is.
    As an aside, it looks to me like parts of these comments were generated with an LLM due to the bolding and lack of wikilinks. If you are using an LLM like ChatGPT to generate comments, I think that should be disclosed clearly. It's generally better to focus on the strongest pieces of coverage and make arguments that are linked to specific policies and guidelines. --Habst (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • T&FN: Two sentences is not SIGCOV and the analysis is not even close to in-depth. Again, value judgments like "stunning" are irrelevant to coverage and in fact ought to be considered primary opinions as they would be unusable without attribution.
  • Let's Run: Press release.
  • Noticias:

    The Valencia Trinidad Alfonso EDP Marathon, [...], has become the sixth fastest in the world thanks to the time achieved by athlete Kinde Atanaw Alayew , who stopped the clock at 2:03:51, a new record for the event. [...] Aleyew crossed the finish line 40 seconds faster than last year's Leul Gebresilase (2:04:31), setting a new record for history.

    That is the entirety of the secondary coverage. Quotes from the subject do not count towards GNG as they are not independent or secondary.
Your LLM has totally mangled the definition of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Any admin would be well within their right to collapse your AI comments here, per policy. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Get that AI garbage out of here. If you don't know enough about guidelines to formulate an argument by yourself, then you shouldn't be making an argument at all. Wikipedia isn't run by robots. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us where a "stunning performance" is listed as a GNG requirement. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a step back here, what are the two sentences you've found? I count about nine in the Noticias piece alone, noting that only one piece of SIGCOV is required to meet WP:SPORTCRIT:
    1. "Kinde Atanaw Alayew convierte al Maratón Valencia en el sexto más rápido del mundo"
    2. "Kinde Atanaw y Roza Dereje, que firmaron dos nuevos récords de la prueba, se proclaman vencedores de la 39ª edición de la prueba."
    3. "El Maratón Valencia Trinidad Alfonso EDP, organizado por la SD Correcaminos y el Ajuntament de València, se ha situado como el sexto más rápido del mundo gracias a la marca conseguida por el atleta Kinde Atanaw Alayew, que ha parado el crono en 2h03:51, marca que supone un nuevo récord de la prueba."
    4. "Aleyew ha entrado en meta 40 segundos más rápido que lo hizo el pasado año Leul Gebresilase (2h:04:31) y deja una nueva marca para la historia."
    5. "Tras él, han entrado los atletas Kaan Kigen Ozbilen y Guye Idemo Adola, segunda y tercera posición respectivamente, completaron el podio más rápido de la prueba en sus 39 años de historia." ("el" is Alayew)
    6. Las palabras del campeón: Kinde Atanaw Alayew: "Tenía muchísima confianza en mí mismo."
    7. Kinde Atanaw Alayew: "Sabía que había llegado el momento de debutar en maratón."
    8. Kinde Atanaw Alayew: "El entrenamiento me había ido bien y respecto a mis compañeros de entrenamiento yo sabía que estaba mejor que ellos para conseguir una victoria." (transcription but separate clause from previous sentence)
    9. Kinde Atanaw Alayew: "Estoy muy contento y agradezco a todos los que me han ayudado."
    And see video attached to the article here, also titled "Kinde Atanaw Alayew convierte al Maratón Valencia en el sexto más rápido del mundo".
    As someone who does respect your opinions on most AfDs I'm curious where that count comes from? --Habst (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1,2: Titles and other subheadlines do not count toward GNG as they are not reliable.
    3,4: The two sentences mentioned above.
    5. Not coverage of Alayew.
    6. Non-independent, primary quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, do you only have an issue with #6 but not #7,8,9 even though the same principle would apply? If not, wouldn't that still be five sentences and not two?
    Regardless, discounting #6-9 at all wouldn't be appropriate because interviews can be secondary, independent, and reliable if framed in the context of a news piece as in this case (explained at WP:IV). We've discussed this issue with interviews at AfDs dozens of times before, enough for me to be confident there is no P&G that outright claims that interviews can never be notability-contributing (and in the case of WP:PRIMARY, note that it says "(depending on context) reviews and interviews" acknowledging that contextual placement in a news article is important). For example, a police interrogation transcript published by a government would generally be a primary interview; an athlete selectively quoted by an editor in an article about their performance would generally be secondary.
    By the way, the video contains a lot of footage of Atanaw but is conspicuously missing audio. I wonder if it used to contain audio about the subject but was later muted due to expiring license on the background music they used, or something like that. --Habst (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What the subject says about themselves is obviously never independent and cannot be secondary. It does not matter where it is published, it is still both a first-hand account of (primary) and about (non-independent) the subject. The note in OR is referencing the distinction between secondary analysis from the interviewer and the primary, non-independent material coming from the interviewee. We have been over this countless times, including in an AfD closed less than a week ago[41], continuing this nonsense is bludgeoning at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, do you have an issue with sentences #7, 8, and 9?
    I am sympathetic to these concerns but using WP:IV as a guide this interview is secondary. A role of a newspaper is to publish factual information; it's their responsibility to make corrections if someone they interview is saying something untrue even about themselves (not that there is any reason or indication that's what's going on here). When a newspaper chooses to interview someone, that can be secondary and notability-contributing even if the subject talks about themself.
    I don't want to bludgeon, but calling my posts "nonsense" isn't appropriate. I have a lot of respect for your edits and hope you can show me the same. --Habst (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously the direct quotes from the subject about themselves in sentences 7–9 are not independent.
    You brought up WP:IV. If you still cannot understand how coverage of the subject by the subject is NEVER contributory to GNG then that is a CIR issue.
    If you actually respected anyone at AfD it wouldn't have taken an ANI report for you to agree to a behavioral restriction (that apparently isn't sufficient) on your IDHT time-wasting. You would have recognized the multiple closer admonitions and your 40% AfD match rate were proof of an overwhelming consensus against your positions and ceased bludgeoning them a year ago. JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, I have a lot of respect for you and have always treated you with respect in AfDs. I don't understand why each of our dozens of discussions always devolves into intensely personal comments by you specifically about me instead of discussion of the substance.
    w.r.t. WP:CIR, per the essay It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent" as you have done. AfD statistics are not an appropriate measure of editor behavior; for example, I often do not comment at AfDs of articles I improve such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim Bok-seok which if included would increase the percentage statistic.
    Please keep the arguments about the article. --Habst (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some arguments for deletion appear less about applying notability policy in good faith and more about gatekeeping. That said, I found another new source: FastRunning. It provides independent, in-depth analysis of his career as: "Ethiopian Kinde Atanaw will be looking to better his fourth placed finish at London last year (2:05:27). The thirty-year-old has raced sparingly since 2016, with just ten races to his name. His debut marathon in 2019 was the best of his career; a win at the Valencia Marathon (2:03:51). A course record at the time, it remains his PB. Five marathons have followed; two returns to Valencia (DNF 2020, 7th 2021), alongside visits to Prague, Boston and of course London.". This goes far beyond a threshold of trivial mention, and meets the standard definition: Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Wieditor25 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: When you only get mentioned in Nigerian media [42] that will publish an article about anyone, you have a problem. There is no coverage about this individual in RS and certainly nothing extensive about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I even tried a .et search for Ethiopian websites [43], there just isn't enough about this person to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, that search query is malformed, you need to remove the space before the ".et". Doing an advanced search with cr=countryET yields lots of results: [44]. --Habst (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those only yield match results or trivial mentions, still not quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or this [45]. Animal husbandry... Nothing helpful Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the advanced search with cr=countryET? You seem to be only searching domains that literally end in ".et", but Google has a way to search for the larger set of websites that are published from Ethiopia according to its tagging system. Most Ethiopian papers don't use .et domains. --Habst (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per JoelleJay's assessment and also the assessment by Oaktree b. The additional source above is primary news reporting and also brief, routine and not clearly independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has now been significantly improved since its deletion nomination. Among other changes, a section 'Media coverage' has been added—providing reliable, independent, secondary sources— which go well beyond trivial mention and offer in-depth and sustained coverage of his career. Wieditor25 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The section adds 3 news reports, all of which are primary. The first has two paragraphs, stating that he won the Valencia marathon in 2:03:53. This is primarey, but it is also the best source because the win is at least indicative that people would take note of him. But it is not writing about him, it is just reporting the win. The second source says he withdrew from the London Marathon after testing positive for Covid. Primary and not SIGCOV. The third says he will be looking to better his Valencia time in the 2023 London Marathon. Primary news reporting of the forthcoming race, and although it runs to a paragraph, it is still not SIGCOV. This is just more of the same as already seen. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, source classification as primary or secondary is not absolute, per Wikipedia's guidelines "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it includes analyses and comments on those events.". Thus, a source is categorized based on whether it presents original information (primary) or it offers analysis and commentary on existing information (secondary). Wieditor25 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. These ones are primary news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of coal mining accidents in China#2020s. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pingdingshan mining explosion

