Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 13 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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. Seraphimblade 01:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

No evidence of notability. Fails NARTIST, GNG. Promotional, have to assume there is a COI. ‡ El cid, el campeador 21:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please consider researching if you want to continually follow the ARS rescue list. Our mission is not to look at the article as it is... the mission is to improve the article. Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as Delete but I was asked to relist it to allow an editor to participate in it so I have reverted my closure and relisted it. Please be aware that another admin can close this when they choose to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: I requested the reopen of this deletion discussion because I had just started to research and had just posted it on the article rescue list. So far I have added 3 references. I will continue to research the person. Thanks Beccaynr for getting the research started. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I hope to get the participants here to take another look to see if the subject meets WP:BASIC after the rewrite. I have added at least three non-trivial news references. I wanted to present the best version of the article since it had zero references and just looked like bullet points of promotion previously. @TheLongTone, Beccaynr, and ThegaBolt:. Thanks for considering! Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. I think there is a credible argument to keep under WP:BASIC. But I see the counter arguments to that too, local coverage and includes interviews. BASIC requires that coverage is reliable (it is) and independence of the source (that depends how we interpret that). Are interviews independent? I've seen this argued both ways here. I think they are independent for notability, not for verifiability. Is only local coverage OK? Some editors think yes, some no. I see no rule excluding local only coverage, if it is reliable. So this is not clear, it could be argued either way, but I do think it satisfies WP:BASIC, borderline, thanks to the recent improvements, which supersede earlier !votes CT55555(talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Note - right now, there are only two sources which could even be considered in-depth discussion in reliable sources. Both are from the The San Diego Union-Tribune. The other sources are either passing mentions or notably unreliable (attempting to identify "Let’s Jump Off The Toxic Treadmill" as a useful source is very misguided). As it stands, one Tribune source has not even been read by anyone as far as I can tell (it is abstract only and no one seems to have the rights to read it). In any event, 2 sources would be the bare minimum to pass GNG and since these are from the same publication 20 years apart, it seems to be less about the individual being notable, and more like a "what happened to this person, who used to perform with famous people but never became famous". Accordingly, I maintain that this article fails notability requirements and should be deleted. There is nothing notable about her career or achievements, even if she was discussed in a newspaper twice. ‡ El cid, el campeador 18:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I have been working to clean up and expand the article as a way to assess notability, and I have access to a 3-graf preview of the 1996 San Diego Union-Tribune through ProQuest. It is labeled an interview, but one graf in the abstract offers secondary commentary on her album. Also, I included a mention of "Let's Jump Off The Toxic Treadmill" because it is mentioned in the San Diego Union-Tribune. In the meantime, it appears MrsSnoozyTurtle was not included in the pings of previous participants in this discussion, so I am including a ping now. Beccaynr (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - per WP:BASIC and WP:NMUSIC. Per WP:GNG fn 4, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source, and the three San Diego Union-Tribune articles currently cited seem reasonable to consider as one source: the 1996 source is labeled as an interview in ProQuest with only the abstract available, with some secondary commentary of her album visible; in 1998, there is an article about the 1998 Lilith Fair tour that in its abstract refers to her as one of the "lesser-known talents" and "veteran San Diego singer-songwriter Elizabeth Hummel" - based on the 2-graf abstract, the article appears to focus broadly on the tour and I am not able to assess the depth of coverage focused on her, although it might help identify how she was involved in Lilith Fair, which I do not think is clear from various sources; there is also the 2014 article mostly based on an interview with some secondary context that has been helpful for developing the article. There is also the 2019 coverage in The Olympian, which is based on an interview but includes secondary commentary about her contemporary work. Other sources in the article include her personal website, a blurb in the San Diego Reader, brief mentions in a book about songbirds, and her AllMusic discography. While the WP:BASIC guideline permits multiple independent sources to be combined to support notability, each source appears to have limitations, and more appears to be needed to support a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Beccaynr at least it looks like a proper Knowledge (XXG) article now. Easier to assess the notability. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yalinde Nkanya (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)

Player fails both WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Has played T20 internationals for an ICC associate nation, but unfortunately not at a sufficient level (as detailed in WP:CRIN). Does not appear likely to have sufficient detailed coverage in reputable sources for GNG. Bs1jac (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add that the solution could be a redirect to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers. Bs1jac (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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. If editors would like to turn this article into a redirect, please discuss it on the article talk page. Liz 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

J.G. Morgan (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 Joeykai (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 23:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Urbane Magazine (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 initially WP:PRODed this with the following rationale: "Non-notable, short lived student publication. None of the current references appear to be valid significant coverage in reliable sources, and searches turned up no coverage elsewhere. Note that there appears to be a current magazine also named "Urbane", but it is unrelated to this defunct student publication." However, it seems that it had already been deleted via PROD in the past and recreated, thus making ineligible for that method of deletion again, so I am bringing it to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Magazines aren't inherently notable, or automatically entitled to have Knowledge (XXG) articles — the notability test hinges on demonstrating some significance, not just on verifying that the topic exists. But of the just four footnotes here, I get one directory entry that isn't support for notability at all, and three dead links of which two came from the student media of the same university this magazine also served (thus not fully independent of the topic for the purposes of being able to add GNG points) and one Waybacks as "page not found" even the first time Wayback ever scraped it at all. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes. (Also there was a probable conflict of interest here, as there's a significant correspondence between the username of the editor who created the article and the name of the magazine's publisher in the directory entry that constitutes footnote #1.) Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only secondary coverage I have been able to find is this mention in 2011 in the Globe & Mail (in an article written by the former fashion editor of Urbane Magazine) and a mention of the Urbane Magazine launch party in January 2010 in an Ontario newspaper article about a band called The Folk. Does not meet GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
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 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Subject is non-notable, does not fulfill GNG or PROF. References are either entirely about his taking office, or are not independent of the institution, or both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree-not remotely a major university with the significant presence in scholarship and research that is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC).
Huh???? Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The subject of this article is the President of the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Texas. I assumed that was "the institution" Xxanthippe was inquiring about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
It was. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC).
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 22:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Donna Eastwood (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 indication that this case is any different than the myriad homicide cases that, unfortunately, occur regularly. WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM apply here as the subject is notable solely for her murder and the circumstances of her murder are not particularly notable. Ponyo 22:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 House Foundation. Liz 22:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Richard Falklen (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)

Looks like it fails WP:NBIO. Googlin' it up only shows a Christmas song and a PCV memorial. No reliable sources to be found. Sarrail (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 01:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Phillips (politician) (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)

Members of national or sub national legislatures are notable but Phillips is member of a city council which fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (politics)#Politician. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Phillips represents more people then some mayors or state representatives. We don't usually have dicussions for deleting Major city councilmembers pages. If we delete phillips' page then we will have to delete hundreds of othersUser:Phillypaboy123 10:18, 6 December 2022 (EST)

  • Keep: Deficient rationale for deletion. Not all city council members are notable–this is self-evident. However, a city council member of a major U.S. city will almost certainly warrant an article. According, the actual standards we have for notability are fulfilled by the current stub. Additionally, sources that further evident his notability are easily accessible: The Philadelphia Inquirer 27 Oct, Philadelphia Tribune 8 Nov, and BillyPenn 25 Oct. All of these sources should be sufficient to ensure challenges to notability are addressed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, I don't think Philipps satisfies the criteria of being from an "internationally famous metropolitan area" (for me, in a US context, this would be New York, LA, Chicago). He may or may not satisfy the GNG, but I don't believe presumed notability can apply here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
As an after-thought, I think the size of the city is important, but not determinative. Cities of considerably smaller size can be far more "internationally famous" than larger cities; eg by way of comparison, Miami or Nashville are clearly internationally well known, but notably smaller than Charlotte (NC) or Jacksonville (FL), which are far from being internationally well known. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Again I will state, his predesscors and all the other councilmembers have pages. If we delete this page, the other pages of city council members from urban cities all over america will have to be deleted to fit what you're saying.User:Phillypaboy123 10:03, 7 December 2022 (EST)
I would encourage reading WP:ALLORNOTHING. If a subject/person etc cannot demonstrate notability based of this encyclopaedia's various criteria, then it cannot have an article. That only has relevance for that particular subject, in and of itself it has no impact on any other subject. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
You get my point, this opens up the case of deleting many other urban city council member's pages. User:Phillypaboy123 19:28, 7 December 2022 (EST)
Not sure I get your point; I disagree with the points you've made that deleting this article would mean deleting a class of articles. FWIW, in my comment, I'm using subject as in the subject of an article, not subject as in a topic area. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The reasoning given to delete this article, gives leeway for many other articles to be deleted. Thanks, --Phillypaboy123 (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2022 (EST)
  • Delete I'm also going to say TOO SOON - it looks like this is a young, newly elected local politician with very little press other than short blurbs about him being elected. The 'BillyPenn' article is about him but the source is only local (local politicians need wide-ish source coverage to meet NPOL). Much more would be needed for this to meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be sourced better. While it's true that city councillors in global cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago or Philadelphia are often accepted as notable enough, that isn't an automatic guarantee in all cases — it hinges less on verifying that he exists as a city councillor, and more on the amount of WP:GNG-worthy coverage that can be shown to get him past WP:NPOL #2 (where, note, the test is "who have received significant press coverage"). Securing the notability of a city councillor, in other words, is not a question of nominally verifying that he won the election: it's a question of writing and sourcing some substance about the impact of his term in office: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. It's possible, maybe even likely, that he'll have enough coverage at some point in 2023, when his term in office can be measured in months — but just 20 days after the election, when it isn't even entirely clear whether he's even been sworn into office yet, the type of content and sourcing it takes to make a city councillor notable clearly isn't available yet. This isn't a "never", it's just a "WP:TOOSOON". Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
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 20:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Unsourced article that does not establish notability. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC) (categories)

  • Delete. Applied sources are a 2011 Independent Music Awards submission, a 404 error and the band's MySpace page. A reasonable BEFORE finds nothing significant directly detailing in RS. BusterD (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 21:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Kovid Mittal (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)

Only appeared in non notable films which fails WP:NACTOR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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. There is consensus that the sources don't support a policy-compliant article on this topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

North Kyrgyz Confederation (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)

Find me any authoritative scientific work by a Western or at least a Soviet author to confirm the existence of this alleged state. Half of the sources in the article are a forum where anyone can upload the article. The remaining half are scientific works that touch on the history of the Kirghiz, as tribes not united by a confederation. There is no such term as "North Kyrgyz Confederarion", the author of the article invented it himself. He was repeatedly blocked on the Russian Knowledge (XXG) for vandalism and harassment. This term is one big fiction. Kazman322 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    • To begin with, I would like to say that I was blocked on Russian Knowledge (XXG) for no reason, and then I was just starting to make edits, and what does this have to do with it? Next, "Half of the sources in the article are forums and blah blah blah" can you show me exactly which sources are forums? And other sources (including books) are not authoritative? , On these two maps of the 19th century, the borders of the Buruts (Kyrgyz) are clearly visible. Foggy kub (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
      • And what do these maps prove? That on the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan (suddenly) did the Kyrgyz live? I ask you to give me a quote from any authoritative book that mentions the term North-Kyrgyz Confederation. I have always found it funny from your childish reasoning, insults and fabrications, and now you have brought mystification and delusion to the English wiki. Kazman322 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
        • You still haven't answered my question. Foggy kub (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Dear colleague, instead of insulting my work, you would be better off finally answering my question about the sources you call "forums". I don’t know you, but you communicate with me like an old friend, please stop such a dialogue with me, otherwise I will be forced to contact the administrators about your behavior. Foggy kub (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'd like someone else to double check but, as per nom, there seems to be nothing even mentioning this supposed confederation. A large amount of questionable information seems to have been created (on multiple wikis) with regards to this topic. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Mamaktul Biy I suspect is not a real figure (the book cited by the same 'Foggy kub' on commons doesn't seem to exist), this image seems to be a slightly edited version of the modern Kyrgyzstan map. Jantay batyr, Atake biy and this image also seem to fit the bill though the latter two reference a source that mentions this legitimate organisation (as per below) Sgubaldo (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Mamaktul and Jantay did exist, as I found coverage of them while writing an article for a contemporaneous figure. That said, I can't speak to the factuality of either article, as I have not edited them. Curbon7 (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I also added two maps of the 19th century to the article where there is an inscription "Buruten Kara-Kirgizen" (note, that was the name of the Kyrgyz). The map, which is on the main page, also has sources that say the border of the Kyrgyz possessions. I would like someone from the experienced contributors to double-check the entire article for "mistakes", thanks! Foggy kub (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I, as the author of the article, can show you the required sources. For starters, you could see the maps of this confederation, which were written by German scientists back in the early 19th century. Also in the article there are already sources confirming the existence of this state. Chinese and Russian sources also confirm this, the article even has a painting by a Chinese artist during the reign of Emperor Qianlong. Foggy kub (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Searching up North Kyrgyz Confederation or North Kirghiz Confederation on Google Scholar brings up nothing. A search for North Kyrgyz Confederation on Google only brings up Quora and Knowledge (XXG) mirrors. The author of the page hasn't brought up any credible book or scholarly article that mentions something called the "North Kyrgyz Confederation", but has brought up a bunch of random 19th-century maps where "the borders of the Buruts are clearly visible", while conveniently ignoring the fact that they don't mention anything called the "North Kyrgyz Confederation" at all. Mucube (talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    • , . Foggy kub (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Stop throwing random books, we need specific excerpts from the text. Probably hard to understand. Kazman322 (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
        • In this book (the link to the electronic version contains special characters that Knowledge (XXG) does not allow. "Материалы по истории кыргызов и Кыргызстана", authors:K. Dzhusaev, A. Mokeev, D. Saparaliev, ISBN:9967-21-838-X), you can see Chinese chronicles and sources about the Kyrgyz from the 7th-19th centuries. Foggy kub (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
          • I also found the work of the Soviet Doctor of Historical Sciences Alexander Bernshtam, I think this can already serve as a source. In this work, Alexander Bernshtam writes that in the 18th century the Kyrgyz were divided into northern and southern, the northern had a confederation called "Tagai" (I mentioned this in the article), and the southern confederation "Adygene". Foggy kub (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
        • p.192, The supreme ruler of the northern Kyrgyz, it tells about the confederate type of the Kyrgyz of the 18th century. Foggy kub (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
          • On p. 192 there is nothing about the existence of the "North-Kyrgyz Confederation", it refers to the tribal division of the Kirghiz in the 18th century. Nothing about the existence of some state, you just think out information. Kazman322 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Don't lie, on page 192 it says that the Supreme Ruler is the sole ruler of all the northern tribes (not just one kind), and in the source at number 5 (a little higher) everything is clearly indicated. Foggy kub (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Where is the North-kyrgyz confederation term? Are you okay? Kazman322 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Read what I wrote. There is no term "North Kyrgyz Confederation", but the very existence of the state is, and do not communicate with me in such a tone. Foggy kub (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
            • Comment: Maybe rename the article to "Tagai Confederation"? Foggy kub (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
            • You still haven't proven the existence of the state. For the special, I repeat: on p. 192 we are talking about the tribal division of the northern Kirghiz living under a single leader, there is nothing about the existence of a separate state. Kazman322 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
            • (showing for the second time) work of the Soviet Doctor of Historical Sciences Alexander Bernshtam, Alexander Bernshtam writes that in the 18th century the Kyrgyz were divided into northern and southern, the northern had a confederation called "Tagai" (I mentioned this in the article), and the southern confederation "Adygene". there is also a mention of two Kyrgyz states of a confederate type of state administration. Foggy kub (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have access to an extensive English-language book on Kyrgyz history, A History of Kyrgyzstan: From Stone Age to the Present; after searching, I was only able to find a single mention of something that could even be tangentially related: "The costs of organizing and equipping the delegation were covered by Mamatkul-biy, the ruler of northern Kyrgyz". Curbon7 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Let me make this clear. The purported founder of the "North Kyrgyz Confederation", Mamatkul Biy, was a real person, as the book that Curbon7 mentioned and this paper in Turkish (on page 20) confirms. However, this person was only the leader of a tribe, not of some united confederation. The Turkish paper says :"Sarbagış boyundan olan Mamatkul Biy", which Google Translate translates to "Mamatkul Biy from Sarbagis tribe", so Mamatkul Biy must have been the leader of a tribe, not of a confederation. The paper does not mention a united Kyrgyz federation. It only mentions the Kyrgyz as a group of tribes. Mucube (talk · contribs) 01:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • , (showing for the third time) Here it is clearly seen that he is the common ruler of all the northern tribes and that this is a confederation. Foggy kub (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Bernshtam obviously speaks of the modern tribal division into northern and southern Kirghiz, but not about a separate state. Kazman322 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      • "dividing ... into the confederation of Adygene and Tagay", everything is written in clear words, you will have to admit this colleague. Foggy kub (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Can you read? it says about the modern division of the tribal system of the Kyrgyz. He speaks of a confederation in the context of the tribal system of the Tien Shan Kyrgyz, and not about a separate state. Kazman322 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      • "Mistakenly indicated here as the title "Mamuk Kuli (Mamatkul)" is the name of the elected Kyrgyz Khan, who at the time of writing the text really led the Kyrgyz ...", Bernshtam pointed out that Mamatkul was not just the leader of a group of several tribes, but the sole ruler Kyrgyz of all tribes (north). Foggy kub (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Where is the mention of the state? It turns out that the tribe of Indians is also a separate country? Kazman322 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
          • I don’t see the point in your words, A. Bernshtam writes that the Kyrgyz were divided into two Confederations Tagai and Adygene (I also need to create an article about Adygene), if you read the entire fragment, you will understand that the Kyrgyz had their own state. Foggy kub (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
        • , "the nomadic society was a confederation of tribes...", here we are talking about the northern Kyrgyz. Foggy kub (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Yes, Kyrgyz society was a confederation of tribes. But there was never a Tagay confederation or Adygine confederation. Mucube (talk · contribs) 05:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
            • "dividing ... into the confederation of Adygene and Tagay" (showing for the second time). Foggy kub (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
              • I don't speak Russian. But every single English source that I read mentions Tagay and Adygine as tribes. (more sources: , pg. 138; ; , pg. 53) Mucube (talk · contribs) 05:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
              • You still have to read through a translator, because it clearly states that the Kyrgyz were divided into two confederations, the Soviet scientist Alexander Bernshtam writes about this. Regarding your sources, I didn’t find anything in the first one, the second one says that Tagay and Adygene are just tribes, Tagay and Adygyne are the name of a branch of tribes, each branch has a certain number of tribes , this is a union, these names come from these names confederations. Foggy kub (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
              • in the Russian encyclopedia there is nothing about the existence of the country, it describes the tribal structure. Kazman322 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
              • What kind of encyclopedia are you talking about, I showed the work of a Soviet scientist, you simply ignore it, you ignore everything I write about. Foggy kub (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I find no mention of this entity in some standard texts: not in Bregel's Historical Atlas of Central Asia nor Abazov's The Historical Dictionary of Krygyzstan nor Soucek's History of Inner Asia.