[edit]
2024 Pingdingshan mining explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan-Claire Green

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, as she's only had a major role in one notable film, and also fails WP:GNG. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Jakle, Jeanne (2003-08-21). "Young S.A. actress Green having a blast in roles". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "Jordan-Claire Green, 11, is certainly cute enough. She's also having a Hollywood-size ball. It's no wonder. In her first movie, Green got to act with one of her favorite actors - "Shallow Hal's" Jack Black - scream a lot and wear pink dreadlocks and wild clothes. She has a sizable role as a young "groupie" in Austinite Richard Linklater's upcoming movie, "The School of Rock." ... Green recently moved from Missouri to San Antonio, when her dad, Dr. Charles Green, was named the new commander at Wilford Hall Medical Center. ... Her mom, Becka Green, knew her daughter was special when her singing was praised by her first-grade teacher. But breaking into Hollywood isn't easy. Twice a year, Jordan-Claire and mom fly to Tinseltown for several weeks to try out for regular and guest roles in new TV pilots and returning shows. Making her schedule more flexible is the fact that Jordan-Claire is home-schooled."

    2. Churnin, Nancy (2005-12-15). "A new breed of Christmas tales - Girl's vision brought '12 Dogs' to life". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "... says Jordan-Claire Green, 14, a San Antonio native who stars as Emma, a girl who tries to bring dogs back to a town in which no dogs are allowed. ... Jordan-Claire's family moved to Washington, D.C., where her dad is in the Air Force. But they also have a home in Los Angeles so Jordan-Claire can pursue her acting career. She talked to us on the phone from Tennessee where she was visiting an aunt. She was born with the name Jordan, but she didn't like seeing so many boys with her name. So she started hyphenating her first and middle names in first grade. Another big change in her life: After she finished shooting The 12 Dogs of Christmas, she felt dog-deprived. So her family checked out several litters from San Diego to San Francisco before she found Lily, her Maltipoo - a mix between a Maltese and a poodle. Jordan-Claire is more in love with her than ever."

    3. Routhier, Ray (2004-03-31). "Like Old Times in the Old Port - Welcome to ... Pittsburgh? A visiting film crew finds a cobblestone Portland alley just right for portraying the Pennsylvania city, circa 1930". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

      The article notes: "But Tuesday morning, a cast and crew of about 30 people were on Wharf Street to shoot a scene with the film's star, Jordan-Claire Green, as a young girl wandering alone in Depression-era Pittsburgh. Green, a 12-year-old actress originally from San Antonio, played one of the grammar school groupies in the recent Jack Black comedy smash "School of Rock." In "The Twelve Dogs of Christmas," Green's character, Emma, is sent from Pittsburgh by her out-of-work father to live with an aunt in a small town."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Hayes, John (2005-05-20). "Dooley Makes Himself at Home in Everyman Roles". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2025-06-21. Retrieved 2025-06-21.

        The article notes: "Dooley stars opposite Jordan-Claire Green, who is most of the above (she's 14 and was born in Portugal) and had limited roles in "Arrested Development" and "The School of Rock.""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jordan-Claire Green to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Mental Health in KPK

[edit]
History of Mental Health in KPK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed drftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. This is a WP:ESSAY, containing WP:OR with references not shown to support the material in a meaningful way. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic cases in January 2020

[edit]
COVID-19 pandemic cases in January 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a continuation of the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021. The arguments used in favor of deleting the "COVID-19 pandemic deaths in month" articles also apply to the "COVID-19 pandemic cases in month" articles. The cases articles stopped being sourced appropriately at a certain point, but the information can all be found here. I spot checked the data in the cases articles and there are some errors, for example some of Yemen's August 2021 numbers are wrong and sometimes everything for a country is seemingly one day off, e.g. Azerbaijan's December 2020 numbers. These articles also stopped being updated in August 2021. Going through and checking for errors, fixing them, and creating new articles for every month since August 2021 would take a long time and I wonder if it's even worth it to do so. Velayinosu (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other monthly case articles:

COVID-19 pandemic cases in February 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in March 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in April 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in May 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in June 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in July 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in August 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in September 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in October 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in November 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in December 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in January 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in February 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in March 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in April 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in May 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in June 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in July 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COVID-19 pandemic cases in August 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Velayinosu (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are some things wrong, then just fix them instead of wanting to delete the article.
The articles are really helpful and aside from certain mistakes or unsourced information i barely see a reason to delete something so valuable, tidy and helpful. PLMandarynka (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem feasible to fix these articles and make new ones for the missing months (probably hundreds of hours needed) and even if they were fixed, there are issues with WP:ISNOT. So if the deaths articles were rightfully deleted, then the cases articles should be too. Velayinosu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Seems that these pages are solely based on the data published on https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports, which can be added to the 'External links' sections of the relevant pages directly. The effort expended in creating these tables is commendable, and perhaps they can be published at other venues, better suited for the data. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and just a meaningless table. And what Paul said. Metallurgist (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteboard Pattern

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

This article has several issues. While they could be fixed in isolation, it might be easier to start from scratch:

  • May not meet notability guidelines (tag added in 2018)
  • Orphan
  • Not written as per Wikipedia style (e.g., has external links within the text, references within titles)
  • Has grammar issues
  • Hard to understand
  • May need more references
  • Some of the statements may not be accurate (e.g., "The Listener Pattern is typically known as Observer Pattern. It is a Behavioral Pattern (aka Publish-Subscribe)," --> it is not correct that behavorial pattern is "also known as pub-sub") 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. 7804j (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philomath Bulletin

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

Could not find any info on this paper online or in Newspapers.com Eric Schucht (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. All yours, Eddie891. asilvering (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43)

[edit]
List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary criterion (" war correspondents who reported from North Africa or Italy in 1942-43") fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, does not fail WP:NLIST because of established notability Vofa (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ibrahim Bazzi

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 1944 Latvian Higher League. ✗plicit 14:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lure Riga

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

Non-notable amature football club. Whilst it has it's own history it has not gathered any secondary coverage. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • They aren't mentioned at Riga#Sports as this is a team that existed for one season during the German occupation of Latvia. They are however mentioned at the season article. Normally I would agree that season article redirects aren't great, but in this specific case it makes sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Riga#Sports per Govvy. The league season is an okay target, but a club's history is generally more tied to its city than its league (particularly a league in which it only played a single season). The fact that They aren't mentioned at Riga#Sports is an easily WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be addressed by adding a one-line mention at Riga#Sports under the "dissolved football clubs" heading. Frank Anchor 12:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1944 Latvian Higher League per the above rationale Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Item

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

This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion by at Draft by Spiderone under section G11 for CIO/ promotional issues. It was deleted under this section for unambigious advertising by Admin UtherSRG. After, it was recreated and moved to mainspace. New Pages reviewer SunDawn moved it back to draft as it still had serious issues, but the page was put back in main space again.

The issues brought up by experienced previous editors remain here-- This individual does not pass WP:GNG as they do not appear to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There is a passing mention of this person in the Financial Times that is used in an undue and highly over generalized way to "support" claims here. Similarly individual appears to run a news organization that is used here to support claims in the text. Ambassadors and minor "nobles" are generally non-notable.

A number of significant edits on this piece are by users who have only edited this article or closely related articles including Redredwoman, Darniel ramos garcia1980 and Ignatius Shitanda, which appear problematic. Nayyn (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't go through all references on the page as it is refbombed beyond belief, but the ones I did check were either dead links or trivial mentions. One reference (Ref. 18) is certainly in depth and secondary, but is so overflowing with praise that I have to wonder if it's a paid or otherwise somehow promotional content. No opinion on keep or delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The individual received significant coverage both in relation to his reporting on the Credit Suisse AT1 case and his role as an ambassador. The following publications (just a few examples) are secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Furthermore they dedicadet an entire article (and not a simple “passing mention”) to the individual in relation to the Credit Suisse AT1 Case:

- Financial Times "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop"

- Finews "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge In The Writedown Case Of CS"

- El Espanol "Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España: "El caso Credit Suisse AT1 ha sido una expropiación""

- Dominica News Online "Antigua and Barbuda ambassador Dario Item makes sensational international scoop in Credit Suisse AT1 case"

- Antigua Observer (which is NOT antigua.news) "Investigations by pizza lover Antiguan diplomat led to major Credit Suisse revelation"

- EconomiaDigital “Credit Suisse mintió a sus clientes justo antes de caer asegurando que no había retiradas de dinero”

- Insideparadeplatz.ch "AT-1-Geschädigten platzt Kragen: Klage gegen St. Galler Richter – Inside Paradeplatz"

The following media outlets/agencies (again just a few examples) published an entire article dedicated to the individual in relation to his role as an ambassador:

- UNWTO "UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision of tourism for growth and opportunity"

- Yahoo Finance “Ambassador Dario Item on Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne Speech to the United Nations”

- Dominica News Online "Antigua & Barbuda's Foreign Affairs Minister praises Ambassador Dario Item as a game changer"

- Antigua Observer "Ambassador Dario Item advocates for more Antiguan and Barbudan missions to be established abroad"

- CadizDirecto: "Dario Item el hombre clave de Antigua y Barbuda en Europa"

- The European Financial Review “Dario Item, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda: How We Can Help it Bounce Back”

There are perhaps hundreds of articles about this individual online (Reuters, El Pais, Die Weltwoche, Tagesanzeiger, Corriere del Ticino, etc.). The media coverage is definitely significant. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this is just becoming a WP:REFBOMB, much like the article itself (which at this point has significantly more references than e.g. the current German Defense Minister, and we probably wouldn't argue that Item is more notable than Pistorius).
Notability isn't the same as coverage. There are thousands of community leaders, politicians, or athletes that have plenty of news mentions and interviews without deserving a standalone article. Sources are a means to and end, not an end in themselves: the question is whether what's backed up by the sources about the subject is notable. Dozens of sources all rehashing the same 2-3 facts about the subject or summarizing yet another interview isn't good proof of his notability. Yes, he is the ambassador and UNWTO representative (as the article tells us with no less than 13 sources) and yes, he might have played a role in a scandal at Credit Suisse, although neither the scandal nor his contributions are even mentioned there despite being a GA.
As WP:GNG states, ""significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine). — Arcaist (contr—talk) 18:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article is not necessarily in a perfect state, Dario Item is a household name in the country with extensive coverage in reliable sources. Item has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media such as Antigua Observer (only newspaper in the country with a proper editorial staff) and the Antigua Broadcasting Service (only major television station in the country). A search for his name yields significant results. While the article is not impressive, and could be moved to draft space as an alternate measure, the subject fully meets the notability requirements for an article. CROIXtalk 13:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I appreciate @CROIX' local knowledge, I'm not persuaded Item is a "household name" in A&B. The only news coverage I can find is either low-quality or not more than a standard press releases. I don't see moving the article to draft as a solution, as that has already happened multiple times without improving the quality. What I am seeing is a lot of peacock prose with a suspicious amount of single-issue accounts focused on adding more low-quality referencing. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This guy fully meets the notability requirements for an article. His name has an extensive coverage in independent, authoritative and reliable sources. Furthermore, his revelations on the AT1 Credit Suisse case are of significant encyclopedic value..Juliannua (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

off-topic discussions of sockpuppetry
I request that this vote be disregarded. This is a 10-year-old account with one total edit, which is this one. Given that there have been several suspicious accounts working on the article itself, there is a significant risk of sockpuppeting here. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that I only have one edit. I have other edits in WIKI ES. You only need to look at the Edit Statistics. But even if I only had one edit, what difference would it make? Don't I have the same right to express my opinion as all the other editors? I see unnecessary aggression and bias in what you generally write.
@CROIX is a very experienced editor who lives in Antigua and Barbuda. If he writes that Dario Item is a “household name in the country” and “has been mentioned in some of the most reliable independent sources in the country’s media” such as Antigua Observer and ABS, how can you refute him without providing any concrete evidence and still expect to remain credible?
How can you, objectively, not consider the Financial Times to be authoritative?
In Spain, Dario Item is well known both as an ambassador and for his revelations on the Credit Suisse case. His name has appeared in many newspapers, including the highly authoritative El País (which interviews him often) and El Mundo, which interviewed him on the subject of the king's immunity (“La inviolabilidad del Rey, garantía de "estabilidad" en todas las monarquías parlamentarias de Europa” https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2021/02/23/603556b7fdddff256c8b4605.html). I have also seen significant media coverage in Switzerland. I don't think these facts are disputable. Juliannua (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Juliannua, yes all editors are able to weigh in on this conversation. What I think Arcaist is bringing up with the regard to editing history is that it appears some editors who have contributed here bring up concerns about the possibility of WP:SPA.