References

  1. Bregel, Yuri (2003). An historical atlas of Central Asia. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-47-40121-6.
  2. Abazov, Rafis (2004). Historical dictionary of Kyrgyzstan. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0-8108-4868-6. Despite heroic resistance of the Kyrgyz tribes, between 1762 and 1831 the Kokand Khans established control over most of the territory that is now Kyrgyzstan. They confiscated the land to build numerous fortresses and trading outposts, imposed stringent levies, and conscripted young Kyrgyzs to military service. The Kyrgyzs could not find allies in the east, as they were aware of the fate of the Oirats (Dzhungars) who were practically exterminated for their resistance by the Chinese troops in Eastern Turkistan in the late 18th century. The independentminded Kyrgyz tribes, which regularly rioted against the Kokand rule, began seeking allies in the north. During the late 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, leaders of northern Kyrgyz tribes several times contacted the Russian tsardom looking for possible support. (p.10)
  3. Soucek, Svatopluk (2000). A history of inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511991523.
I'm more than usually accepting of non-English sourcing, but on a subject like this it strikes me as somewhat telling that no English sourcing appears available that unambiguosly supports the existence of this entity. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but reliable, high quality sourcing to date is lacking. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • German-Polish source, where the state of the northern Kyrgyz is mentioned. This is not the Kara-Kyrgyz Khanate of 1842, since the book was written in the 1850s (Before the collapse of the Khanate). Foggy kub (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Do not be misled, by the Kyrgyz we mean the Kazakhs, because until 1936 the Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz were called the same. Moreover, the source mentions that the Kirghiz live from the Volga to the Irtysh / Altai, it is obvious that the Kazakhs are meant. Kazman322 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    • The source mentions "Kara-Kyrgyz" or "Buruts", it is only said about the Kazakhs that they were called "Kaisak-Kyrgyz". Foggy kub (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
      This "German-Polish" source is an introduction to an 1842 poem by Gustaw Zieliński dating from around the 1880s (it quotes an 1876 text). This is not a high quality, reliable source that can be used to support the existence of the entity we're discussing. Ideally, we need contemporary sources from academic specicialists; an almost 150 year old introduction to a literary text, full of florid language and hyperbole, does not support the argument. FWIW, a vague wave towards, I'm assuming the following sentence, does not reveal anything relevant to this discussion. "Sie theilen sich in die eigentlichen Kirgisen, die im Gebirge Thian-schan wohnen und Kara (schwarze) Kirgisen oder auch Berg-Kirgisen oder Buruten genannt werden." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Second German source 1768. Foggy kub (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    A Google books search pointing to "Das Land der Kirgisen" is not evidence of the North Krygyz Confederation. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Third German source 1830. Foggy kub (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Again: useless sources that mention the habitat of the Kirghiz, but not modern scientific authoritative works that interpret these tribes as a separate country, every day your sources are getting more and more hopeless. Kazman322 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Dear colleague, these sources mention the state of the Kyrgyz (Buruts), the third source is a German encyclopedia, so these are authoritative sources. Foggy kub (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The fourth German source, which directly points to the state of the Kyrgyz. Foggy kub (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • p.477, "Kyrgyz struggle for independence in the 18th century". Foggy kub (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete unfortunately, this is original research; there's simply no reliable sourcing showing the existence of a *state* entity called the "North Krygyz Confederation" as presented in the article. It's *possible* to accept from some of the sourcing presented here that there were groupings in this region; but there's no clear consensus on the geographic locations (they overlap: some in northern parts, some southern) and there's simply no evidence that these functioned in the form of a state. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Elora Danan (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 doesn't explain why the subject is notable at all. The cited informations are just small info about the filming. Neocorelight (Talk) 16:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am still (easily) finding and adding sources. BD2412 T 20:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned whether SIGCOV is met, it doesn't appear obvious but let me know if 2+ sources have a paragraph long, at least, analytical treatment and I'll reconsider. For now, I'd support merging the newly added content somewhere, it is certainly better than a pure fan plot summary that was here before. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll keep your non-policy-based additional criteria in mind for the future. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: How do you like this one and this one? That's two; more to come. BD2412 T 21:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@BD2412 Not as bad as I feared. Can you ping me if we get any sort of reception/analysis section going? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
... and for the record, WP:NEXIST is still policy, which makes your !vote non-policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or draftify: the search from BD2141 looks promising. I believe this article has WP:POTENTIAL and I would expect to see improvements. If the sources are thinner than they appear, I would understand a merge discussion or another AFD. Archrogue (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment And now we're up to a rolling 30 day average of 72.7k. Someone else can do the math, but given the increasing number, I believe that means that over 2/3rds of those visitors have seen the article since this AfD started. Even assuming there's going to be some softening, we're still looking at this in a Knowledge (XXG):Million Award category of at least 250k/year, possibly 500k/year. Jclemens (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Rees-Jones (bodyguard) (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 page is about a subject that is a classic example of notability for a Knowledge (XXG):SingleEvent. I think the ideal is for a couple of the more substantial points of this entry to be moved to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the rest deleted. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NBOOK is about the notability of a book, not a person. It may be possible to argue that the book is notable (I'm dubious but would be interested in such a discussion) but I don't believe that would provide support for this person. Lamona (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, also satisfies WP:NAUTHOR c.3. It would not be an outcome that would make this a better encyclopeaedia that we could have an article about the subject's autobiography, but not an article about him. In this case, given the matters of concern, it's far more common sensical to have an article about the person rather than the book. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 03:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Bluevine (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:NCORP. References are generally funding news, interviews and routine business annoucements. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. UPE. scope_creep 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Dozens of articles in Google News. CNBC: Why Citigroup is backing online lending start-up BlueVine There's even an article about the best alternatives to Bluevine. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    • The Why Citigroup is backing online lending start-up BlueVine source in CNBC is trivial coverage of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, and it is substantially based on "BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com" ("Terms aren’t being disclosed"), "The two firms haven't yet worked out a commercial partnership, but they're already exploring various ways they can work together, said Arvind Purushotham, managing director at Citi Ventures", a discussion of other banks, a 2-graf description of BlueVine, "said Purushotham", two more sentences about BlueVine, "Purushotham said", a discussion of another deal by Citigroup, "Prosper President Ron Suber addressed the issue", "Suber said", "Lifshitz, who was a venture capitalist before starting the company, said", and "Lifshitz said." This is not significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH or independent coverage per WP:ORGIND that can support notability - it is WP:PROMO.
    • The investorjunkie website cited above does not appear to be a reliable source (it prominently notes "We may, however, receive compensation from the issuers of some products mentioned in this article"), and it is based on "Bluevine announced", and "According to the company's website", and "Bluevine says", and mostly promotes other companies, so it does not provide WP:CORPDEPTH about BlueVine, because it is presented as an example of a type of company or product being discussed, and the website is not independent per WP:ORGIND because the website appears to parrot material produced by the company and contains "Advertising Disclosure This article/post contains references to products or services from one or more of our advertisers or partners. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products or services" at the top of the post.
    • For a company like this, WP:LOTSOFGHITS should be closely examined, because per the WP:ORGCRIT section of the WP:NCORP guideline, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Knowledge (XXG) for advertising and promotion. There appear to be a lot of press releases, churnalism of content produced by the company, and trivial coverage of its announcements; so far, there appears to be insufficient support for notability, especially after the WP:PROMO is excluded. Beccaynr (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
      The CNBC article is over 700 words. It explains why Citigroup invested in BlueVine. It's right there in the title. It spends several paragraphs explaining factoring and how BlueVine was able to dominate that market. So, substantial, in-depth, and not trivial. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It is an interview stating "BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com". Lifshitz who founded Bluevine. He stated the extra capital is coming from Citi Ventures, which is funded by Citigroup. So an interview from the company director is explicity covered WP:ORGIND. It is not independent from the company and fails WP:SIRS policy. Its also funding news, investment is a form of funding which is covered by WP:CORPDEPTH as a routine funding annoucement. CORPDEPTH was explicity strengthend to stop routine funding news source to be used as references. And that is what is it. It is not a valid source. scope_creep 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The article simply quoted Lifshitz. It's just 2 sentences. That's not an interview. Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
CNBC does not explain why Citigroup invested in BlueVine - beyond the title, it provides a platform for people connected to the companies to promote a capital transaction, without a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, so there is insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH with WP:ORGIND for this source to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Did you try reading the article? “We found BlueVine doing factoring in a much more modern fashion,” said Purushotham, who works out of the Citi Ventures Palo Alto office. “They’re able to approve invoices to be factored very quickly, and because they’re online and plugged into account systems that small- and medium-sized business use, they’re able to pull data from a variety of sources.” Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That is a quote from someone connected to the company, i.e. Citi Ventures, which engaged in the capital transaction, and Purushotham is also quoted in the April 27, 2016 BlueVine press release - Purushotham does not offer significant or independent analysis - this is promotion of the capital transaction. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Purushotham didn't write the article. He was simply quoted. Ari Levy of CNBC was the author. Therefore, independent. Why are you being so misleading? Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
My analysis is based on a guideline designed to help protect the encyclopedia, per WP:NOT policy, and specifically WP:PROMO. When an otherwise reliable source substantially relies on promotional material produced by a company (including quotes from people connected to the company), it is not independent. The lack of independence is not the only issue with this source - it is also trivial coverage of Bluevine as a topic because it covers an announcement of a routine business transaction, and instead of discussing Bluevine in-depth, it discusses JPMorgan, WellsFargo, Goldman Sachs, American Express Ventures, and Capitol One Labs, how these transactions work generally, what happened with Citigroup and Prosper Marketplace, and a quote from Prosper President Ron Suber, before concluding with content and a quote from Bluevine CEO Lifshitz speculating on/promoting the advantages of the capital transaction with Citi Ventures. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete agree with the source analysis from Beccaynr, not quite at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kat Alano (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)

Unreferenced. The external links section lists only the actress' social media accounts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Jim Harrity (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)

Member of national or sub national legislatures are notable but Harrity is member of a city legislature. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 10:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Harrity represents 1.6 million people. In other context, big urban cities council members all have wikipedia pages. Harrity's page matches up with the status quo, if we delete his page then we have to delete many other pages User:Phillypaboy123 10:18, 6 December 2022 (EST)

Same as my comment at the AfD of Anthony Phillips: NB WP:ALLORNOTHING, at a minimum need to demonstrate satisfying the GNG here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment On the fence on this for the time being, but two sources with SIGCOV available.