As the draft article and was speedily deleted under Promotional and CIO concerns earlier, and other experienced editors have previously raised concerns, Arcaist brings up a valid point here.

This is because a number of those involved are new editors (CreateAccou4343nt555, Ignatius Shitanda), have few edits on EN wikipedia (such as yourself, Eternaldao7, Sharkwriters), few recent edits on EN wikipedia (SY DIGITAL, Kerry muga) or when they have contributed more broadly, they have contributed significantly to articles about Item or entities/individuals connected to him (Antonio Pérez Villanueva, Darniel ramos garcia1980 Jesus Sanchez Herrera, Mediascriptor).
Nayyn (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem to really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.
14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject clearly meets WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources. It's quite surprising to see Nayyn claim the Financial Times piece is a "passing mention." The article, "Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," is demonstrably about Dario Item and his role in the Credit Suisse affair, providing in-depth coverage, not a mere mention. This alone is a strong indicator of notability. Beyond the FT, Mediascriptor and Juliannua have already listed numerous other strong international sources like Finews ("A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge..."), El Espanol ("Darío Item, embajador de Antigua y Barbuda en España..."), and even the UNWTO ("UNWTO and Antigua and Barbuda share vision..."), which dedicate substantial reporting to Item's activities, both concerning Credit Suisse and his ambassadorial role. The sheer breadth of coverage across different countries and languages (Spanish, German-language Swiss, English) underscores a level of international notability that goes beyond just local interest.

I also agree with Juliannua; their points are valid, and their !vote should be considered on its merits. Disregarding a contribution based on edit count, especially when they articulate clear reasoning referencing sources like El País, isn't productive. Furthermore, CROIX's local knowledge as an experienced editor from Antigua and Barbuda, stating Item is a "household name" and well-covered locally, should carry weight when assessing regional significance.

Concerns about "ambassadors and minor nobles" being generally nonnotable (per Nayyn) seem selectively applied here. Wikipedia hosts articles for many ambassadors, including other Antiguan diplomats such as Karen-Mae Hill, Carl Roberts (diplomat), Walton Alfonso Webson, and Claudius Cornelius Thomas, some with arguably less international press than Item. If the notability criteria are met through independent significant coverage, the role itself isn't an automatic disqualifier. I'm not currently editing the article and have no COI; I'm simply bringing these points up for fair and neutral consideration. The evidence provided by multiple editors points to sufficient notability here, and I hope others will take a second look in light of the above. While the article might benefit from further refinement (as many do), the sourcing supports keeping it. Eternaldao7 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fundamental question for WP:GNG is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In Dario Item's case, the evidence points to yes, specifically because these sources document a clear impact and influence he has had, particularly concerning the Credit Suisse AT1 bond affair. The Financial Times detailing his 'big Credit Suisse scoop,' Finews highlighting him 'leading the charge,' and El Espanol exploring his perspective as a key player, all speak to more than just passing interest – they document a person whose actions have had tangible, reported consequences and have generated significant discourse in international financial circles. This demonstrated influence, extensively covered by independent media, is precisely what establishes encyclopedic notability." Kerry muga (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Hello everyone. I've been reading through this discussion, and as someone who values Wikipedia as a place to learn about people shaping current events, I wanted to offer my thoughts. It seems to me that Dario Item is exactly the kind of individual one might reasonably expect to find information about here.
When a story like the Credit Suisse AT1 bond issue makes headlines internationally – and we see publications like the Financial Times writing dedicated pieces about "the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop," or Finews explaining how "A Swiss Lawyer Is Leading The Charge" – it naturally sparks public interest.
People will wonder, "Who is this person at the center of this significant financial news?"
To me, that's where Wikipedia's role becomes so important. It's not just about whether someone is a "celebrity" in the traditional sense, but whether they've become a figure of public discussion due to their actions or involvement in noteworthy events. The articles in El Español, and even reports from places like Dominica News Online or the Antigua Observer about his diplomatic work and the Credit Suisse revelations, show that his activities are being discussed across different countries and contexts.
It feels like the core question of "has this person done something that made reliable, independent news outlets talk about them in a significant way?" is clearly answered with a "yes" here. The fact that he's also an ambassador, involved with the UNWTO, and has received various recognitions just adds more layers to why someone might be looking him up.
If parts of the article needed tidying up, that's what editing is for, and it sounds like good work has already been done on that front. But to remove the article entirely would feel like missing an opportunity to document someone who has demonstrably stepped into the public sphere through actions that have drawn considerable, legitimate media attention. It just seems like information people would genuinely be seeking. Sharkwriters (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My assessment is that the subject, Dario Item, satisfies the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). This is based on the presence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, particularly concerning his activities related to the Credit Suisse AT1 situation and his ambassadorial functions. Several specific publications provide coverage that appears to meet the depth required by WP:GNG: The Financial Times article dedicates substantial content to Mr. Item's role and actions, which constitutes more than a passing mention. Finews similarly focuses on him as a central figure in a noteworthy event. El Español offers an extensive profile, indicating significant interest from a major international publication. These sources are generally accepted as reliable and editorially independent. And these are just 3 of the many international sources other editors already mentioned and can be found in reference footnotes of Item’s article. The subject's diplomatic roles and interactions, such as with the UNWTO ([link, e.g., https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-and-antigua- and-barbuda-share-vision-of-tourism-for-growth-and-opportunity]), provide further context of a public profile. While notability isn't inherited from a position, significant media coverage of activities undertaken within such roles contributes to fulfilling WP:GNG. Recognitions like the Scottish titles (referenced under legislation such as s.63 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 - [46]) and awards (e.g., from the Royal House of Georgia - [47]) are supplementary details that round out the individual's public record, though the primary basis for Wikipedia notability remains the independent secondary source coverage. The existence of articles for other Antiguan diplomats, as noted by other editors here, suggests that holding such a position is not an automatic bar to notability if WP:GNG is otherwise met. The key consideration is whether this specific individual has garnered sufficient independent coverage, and the evidence regarding Mr. Item's role in the widely- reported Credit Suisse case, in particular, points to this. While any article can benefit from ongoing editorial attention to ensure neutrality and sourcing precision, the available information indicates that the notability threshold for inclusion has been crossed. I think he has enough recognition to be considered in WP:GNG as his fellow peers also have their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SY DIGITAL (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This article and its subject clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and the following is proof of that, falsifying the deletion nominator's argument. First, the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the findings of my independent research for sources on Google that cover the subject Dario Item which asserts notability criteria by providing significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:

I easily found the above and many more sources covering Dario Item by using the following Google search string: 

"Dario Item" -site:darioitem.* -site:dario-item.com -site:embassy.ag -site:medium.com -site:instagram.com -site:x.com -site:twitter.com -site:youtube.com -site:facebook.com -site:linkedin.com -site:wikipedia.org -site:pinterest.com -site:academia.edu

User:Nayyn did not provide any policy or guideline for their claim that "Ambassadors and minor 'nobles' are generally non-notable." Actually, WP:DIPLOMAT says that "For any individual (including therefore any diplomat) who meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria, we presume that an article about them is merited", as proved above with many reliable sources. Also, prior discussion on notability have been had that "Ambassadors (and equivalent, such as High Commissioners, UN Permanent Representatives and EU Permanent Representatives) would be presumed notable". As such, this Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Nayyn didn't provide any police or guideline on why the users edits' they mentioned would be actually problematic. The way they put it, seems as an appeal to authority logical fallacy. As such, this argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable.

User:Arcaist didn't provide any evidence for their claims. A simple research easily results in reliable sources, as demonstrated above.

What could be argued is that, naturally, further improvements could be made to the article. I personally added 3 reliable sources to it.

CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CreateAccou4343nt555 welcome to Wikipedia! As you are new here, let me be a bit more detailed in my concerns about this article and why I brought it to this forum. Hopefully this can provide a bit more understanding as Wikipedia has a lot of policies that can be somewhat confusing to navigate for on your first day here.

Regarding notability-- When it comes to the amount of sources out there about Item, having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Individuals must fulfill the general notability guideline with significant coverage in independent sources. Ambassadors are usually not considered inherently notable, but it is a case by case basis. WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay, not an official policy. I'm not convinced that because he's an ambassador he's notable, feel free to disagree, that's why we have this discussion here. While there are reliable sources that have been added that confirm his role, I'm not sure his accomplishments as ambassador fulfill the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.

Regarding his notability as a journalist: While the Credit Suisse case brought attention to Mr. Item and provides WP:RS on him, it is a case of WP:1E. I haven't seen enduring coverage of him as a journalist with the exception of this case. On Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. Currently the reliance on the scoop and one Financial Times article appears to take an WP:Undue weight when it comes to assessing Item's notability. Just because WP:ITSINTHENEWS doesn't mean that someone is notable.

Regarding his notability re his nobility: While Item claims many "noble" honors, I have concerns if any of them fulfill WP:ANYBIO given that it appears he is in the business of assisting others in obtaining these and works for one of the entities that confers such awards. Other claims of notability that he is married to a celebrity do not fulfill the criterion either.

I nominated the article for these reasons. The requirements for sourcing for Living Persons on Wikipedia are high and require reliability.

Beyond notability, I also raised some concerns about the independence and neutrality of this article. While neutrality concerns cannot be a reason to delete an article, given the way the article has been edited, my concerns about WP:SPIP and WP:COI remain. These have not alleviated by the nature of this deletion discussion. Please see my comment here where I explain my concerns about WP:SPA and WP:NPOV.

CreateAccou4343nt555, I hope that the above explanation makes sense. Please remember, this is my personal view -- and anyone is welcome to disagree! That's why this forum exists for others to weigh in and for consensus to be made. But please be respectful in your discussion, as comments such as "Nayyn's argument doesn't has any evident value and is disposable" as you did above, appear uncivil and against Wikipedia policies for these things.
Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your first day here :-) Nayyn (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not new, my account is from 2021. I know a good amount of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You saying that I'm new to Wikipedia while being unable to check for my account age and contributions contributes to the fact you don't seem really check into and know about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so well as you seem to make it. Using such argument of account age is not really useful in any way here and does not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way and disperses attention, and there is policy/guideline against it.

The link in "having sources is no guarantee that a person is suitable for inclusion" is an essay, not an official policy or guideline. The sources I provided fulfill WP:GNG because it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", it is easily verifiable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) is a failed proposal, not a policy, guideline, or even an essay, thus this argument lacks evident value and is disposable. As in the sources I provided, consensus is that diplomats are notable and fulfill criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. With all the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources I provided, it's obvious the subject passes WP:BASIC criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AND "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.".

There are multiple reliable, independent sources provided that fulfill Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) which are enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, so WP:SPIP and WP:COI don't actually apply here as deletion criteria of the whole article.