References

  1. Walsh, Sean Collins (26 September 2022). "A bar fight, a heart attack, and 12 years of sobriety: Jimmy Harrity's path to Philadelphia City Council". Philadelphia Inquirer.
  2. Walsh, Sean Collins (7 December 2022). "New Councilmember Jimmy Harrity gets fresh with official bio". Philadelphia Inquirer.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I find nothing else about him except that he was elected to the city council. I unfortunately can't get to the one source (inquirer) that appears to be a significant source, but I am assuming it is. So there is one fairly good source. But remember that for the purposes of notability, a source, like Philadelphia Inquirer is viewed as one source even though it is repeated in the article; and that seems to be the main support for this article. Lamona (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Harrity also one of the leaders of the state party as a "Political Director", one of the most important positions.
Can you give a link for that? And also, sign your entries here. Lamona (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
It's a state party level staff position, not seeing any inherent notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be sourced better. While it's true that city councillors in global cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago or Philadelphia are often accepted as notable enough, that isn't an automatic guarantee in all cases — it hinges less on verifying that he exists as a city councillor, and more on the amount of WP:GNG-worthy coverage that can be shown to get him past WP:NPOL #2 (where, note, the test is "who have received significant press coverage"). Securing the notability of a city councillor, in other words, is not a question of nominally verifying that he won the election: it's a question of writing and sourcing some substance about the impact of his term in office: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. It's possible, maybe even likely, that he'll have enough coverage at some point in 2023, when his term in office can be measured in months — but just 20 days after the election, when it isn't even entirely clear whether he's even been sworn into office yet, the type of content and sourcing it takes to make a city councillor notable clearly isn't available yet. This isn't a "never", it's just a "WP:TOOSOON". Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Vogon (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've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge (XXG):General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Espresso Addict with edit summary " part of popular culture; featured in 2 novels, radio play, television series, and film", who also removed the {{notability}} with edit summary "Removing notability tag based on hits in Knowledge (XXG) Library". I am afraid that being featured in few books and other media does not make a fictional entity notable, and hits in WL are no better than WP:GOOGLEHITS. The article is 99% OR+plot summary, and I am not seeing any sources with WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 19:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep it. The Vogons are an essential satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf.turner (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

According to which reliable source? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Well, at least says the Hitchhiker's Guide is a novel with an "extensive readership", "is an extended satire on the modern world" and among the subjects of the satire are "especially bureaucrats that are represented through Vogons". Daranios (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Does that source elaborate on the idea more than that? I don't think a single mention of them as a satire of bureaucrats helps to establish notability, as it's not "significant" coverage. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Daranios If all we have is a fragment of a signle sentence, I can't see how we are anywhere near meeting SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@OliveYouBean and Piotrus: There's more than what I've quoted. You can judge the extent yourself by following the link on top, it's from researchgate, so it should be available to everyone. Here, I was not so much arguing with regard to SIGCOV, but showing that Rolf.turner's statement, questioned by Piotrus, is not made up out of thin air. As for SIGCOV, I think we should always judge that with regard to why that guideline exists in the first place. I have started to work the listed secondary sources into the article. I am not finished but have, besides all that has been present before, already accumulated more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". Daranios (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Daranios Fair enough, rescuing > deletion, and the section looks quite good. As long as SIGCOV is met, and now that I look at the new section, this is likely, my concerns are addressed. I think this nomination can be withdrawn. Let's double check with others who experessed some concerns, with the note that the article has been improved since: @OliveYouBean @WngLdr34 @Zxcvbnm Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any other concerns. I wasn't sure how to vote before (which is why I asked the question) but I'm happy to vote keep now based on the recent edits. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
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. Apparent autobiography for a person who does not seem to achieved notability yet. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Deanna Lynn Wulff (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)

Inappropriate WP:Autobiography by User:Deanna wulff. Biographical notability not established; sources are about the proposal for a Range of Light National Monument rather than significant coverage about her specifically. The KQED source is a decent human interest article but the focus is still the proposal and Unite the Parks. Reywas92 18:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Unite the Parks didn't exist when the NPR story was written, so it's not possible for the article to be about the organization, which was founded in 2017. 2601:645:4300:4E20:209E:F844:A698:1D36 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep This Biography is notable because of the subject's accomplishments, which are documented in the cited references. Regarding notability, the stature of the references carry significant weight in this regard because they themselves are records of note. For example, Wulff is interviewed by National Geographic (Reference 7, titled "Inside the Political Battle ..."), and in the interview they include significant human-interest content, including childhood photos of Wulff. Likewise, in the National Public Radio KQED interview (Reference 1, titled "One Woman's Quest to Unite the Parks"), half of the piece (by word count) is about Wulff and her life experiences and perspective. Finally, the most obvious argument for Wulff's notability is the existence of the Range of Light National Monument campaign at all. While many visitors are moved and inspired by our National Wildlands, it is only an extremely small percentage of those visitors who respond by dedicating a decade of their lives to a grass-roots-effort that they then manage to carry all the way to the U.S. Halls of Congress, as is documented by the cited references. For this reason alone, Wulff is note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeWerne (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC) — JoeWerne (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Reywas92 14:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Comment: This account appears to have been created to vote on this AfD and to add to the article in question, which is suspicious. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I question whether this autobiography should be based on the person or the organization. It seems as though the organization she started is notable, and I think it would make sense to restructure the article based on the organization (and move it) and not based on the person. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It is becoming clear from the comments - which mostly don't refer to the content of the page - that this an effort to take down this person rather an actual discussion of the news articles and the difficulty of the work performed, which is the basis of those articles. Further, several authors have adjusted the page AND the original comment about the NPR story is inaccurate. Unite the Parks didn't exist until 4 years after the article was written, so it cannot be about that.