There is no actual good evidence basis for deleting this article, what should be done is that the article should be kept and further improved. Please, help with that following my example of for example adding reliable sources.
CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, just noticed your talk page created today! Welcome back! Nayyn (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page was created in 2021... I really don't know what you're talking about.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say welcome back, as your last contribution to Wikipedia was in 2023 on GNU Guix Systems so it has been some years now since you contributed , so I wanted to be clear in my communication. Nayyn (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my reply to Mediascriptor, notability isn't the same as coverage. We don't need another 9 sources all saying that he's the ambassador, or 10 online sources all repeating his three quotes on the supposed Credit Suisse scandal. Such WP:REFBOMBs do not help a notability claim if all they do is state the same thing, but in a bunch of different outlets. The question is whether what is being said in those sources makes him notable. As WP:GNG states, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (emphasis mine).
The Credit Suisse section is both a case of WP:1E, full of grandiose claims about Item's importance not covered by the sources (he "significantly contributed towards public understanding", "being prominently covered", "continued to publish significant revelations", "published a new scoop", "recognized by the international press as a primary source for comprehending the Credit Suisse AT1s case", etc.), and seemingly not important enough to be featured at Credit Suisse.
I don't believe what's given in those sources reaches WP:GNG, and neither do some others in this discussion. You're free to think otherwise, which is why we're having this discussion. But let's not make it look like his notability is beyond all questioning just because a Google search produces some results. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 18:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the Financial Times article is so integral to Item's notability, why are so few of the claims from the article appearing in the Wikipedia page? They disclose a number of things that do not appear, such as Item being the lawyer to Vladimir Putin's son in law, one of his licenses being revoked in Antigua, being investigated by a Malaysian financial institution, his many pictures of beaches on his Instagram account or his 4000+ posts on his pizza forum? This is the same article that said his media organization Antigua News had 15 followers on Twitter at the time of the story, and some other choice words about the quality of the journalism on the site.
While many suggest that he was the reason that the Credit Suisse case is known to the public, this is not true, he "broke" the case by just shortly before the Financial Times. It is clear he has a personal business relationship with parties in the case and this in its outcome and continued notoriety. A Wikipedia page is not a fan site, it is a balanced account of someone's biography, and it is clear from how the page has edited it is not the case. Nayyn (talk) Nayyn (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Looking at this, what really stands out is how consistently this person shows up as notable across totally different areas. First, you've got high-level diplomatic work covered by big international organizations. Plus, major financial news outlets aren't just mentioning them in passing,they're reporting on specific, impactful actions that actually matter. And on top of that, there's formal recognition in official, publicly accessible registers. This isn't just one-off mentions. it's a real public profile built from multiple angles. When you see that kind of consistent, independent coverage across diplomacy, finance, and official channels, it really drives home the point of encyclopedic relevance. It directly answers what the Notability Guideline looks for: significant, reliable coverage from multiple independent sources across different spheres Wadurorsch (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is a very difficult discussion that seems to be highly brigaded with tons of accounts with very few edits on en-wiki that are all !voting keep (some have since been blocked such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediascriptor), the article itself looks like a WP:BLP1E / WP:PROMO article for a lawyer that represents people in the case against Credit Suisse and clearly seems to gain financially from this and increasing his profile around the Credit Suisse case. Even if we grant that the story itself is notable and that he had a significant part to play in reporting the story, this is still a case WP:BLP1E and WP:JOURNALIST where reporting one single story does not automatically mean notability in Wikipedia. I did make an attempt to comb through the first 40 references on the heavily WP:REFBOMB article on the subject and apart from a critical article on finews.com discussing all his conflicts of interest there wasnt any WP:SIGCOV, almost all links were trivial mentions, a snippet from him or some work done in his official capacity as ambassador (diplomats are not inherently notable). However, I wasnt able to find an in-depth secondary piece on him (apart from the critical finews piece) and many stories are about the CS case and not about him; looking at WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG I cannot find enough evidence for notability in all the sources provided, the only possible criteria would be NARTIST#4c based on the award that his media company (not him) got but I think that is a bit of a stretch and would only possibly qualify the media company he runs and not himself. On a different note, reading the article actually doesnt really explain what it is that makes him notable and what he really contributed to the reporting around CS, which is another major issue in the article, from reading all the cited sources I gather that he got an internal correspondence between FINMA and Credit Suisse where they disagreed about how the AT1 bonds should be treated -- again something that is supposedly his major contribution and is not even properly laid out in the article. --hroest 16:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP – I’m new to this article discussion but have read through both sides and the underlying Wikipedia policies. Based on the evidence available, it appears that he meets the requirements under WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
    The Financial Times article “Meet the pizza-loving diplomat behind Antigua News's big Credit Suisse scoop” is not a trivial mention — it’s a full, dedicated feature published by a globally respected outlet. In addition, there are multiple other independent, reliable, and secondary sources covering his role as a diplomat, his media work, and his involvement in the Credit Suisse AT1 bond story.
    Some editors have raised the concern of WP:1E (one-event notability), but I respectfully disagree this applies here. The Credit Suisse coverage appears across multiple outlets, countries, and languages, and there is a pattern of coverage over time, including before and after that case. That demonstrates enduring notability rather than fleeting attention.
    Concerns about peacock language or reference overload (WP:REFBOMB) are valid for content improvement, but they’re not, on their own, sufficient grounds for deletion. The solution to promotional tone is editing, not erasure. Wikipedia policy states that articles should be judged on the subject’s notability, not necessarily on the article’s current perfection. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.
    I would also note that Wikipedia welcomes contributions from a wide range of editors, and that participation from newer or topically interested accounts does not inherently invalidate their arguments, as long as they follow policy.
    In summary, regardless of the article’s imperfections, the volume and depth of coverage across major international media strongly support retention. With a more neutral tone and clearer organisation, the article can be improved further. Based on WP:N, I believe it should be kept. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more input from experienced editors would be very helpful. Additionally, reminder that if you can spot suspicious activity in an AfD, so can the closers - please keep things on-topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It seems that this person is responsible for breaking an important story to the press - but that's really just WP:ONEEVENT that he's known for. I noticed that is some of the sources about the story he broke, his name is mentioned merely once (El Pais) or not at all (Reuters) - that seems like WP:REFBOMBING and to me and is a strong indication there is not in fact, any in depth coverage of him as an individual (or, as it were, an Item). -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also in favor of salting per the high amount of sockpuppetry and brigading. Madeleine (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing recent "Delete" arguments after delisting:

1: Re: WP:ONEEVENT / WP:REFBOMBING (D'n'B): This isn't a simple WP:ONEEVENT case. While the Credit Suisse AT1 affair is significant, Mr. Item's role within it received in-depth, direct coverage (not D’n’B somehow missed these) from reliable sources like the Financial Times and Finews, focusing on his actions and impact. The El Pais piece cited is also a substantial profile/interview, not a trivial mention. This isn't refbombing; it's evidence of significant coverage. His broader diplomatic work (e.g., UNWTO, Antiguan media) further shows a profile beyond a single event. 2: Re: WP:BLP1E / Salting (Madeleine): WP:BLP1E is about careful handling, not automatic deletion if the "one event" coverage is deep, significant, and about the person's central role, as is evident here. The subject's multi-faceted public engagement (diplomacy + financial case impact) also complicates a strict BLP1E interpretation. Procedural issues like alleged sockpuppetry, while serious, are separate from whether the subject independently meets WP:GNG based on reliable sources. The evidence here points to GNG being met. SY DIGITAL (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I just don't see the sustained significant coverage in reliable independent sources necessary for a WP:BIO. Dozens of passing mentions, quotes from the subject, laudatory pieces from his employer, and an FT article, which I would say is on the human interest side of the spectrum as opposed to incisive, investigative journalism, are not sufficient. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC) SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SY DIGITAL you cannot vote twice, you will need to strike your second vote. Nayyn (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a separate vote rather adding the argument to previous vote. SY DIGITAL (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something that gets continuously conflated in this discussion is the notability of the Credit Suisse scandal, and the notability of Item as a person. I've done multiple hours of research this morning and have yet to find a single article outside the 2 mentions that come up continuously:
  • The "FT article" was published in the "FT Alphaville" section, which is essentially a blog; there's nothing that suggests this ever made it to print. It also discusses his involvement essentially as a curiosity in a "haha, look at this guy" way—they literally call him a "crusted advisor" for his 4,635 posts in a pizza forum.
  • Finews published a grand total of one 400-word article mentioning him, again largely because of the curiosity of using "Antigue News" as an outlet.
In any of the 'real' coverage in reputable sources are he never makes an appearance: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] (the last is another Finews article about this exact scandal, and guess who isn't mentioned)
@SY DIGITAL, I've also seen you mention that this supposedly is a part of the Indian Civil Service exam. What you fail to mention is that "this" is the Credit Suisse case, which very much does not include Item in any of the sources I've seen. Happy to be corrected, of course. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 11:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcaist your comment is completely lacking in objectivity.
According to Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
Dario Item clearly meets these requirements both in relation to his activities linked to the Credit Suisse case and in his role as ambassador for Antigua and Barbuda.
With regard to the Credit Suisse case, there are at least 7 secondary sources that are indisputably “reliable,” “intellectually independent of each other and of the subject,” and that have profiled Dario Item over the past two years. These are: 1) Financial Times; 2) Finews; 3) El Espanol; 4) Economia Digital; 5) Insideparadeplatz.ch; 6) Dominica News Online; 7) Antigua Observer (links to the articles have been already provided above by Mediascriptor).
The way you disparage the FT and the ALPHAVILLE section (see WP:PUBLISHED) and misrepresent the article published in Finews is very unfair. I gather that you have not even read the other sources I mentioned.
In addition to profiling articles, Dario Item has been interviewed several times over the past two years by other reliable secondary sources: 1. Reuters; 2. Bloomberg; 3. El Pais; 4. Die Weltwoche; 5. Corriere del Ticino, etc. Here are a few examples:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/swiss-court-weighs-greater-disclosure-credit-suisse-bond-suit-filings-2023-10-03/
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/capital-markets/credit-suisse-at1-litigators-hit-back-at-reform-discussions
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-09/ubs-wins-further-delay-in-filing-response-to-at1-wipeout-case?srnd=undefined&embedded-checkout=true
https://cincodias.elpais.com/mercados-financieros/2024-04-04/la-cnmv-suiza-intenta-bloquear-el-acceso-de-inversores-a-los-documentos-sobre-el-colapso-de-credit-suisse.html
https://cincodias.elpais.com/mercados-financieros/2023-11-22/el-colapso-de-credit-suisse-llega-por-primera-vez-a-los-tribunales-de-estados-unidos.html?rel=buscador_noticias
https://weltwoche.ch/?post_type=weekly&p=166065
https://www.cdt.ch/news/economia/la-giustizia-e-troppo-lenta-e-gli-investitori-la-contestano-davanti-al-tribunale-federale-395725
In relation to his role as ambassador for Antigua and Barbuda, Dario Item has been covered by many authoritative and reliable secondary sources: 1. Antigua Observer; 2. Dominica News Online; 3. Yahoo Finance; 4. UNWTO; 5. Huffpost; 6) La Nueva Crónica; 7) Variety.com; 8) El Mundo etc. etc. (links to the articles have been already provided above by Mediascriptor, CreateAccou4343nt555 and by me). I am adding two more that I found:
https://antiguaobserver.com/antigua-and-barbuda-pioneers-tourism-innovation-with-google-street-view-project/
https://variety.com/2022/film/global/andrea-iervolino-film-tv-investment-west-indies-1235440705/
@CROIX, an editor from Antigua and Barbuda, has finally confirmed Dario Item's notability at the local level.
I am very concerned about the way in which objective facts are being downplayed in this discussion. With this approach, Dario Item appears to be a target, casting a serious shadow over the principle that Wikipedia policies must be applied to everyone in the same way, avoiding blatant disparities. Juliannua (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This constant barrage of articles demonstrating his supposed importance, only to then fall apart once one reads those articles, is really starting to get on my nerves.
  1. I've already covered FT and Finews.
  2. El Espanol: An article quoting him at length; no real editorializing, merely reporting what he's saying.
  3. Economia Digital: same as El Espanol.
  4. Insideparadeplatz.ch: Repeats the Antigua News article.
  5. Dominica News Online: Repeats the Antigua News article.
  6. Antigua Observer: Summarizes the FT article.
None of this fulfills WP:SIGCOV, especially not any article that just repackages what was written about him by Antigua News (which he founded).
The other articles you cite quote him briefly, calling them "interviews" is silly:
  1. Reuters: Two-line quote because he legally represents Credit Suisse investors. Not only does that not establish notability, it also raises serious concerns that he directly benefits from coverage of the scandal, including from a coincidentally long section on this issue in his article.
  2. Bloomberg and Bloomberg Law: Again passing mentions because he represents investors in a case. (Also paywalled)
  3. El Pais #1: Two-line quote in a 1,200-word article.
  4. El Pais #2: Quoted with four lines in a 1,300-word article.
  5. Weltwoche: No idea, since it's paywalled.
  6. Corriere del Ticino: 4-line quote with basically the same text from the other sources.
None of the sources you cite say anything about him that would convince an uninvolved party that he's notable. They're all the same brief quotes in the same context with pretty much identical wording.
I would also suggest that you don't let this devolve into WP:PA, such as accusing me of "completely lacking objectivity", and "disparaging" and "misrepresenting" articles. That's not helping your case. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 13:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from SPI: There are good faith, non-sock, non-meat, non-canvassing reasons for at least some of the unusual contributions here and I encourage experienced editors to respond to them with patience and an open mind. Now that that's said, with my AfD closer hat back on, I'm wondering why this discussion is between "keep" and "delete" and not much discussion of a redirect? It seems from the comments above that Item's notability is primarily with regards to the Credit Suisse case. If we have an article on the scandal, should this not be redirected there? And if we do not have an article on the scandal, since it seems to be notable, is there an argument to be made that we should keep the article on Dario Item at least until that article can be created? -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    hi, no there is not an article on this case. There were a lot of things happening with Credit Suisse at the time and this was just one of them. And going back to the Financial Times article that keeps being mentioned, Item "broke" the story only a very short time before the Financial Times published their piece. Because the Antigua News is so small very few even knew about the "scoop". That's why FT Alphaville did a story on Item afterwards because of the novelty of the "scoop" by the news outlet. The FT piece isn't really that complementary to him either.... which is why it is used in an WP:UNDUE way in the Wiki article.
    The Credit Suisse case story did not come out solely because of Item's involvement in leaking it. The FT I think published like an hour later (according to their article that keeps being mentioned). Nayyn (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The closest thing I could find was Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS § AT1 bonds issue, which does not mention Dario Item, his scoop, or the Antigua News. So I don't think that is a viable target, and, were Item's scoop very critical or important to the story/timeline, I imagine that it would already be there. That leads me to think it is therefore tangential at best. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nayyn what you write is totally wrong.
    On May 15, 2023, on antigua.news Item published in full the FINMA orders of March 19 and 22, 2023 by which the write-down of AT1s was made (https://antigua.news/2023/05/15/credit-suisse-at1-bonds-swiss-federal-administrative-court-orders-finma-to-disclose-documents-to-plaintiff-investors-credit-suisse-warned-finma-about-the-lack-of-a-contractual-basis-for-the-write-do/).
    If you carefully read the press articles from those days, you will see that no one was aware of the full content of the March 19, 2023 order, while the existence of the March 22 order was totally unknown in the media.
    Articles subsequently published by the FT (Credit Suisse privately
    challenged Finma's AT1 writedown" (https://www.ft.com/content/fbf3f385-1c4a-48fc-a7a0-d7
    ae998637dd) and Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/credit-suisse-neared-it
    s-cash-limits-days-before-rescue-filing-shows-2023-05-18/ ) mention precisely that it was antigua.news that published these documents before any other. In other words, if Item did not publish those documents, FT and Reuters had nothing to publish at all. Juliannua (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I can agree with you here @Juliannua. I have carefully read the releases as well as the other sources that were reporting on this case at the time. I'm not here to waste anyone's time and did my research before proposing this. I don't deny that Antigua news published first. But the case was going to come out, with or without Item, as others were also reporting on this and publishing shortly after. I do not find evidence that the case would not have been made without Item's "scoop". Even if he had, it is still a case of BLP1E. Nayyn (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 04:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loveless (American band)

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

Almost completely unsourced. No evidence that this group meets WP:NBAND. Few incoming links, minimal pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band's album, see WP:NALBUM. Unsourced and not notable:
Gift to the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
162 etc. (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ and rename. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCallister (disambiguation)

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

Delete. Lists only one primary topic (that isn't even properly listed as the PT) and several similar-sounding names. Not sufficient at all for a DAB page. GilaMonster536 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omri Ceren

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

Fails WP:NBIO (and WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR). Non-notable mid-level staff member in the U.S. Congress. There simply aren't enough reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Read

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

No, not the Massachusetts woman on trial for murder (although I will admit, searching for her lead me to this stub). This article is about an Australian former cricketer. Although criteria #1 of WP:NCRICKET is technically passed because she has played at the international level for a Test-playing nation, NSPORT is clear that there must always be independent WP:SIGCOV of the individual athlete. Neither player profiles on sports aggregation websites, nor an article from 1982 that talks about the entire Australian Cricket team, qualify. WP:BEFORE search did not yield any eligible coverage. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given this article's high page views (41,193 at this writing) compared to other members of the 1982 Australian women's cricket team, I don't think it's a stretch that most of those views are looking for Death of John O'Keefe instead. Should this discussion lead to deletion, creating a redirect to that article at this title might be wise, but I offer no opinion on the current article and subject (which has been on Wikipedia for about a decade before the Massachusetts murder trial even began) or its notability and sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely, yes. I am quite certain that thousands of people have stumbled upon this article inadvertently. If this AfD is not successful, I will likely start a discussion on the article talk page proposing to move it to "Karen Read (cricketer)" and have the current title replaced by a redirect which leads to Death of John O'Keefe. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given that she played in a team that won the Women's Cricket World Cup, and was given an Order of Australia award for services to cricket, I would expect there will be more sources out there, once filtering through the ones about current person of same name. Because achievements like these tend to garner non-trivial coverage. Will have a look in the next few days on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you say that, because intuitively, I would not think so. I don't see why reliable secondary sources would have indepth coverage about a person just because they were on a winning rugby team in 1982 - not just about the team, but about her specifically. The same goes for the Order of Australia, as nearly 50,000 people have received it (and I highly doubt that all 50,000 of them have WP:SIGCOV). With this being said, I will gladly withdraw the nomination if someone can produce two examples of significant independent coverage. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources: "Captain of Western Australia's only winning Australian Championship team"
    • Flipandflopped: She was just "on" the team
    It's pretty usual for the captain of a championship team to get interviewed and profiled in the sports news, because the captain isn't just some random player. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In addition to what Joseph2302 has noted above, she is in the Western Australian cricket Gallery of Greats and the Karen Read Medal is awarded each year to the best A Grade player in the state. I would be utterly astounded if SIGCOV of her does not exist. But unfortunately most digitised Australian newspaper archives are very spotty between around the mid-1950s and early 1990s, and I haven't been able to find anything in any of the databases I have access to. Hoping someone else has better luck, otherwise regretfully redirect to List of Australia women Test cricketers. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no move Sources have been added to the article, and it's once again time to remind everyone that though this is the English-language Wikipedia and the servers are hosted in Florida, that doesn't mean American subjects gain primacy in article naming. The MA woman may be getting more attention now, but she has no article, and the hatnote is fulfilling the purpose as it does, and there should be no change at all and I would oppose any rename for this article just because 'MA Karen currently gets more attention'. In three years, she will likely be forgotten as most overcovered trial subjects in the States are once true crime media finds another woman's case to track. Nathannah • 📮 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathannah, what two independent secondary sources that were added to the article pass WP:SIGCOV? There is:
    • "Player Profile: Karen Read". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 26 January 2023. - Just a summary of her stats, exists for every cricket athlete ever. Clearly not WP:SIGCOV.
    • "Player Profile: Karen Read". CricketArchive. Retrieved 26 January 2023. - Per above.
    • "Cricket Australia congratulates 2025 Australia Day Honours recipients". Cricket Australia. 27 January 2025. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - Not independent of the subject, fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Even if it was independent of the subject, it is a passing mention that she won an award. There is no indepth or substantive coverage of Read.
    • "Australian women win final". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. 8 February 1982. Retrieved 25 April 2014 - Does not significantly discuss Read as an individual besides mentioning once that she scored in a game, fails WP:SIGCOV.
    • "Karen Read Medal". Western Australian Cricket Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - A list of people who have won her medal. Does not significantly discuss Read as an individual beyond a single sentence. It is also not independent of the subject. It fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV.
    • "WACA Honorary Life Members". Western Australian Cricket Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - A list of people that she is on, does not discuss her and does not pass WP:SIGCOV.
    • "Karen Read". Western Australian Secondary School Executives Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - Not independent of the subject, not WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:BIO.
    • "Dr Karen Ann READ". Australian Honours Search Facility. Retrieved 25 January 2025 - Primary sources which contains no significant coverage; it is her C.V. posted on a government website.
    Respectfully, all of the above objectively fail WP:SIGCOV, and you would know that if you had read the article or even bothered to open them. Even the user who added them to the article, Joseph, acknowledged they were insufficient to pass WP:GNG as-is. I understand you resent the implication that the other Karen Read is a more notable subject, but this is WP:NOTAFORUM and I would ask you focus future contributions on whether *this article* passes WP:GNG. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 16:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely irrelevant side note: the servers that are processing our edits are actually hosted in Virginia and Texas, not Florida; the Pmtpa cluster in Florida was shutdown a decade ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per added sources and WP:HEY. The article has doubled in size, and the number of cited sources has doubled, since the nomination was made. Someone with access to the Trove might be able to find even more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I’ve checked Trove and unfortunately it doesn’t help in this case. For copyright reasons, Trove generally only contains newspapers up to 1954. The only major newspaper for which Trove covers the relevant period is The Canberra Times, where she appears in about half a dozen match reports but doesn’t get any SIGCOV. The best bet for finding SIGCOV would probably be the archives of The West Australian, but as far as I can tell only their pre-1954 and post-1995 articles have been digitised. MCE89 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing Again, I would just like to politely ask which two sources, specifically, pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:NBIO. "The article has doubled" is not a policy-based rationale with regards to whether the subject matter is notable. I really hope whoever reviews this can sympathize with my frustration... none of these !votes are addressing the question of notability... "Does the subject pass WP:GNG"? FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flipandflopped, I would just like to politely ask that you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and then stop arguing with every editor who doesn't !vote your way. Four editors have expressed an opinion about whether to keep, delete, or redirect this article, and you have argued with three of us so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize - not my intention to bludgeon, I realize it may have come off that way. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sufficiently sourced to show an athlete whose noted activities go beyond their athletics. Definitely move to disambiguate the title, however. BD2412 T 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has been sufficiently expanded to meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia.
    However, a separate Requested Move discussion should be held to potentially move this article to a disambiguator and either a) redirect the root to Death of John O'Keefe or b) establish a DAB page at Karen Read listing the cricketer, the murder page, and potentially Karen Reid. RachelTensions (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search