If this targeting continues, this deletion page will be deleted as a violating wikipedia standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith and to not make baseless accusations against others. It's a reach to believe this is some hit job against the article's subject. It's very clear that this issue is about notability. We understand that you believe the subject to be notable, but do not WP:BLUDGEON users on the subject just because they are not on the same page as you. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The user has edited their reply to include the following: If this targeting continues, this deletion page will be deleted as a violating wikipedia standards of conduct. I'm not sure who you think you are to make this threat, but it's utterly baseless. AfD voting pages don't get deleted and no policy violations appear to be present on the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
We can't delete a deletion page, there is no process for doing this. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started a thread at Knowledge (XXG):Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deanna_Lynn_Wulff regarding the removal of Template:COI and Template:Autobiography from the article. I'm concerned by the content in the Early life section that is not sourced (cite 4 doesn't actually verify her birthplace, high school, or sports played, and the degrees earned and Stonewear work are unsourced) and I also note that some sources such as endorsements of the proposed National Monument by the California Democrats and Sierra Club do not mention Wulff. The article likewise shouldn't say merely that "stories have been published" to link to them. Reywas92 16:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    This further establishing your conflict of interest, there are plenty of links in the article and if you were interested improving it, for example with the Stonewear Designs comment, you could find the link. You've written thousands of comments, which suggested this is how you make your living.
    Is that the case? 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure you understand what a conflict of interest is. The nominator clearly does not have a conflict of interest with the page that's being proposed for deletion. I will again remind you to assume good faith.Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I do understand conflict of interest, entirely.
    If the behavior implied good faith (adding sources, for example, from legitimate places) that would be a sensible conclusion - but it doesn't.
    And notably, the question hasn't been answered. 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, what? I make my living with a normal job unrelated to California, no one gets paid writing for Knowledge (XXG). You should stop talking about things you don't understand. You don't understand conflict of interest if you think I have one here. Reywas92 17:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    You have not attempted to improve the article in any way only to delete it, without cursory research. That action is at issue and implies a bias and COI. The entirely of your comments here do not include actual references to sources outside yourself. 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I still believe you're failing to understand what a conflict of interest is. You've repeatedly accused others having a COI with the subject of the article, yet, you've failed to identify how this user is supposedly unbiased towards the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I wouldn't bother with "the random string of numbers for a username", seems pointless. Yes I know it's an internet protocol. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: This appears more as an autobiography than an article. The subject of the article itself is not notable but the organization they created arguably is. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Comment I would not be opposed to a redirect/merge to the organization she founded, but it doesn't currently have an article. Willing to revisit my !vote if consensus is to redirect or merge instead. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Citations continue to touch verifiable sources. New citations added verifying Stonewear Designs work. The articles are not about the organization so the comments here don't seem reflect the content of the articles, and perhaps, because they are not being researched and read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
More resources added to the page. It seems nearly every statement has a link to a verifiable reference or respected news source, and the rationale for deletion is looking more and more odd. The page in improved though, so in that way, this discussion is serving the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: It could be that there has been some kind of misunderstanding - because the page didn't include as many references as it does now. And perhaps, there is an urge delete without looking closely at content, which may be automatic. In any case, this neglected page has been updated, and it appears some good edits have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    Struck duplicate vote by same IP, which is probably the same as IPv6 above, but AGF not striking that one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: discussion s-protected for seven days due to excessive disruption by drive-by IP edits. BD2412 T 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete for being a selfpromotional autobiography with no notability established (i.e. fails GNG). - Tom  | Thomas.W 10:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject not supported by sourcing sufficient to meet GNG. Also note the numerous attempts at socking, canvassing, and other disruption surrounding this article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and obvious votestacking by unregistered users, likely WP:CANVASSed off-wiki. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Question. Is it possible to postpone this discussion until after we know the outcome of the Range of Light National Monument Act (proposed December 16, 2022)? It may or may not be too soon for a page dedicated to Range of Light National Monument, since it's "just a bill" at the moment, but it strikes me that could be the best merge target for a lot of the Deanna Lynn Wulff content if the page will not be kept, including the articles she has written and is quoted in, which are currently cited in her bio. Or, we could merge some content or sources to List of proposed national monuments of the United States. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    There's absolutely no way this gets through both houses in the next two weeks, so I don't think that's necessary. I've gone ahead and written a section at Sierra National Forest#National monument proposal with merged sources; since the proposal is to convert the whole forest, if/when the bill passes that page would be moved anyway. It would be better for the IP/Ms. Wulff to contribute there about the initiative rather than the autobiography. Reywas92 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    Super. Thanks so much for doing that. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    Btw I will also admit I really don't like that list of proposed monuments (through which I discovered this article which is an orphan), since most proposals don't end up going anywhere and can be transient. Several of the external links in that column are already dead and the page isn't even that old! Obviously there's been so many more proposals over the years with varying extents of progress and it's not really objective to list them this way indefinitely. Plus half the list is places named as potential candidates but which don't necessarily have advocacy behind them. Reywas92 16:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, poorly sourced and looks like a mess, and probably impossibledifficult to keep properly updated. Seems like Sierra National Forest was the right place to put the info, I wasn't sure because I wondered if the boundaries were the same (I suppose it can get split out later). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I am rather wary of punitive deletions but this seems like a borderline case where the COI issues have not been adequately resolved. For now I would say, maybe it's just a bit WP:TOOSOON, and from my point of view, there is no prejudice if someone without a conflict creates an article on DLW if there is more in-depth secondary coverage about her in the future (e.g., when there is more progress on national monument status, or outside of that). In the meantime, there are many other websites and wikis that offer more editorial control and are better for WP:PROMOTION, that may be a better fit than Knowledge (XXG). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    But in case you haven't read it already, please do take a look at Knowledge (XXG):Autobiography, which links to this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Autobiography Cielquiparle (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The arguments to keep are stronger on the substance and also numerically predominant. They rest on the fairly straightforward assertion that this individual meets GNG via coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of their subject. Evidence has been provided for this argument, which has largely not been directly challenged: those arguing to delete instead focus on the content of this coverage, arguing variously that it should not lead to notability per WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME (please note the distinction between this piece of a notability guideline and WP:BLPCRIME, which discusses the BLP policy as it applies to people accused of crimes), or that nothing this individual has done is actually noteworthy. These arguments are acceptable in principle but weak when applied here. Coverage has been provided here of at least two episodes of this person's life, rendering the BLP1E argument weak. Also, some of this coverage predates any accusations of criminal activity; WP:CRIME applies to people only known for their connection to a crime or alleged crime. Finally, we're not in the business of second-guessing why entirely reliable sources decided to cover a topic; we should not be using Russian propaganda as a source, obviously, but we can't ignore coverage that happens to be convenient to said propaganda. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Vita Zaverukha (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 per this request and this thread as I protected the redirect. I am entirely neutral and uninvolved. (I will fix the redirect after this posts.) Star Mississippi 17:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: to stave off more confusion on why AfD and not RfD, bringing up my comment from below on why this is here with a redirect. the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want. The article version(s) are visible in the page history for anyone to assess. I remain neutral and uninvolved, this is just an admin nom through a protected page. Star Mississippi 15:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Putting it all together, I believe subject meets WP:GNG. As for merger or redirection, I do not see a suitable target. It is currently redirected to Aidar Battalion, which I do not think is a suitable target for merger, because including all the significant details of her biography would probably be WP:UNDUE in the article about Aidar Battalion. It's that old principle that if a source about Subject A mentions Subject B, that suggests that Subject B is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article about Subject A, but not that Subject A is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article about Subject B. Sources about Zaverukha mention Aidar, which means Aidar is WP:DUE for incusion in the article about Zaverukha, but not that Zaverukha is DUE for inclusion in the article about Aidar. I think this is one where, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, a stand-alone biography article is better than including her biography in another article. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Not an RS, but here is a blog post about the Elle article that includes scans of it, posted by the famous French blog Les Crises by fr:Olivier Berruyer. Levivich (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The prior version of the article (before redirect) is in the page history. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Process note @Oaktree b@Levivich: to clarify, which I should have probably put in opening, the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want. Star Mississippi 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: I can't remember any specific examples but I swear there is some precedent for blanking an article over BLP or similar concerns while it's discussed at AFD, like the way we sometimes undelete-and-blank articles while they're at DRV. In this case, given that BLP concerns have been raised, even though I don't personally share those concerns, I think blanking the article (via protecting it as a redirect) while it goes to AFD is a perfectly reasonable precaution to take. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Same. I can definitely think of some courtesy blankings although none specifically off the top of my head. I feel like we have more IAR leeway when it comes to BLPs Star Mississippi 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Confused, but it make sense now. Article is perhaps controversial, but I still think it's GNG with the sources. I don't think redirect is appropriate either, so we'd have to restore the version that's about 5 down in the article history. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. First a thank you to Levivich for some source analysis. I saw a lot of other sources being proposed for notability, many of which were just in passing. Although I disagree with Levivich that details from "Insurgent women" adds to notability, it's one paragraph in a whole book. I came here to add my reasons why this should be deleted, but I've shifted to a weak keep. First a couple of things, being a neo-nazi or being a Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion are not grounds for notability. So I think this comes down to the controversy over the Elle article, the robbery trial, and whether between them there's enough to prove notability. To this I would have said no, but together with the second (2022) 20 minutes I shifted to a weak keep. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with you that one paragraph in a book does not make WP:SIGCOV. However, when you have an academic source stating in its own voice that a person "stands out" and is "notorious", that statement, at least in my view, contributes to notability. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    To clarify as I see it's been mentioned again. For passing GNG I'm looking for three good sources that are independent, reliable and have significant coverage. The academic source has the first two, but not the latter. It's a good source for referencing, but I didn't believe it adds to notability for passing GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you for the source analysis. I should have stated that above. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    My reason for originally siding delete was WP:BLP1E, as I've seen mentioned elsewhere. Simply put two BLP1E events don't make a BLP. However there has been further coverage after those events, which is why I switched to weak keep. I do however agree with others here that the 'current' (the last version that wasn't a redirect) article is a mess, possibly a BLP issue, but I don't see that as a reason for deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Why is Russian propaganda singled out for special treatment in making someone "not notable" despite ample coverage? We allow plenty of articles based on western propaganda (aka newspapers) that the community would otherwise deem not notable except for the abundance of sourcing available. Notability is met by the sustained coverage on various mediums over a number of years concerning numerous events. Also as Lev says, an academic devoting even a paragraph is persuasive when combined with the other sourcing available. Slywriter (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Because Russian propaganda - the fact that she often features heavily in it - is pretty much the only reason she gets mentioned in other coverave. Volunteer Marek 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons listed by Levivich. Other sources that indicate a certain notoriety of the character are:
  • The New York Times: "Vita Zaverukha, had previously posted images of herself on social media making the Nazi salute and wearing a swastika."
  • France 24: "Vita Zaverukha, a 25-year-old Ukrainian female fighter and open neo-Nazi. Press articles mention the fact that ELLE magazine had interviewed Vita Zaverukha for its 14-20 November 2014 issue, presenting her as a Ukrainian volunteer fighter. However, Internet users reacted by publishing photos of her openly showing her sympathy for neo-Nazi groups on social networks. ELLE magazine has apologised, saying its journalists were not aware of Vita Zaveroukha's views at all. Zaveroukha was arrested in May 2015 in Kiev after an attempted robbery at a petrol station and shooting at police officers, according to the Ukrainian media KP."
  • US Department - HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS: "Police detained four suspects, including Vita Zaverukha and three other activists from the violent radical group Unknown Patriot. As of July 6, only one indictment against one suspect for “hooliganism” had been sent to court."
  • Zaborona:
  • LB
  • Espreso TV
  • Gazeta.ua
  • Obozrevatel--Mhorg (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ok so what is this person notable for? They're a neo-Nazi. Ok, unfortunately there are millions of people like that out there in the world. She posted dumb stuff on social media. Uhhh... yeah millions of people like that out there. She fought in one of the make shift militias in Ukraine in 2014 during the first Russian invasion. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians did. She committed an armed robbery. Like, not even murder or something but armed robbery. A crime millions of people have committed. And... that's it. That's the "notability" of this person. Can anyone really say with a straight face that this is a notable article that an encyclopedia should have? If you really think that I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously. Oh and let's add that she was a teenager during most of this stuff.
So. How did she get coverage in the media? Well, at one point Elle magazine ran an article on "women fighting in Ukraine" and stupidly they included her. Someone noted she was a neo nazi and some controversy ensued. This was immediately picked up by Russian propaganda who eats this kind of stuff up and amplified. As a result she got a few other mentions here and there. Aside from that, she gets mentions in some regional sources which basically report on local crimes and arguably she may be a local regional "social media celebrity" (or "notoriety") in Vinnitsia or whatever. There's still absolutely nothing here to make her notable. There's like two sentences in one (reliable) book, out of 100+ pages. There's a photocaption in Bellingcat. There's some coverage of the "Elle controversy" in a couple French outlets. Honestly, in almost any other article this would be WP:UNDUE so it sure as hey isn't notable. Best I can think of what could be done with this material is that it would get a brief mention (merge?) in Elle (magazine) in a controversies section or something. Other than that, there's absolutely no notability here. We have WP:BLP1E for a reason. Volunteer Marek 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, whatever you think of her; she is mentioned in media -> notable. (Btw, it is interesting to note the difference in treatment of this article, and say, the Ghost of Kyiv-article (which is now admitted to being a "myth" (read: lie)). (PS: I think we should keep both articles, as they have figured in media, ( & not because they are significant per se) Huldra (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a WP:BLP about someone who is not a public figure (and is likely not to see ongoing coverage of them in reliable sources) with higly contentious content, so we should be very careful about having and keeping an article about this person. If there is not a clear consensus that this article is support by wikipedia policy, and that its existence doesn't constitute a WP:BLP violation, this article should be deleted. The reliable sources that cover this person are largely passing mentions - per WP:GNG this does not contribute to demonstrating their notability. What coverage of them is substantial is about two different things - appearing in Elle and the scandal from the discovery of her doing a number of neo-nazi things when she was 18, and coverage in relation to a crime.
She does not pass the criteria in WP:CRIME in order to justify having her own article. Besides that, the Elle and neo-nazi stuff, which all constitutes a single scandal/event, also does not pass the criteria in WP:BLP1E for having her own article. It could be argued that if you combine those two aspects of her notability, you can get WP:GNG - I don't think that's the case, I think you're just getting one big WP:BLP violation, on multiple counts. For one, a violation of WP:BLPCRIME - an article about a non public figure with substantial content dedicated their alleged involvment in a crime. A violation of " the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" - making an article about a non-public figure (who is unlikely to have continued coverage of them) which may last as the top result on google for them for the rest of their life about neo-nazi and alleged criminal things they did when they were 18 is a violation of that (Yes, she does not look like a great person, but the purpose of wikipedia is not to act as a registry of people who did bad things). A violation of "it is not wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" - I can't see much other encyclopedic purpose to this article.
I don't think this article serves any genuinely encyclopedic purpose, and I think it goes against the principles of wikipedia, in particular WP:5P1. What kind of serious encyclopedia has articles about low profile 18 year olds who did neo-nazi stuff and alegedly got involved in crime? Creating articles like that is not at all the point of this project, or reflective of its principles. It also entirely goes against the spirit of WP:BLP, these are the kinds of situations this policy was created for. In conclusion, this article should be deleted per WP:CRIME, and it also also be deleted, per WP:DEL-REASON as a violation of BLP, in particular failing to meet WP:BLP1E, violating WP:BLPCRIME, and going against the entire spirit of BLP. An argument for WP:CONTENTFORK could also be made, because some amount of the content about this person could also be accomodated in other articles, such as Aidar Battalion, S14 (Ukrainian group), Elle (magazine), and probably more, with fewer WP:BLP issues. I also think it goes against WP:NOTNEWS, this is mainly news type content. --Tristario (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
vn.20minut.ua does not look like a reliable source. You can see here users can submit stories, and I cannot find an editorial policy. It shouldn't be used to establish notability, and probably shouldn't be used for claims about living people at all Tristario (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Tristario: 20 minutes is an WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
My mistake, I confused the French outlet and the Ukrainian one. The notice at the bottom of 20minut.ua's website says reader-submitted stories are published in a separate "From the Readers" section; the stories I linked to don't appear to be published in this section, and have bylines that are linked to author pages, so I don't think they're reader-submitted (obviously if they were, it wouldn't be an RS). The notice at the bottom also names an "Editor". So I still think it's an RS, but not as clearly as the French outlet. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Some comments:
WP:BLPCRIME applies whether the individual is low profile or high profile, it's just a much greater issue if the individual is low profile. WP:BLPCRIME also says for "individuals who are not public figures" - I think she's clearly not a public figure, especially as of right now. Perhaps she was during the trial (I still don't think so, being a public figure is quite a high standard), but not now. Right now she isn't meeting any reasonable criteria for being a public figure. It could be argued for many people who are suspected of crimes that they meet some criteria of being a public figure during and shortly after their arrest and trial - it's not reasonable logic to argue on that basis that WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't apply.
The criteria under "perpetrators" in WP:CRIME applies to perpetrators. She hasn't been convicted of anything as far as I'm aware. She doesn't pass the criteria there
While it is true during the trial she received some coverage of her not directly related to the trial, her notability and the interest in her in that coverage still came from her being a suspect in the trial, and some of it related to allegations of crime, which is still a WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME issue
In terms of whether she is low profile or high profile WP:LOWPROFILE notes that profile can change, and everything I see now indicates that she is low profile, since around 2017 maybe. I don't think appearing in Elle can be used to argue that she isn't low profile since they barely covered her in it, I believe she mainly just appeared in a photo. If it were not for the criminal trial she would be low profile, and I don't think it's reasonable to say that because she was high profile because of a trial where she wasn't convicted all the considerations of WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME shouldn't apply Tristario (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing given to support notability says she's now low profile: "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously married and has been living for the past few years." OsFish (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC).
But this is not relevant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: "scandalous woman ... made herself known" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain your theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) entry? Because that is precisely what you are arguing here.OsFish (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a meaningless question posed to a straw man. I've never theorised that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable. I won't reply to this but remind you of our WP:TALK guidelines including focus on content and stay on topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I am clearly focussing on content, and staying on topic. You said "On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: 'scandalous woman ... made herself known'." The sentence you partially quoted is, in full, with emphasis added, "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet." What I am NOT doing is hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say. I am trying to look at the evidence in the round and how it matches up with policy. I find that a good approach.OsFish (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
First of all, as you are well aware, I've argued that she's notable mainly because of the trial and the public compaign for her release, plus the Elle's affair, and I've never argued that she's notable because of her social media activities, which add something to her public profile and fame, and are therefore DUE for inclusion in the article, but in themselves are not sufficient to establish the subject's notability. Secondly, since you say that you are not hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say, could you please tell me where did you get your reference to YouTube? I bet thet you were referring to other discussions I've recently had on YouTube videos, am I wrong? And that would also explain the indefinite pronouns you used, everybody. Anyway, since I've never said that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG), you should either answer my questions and convince me that you were not casting aspersions by deliberately misrepresenting my views, or simply apologise and move on. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Firstly, I am only too happy to explain the reference to YouTube. It's in the source that you quoted here when you stated that the source "confirms she is notable" because she "made herself known", the full quote being "made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet" (emphasis addded). As the source states, "Why did we mention her now? Because we came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her. And in this video we recognize her herself." I fully admit my original assertion about your argument was based on the assumption you had read the source you were quoting, and I'm happy to apologise for assuming due diligence on your part. Secondly, I really appreciate that you now disagree directly with the assertion by Levivich that her current activities constitute any kind of notability. As the source says, and I invite you to read it, she "has already been forgotten". This matters in terms of whether she is a low profile person and thus how we approach BLP1E. It's good we're making progress.OsFish (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, fine, so you've inferred that I have a theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) from the fact that I quoted a source that - you are right there - mentions a YouTube video by Zaverukha. But then, since you don't like people hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say, let me quote the entire sentence relating to the YouTube video, so that maybe you'll understand where the view that she's notable comes from; and maybe you'll also by able to explain how you could credit me with that nonsense about the YouTube video as the source of her notability:

At the beginning of the war, in 2014, and then in 2015, Vinnytsia publications wrote endlessly about Vita Zaverukha. First as a "bander girl", then as a "revenge girl", then as a "terrorist girl". She fought, was arrested for a crime, sat in the Kyiv pre-trial detention center, was released thanks to a benefactor who paid more than one and a half million bail for her... Activists met her from the pre-trial detention center with flowers. Let's remind you, she got married. She settled in Kyiv, so now she is an ex-Vinnytsian. Why did we mention her now? Because they came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for finally reading the source. That's a great quote you've posted. It shows that she is notable for her connection to a single event and that she then became a low profile person. It also shows that this local news media source, which you and others have heavily used, is not a reliable source in the wikipedia sense of the word: It omits in plain sight the key information that she was acquitted, not merely released on bail. Even this source, which spends time denigrating her, doesn't see the Elle thing as even worth mentioning as part of who she is. Surely it would be better to have an article on the event itself - the killing of the two Berkut officers - where the arrest and treatment of the group Zaverukha was part of can of course be mentioned as DUE, including any campaigns focused on Zaverukha. That's what various policies point to given the state of sourcing. To be clear, I don't think she's (been) a nice person at all. But let's be here to build an encyclopedia and follow policy.OsFish (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh dear. In this now deleted comment, you point out that the claim in the article that she had been acquitted was badly sourced. It’s a significant mistake because there is a BIG difference between being acquitted and being released without trial. Being acquitted means that prosecutors felt they had enough evidence to proceed with a formal trial. Being released implies not even that threshold was passed. That’s a serious BLP breach. So I really wouldn’t boast about it. Also, when you insist you knew perfectly well the full contents of the source all along, it means that when you made your false accusations at me regarding the relevance of YouTube videos, implying I had been wiki stalking you and telling me to focus on content, you knew my comments were instead based directly on the source we were discussing and that the accusations you made were false. This is poor form, but other people reading this should be aware that it's not the first time there has been a problem with your behaviour.OsFish (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTTEMPORARY is about notability not being temporary. But it doesn't change that besides the criminal trial and associated events/coverage and since about 2017 she is low-profile and we should interpret various policies here through that lens Tristario (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Even if you think she is low profile, the third requirement of BLP1E isn't met, which is why it doesn't apply. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think there is enough reference coverage for Ms. Zaverukha (most references mention Ms. Zaverukha in passing) to be notable in English-language Knowledge (XXG) and the version suggested has serious WP:BLP issues. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable as per Levivich's and Mhorg's source analyses, to which nothing can be added. My own remark on notability are here . From that remark, one point is maybe worth mentioning: when Zaverukha was in custody a public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles, which focused on Zaverukha alone ( There are five participants in the case of the shooting of the "Eagles", but social networks are raging only about Vinnytsia's Vitynenko), included a member of parliament handcuffing himself to Zaverukha during a hearing , clashes between police and demonstrators near the courtroom , protesters blocking the building of the Court of Appeal from the outside , and an internet campaign "Je suis Vita Zaveruha" . It's simply obvious that she's notable. Apart from this, what I'd like to stress is that the article was in dare conditions but now is acceptable - perhaps not perfect, some work still needs to be done, but it's not too bad, I think. You can read it here . Given the nature of the subject, which is highly controversial, the article is likely to be the target of disruption and surreptitious attempts at deletion in the near future, so I would be grateful if you could add it to your watchlist. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Levivich. Buffs (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    To expand: There is clearly coverage of this person in many publications. Some people seem to be confusing WP:N with "we don't want to support their position. Notability can be fame or infamy; it does not indicate support for anyone's reprehensible actions. Buffs (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep It is strange to comment on an "article" that is currently a redirect to another article about a military unit that does not even mention Zaverukha, but it is what it is. She is a figure of perhaps borderline notability but I think that the sustained coverage over the years comes down on the side of the notability of this person. I agree with most of Levivich's analysis, although some but not all of the sources parrot each other almost word for word and therefore should not be considered separate sources. I also agree with most of Gitz's analysis. Those who want to delete seem to be arguing that we should do so because Russian propagandists focus on her. I deeply disagree with that analysis. To be clear, off-Knowledge (XXG), I support Ukraine without hesitation against unjust Russian aggression. But that does not mean that Knowledge (XXG) should portray all Ukrainian militants as saints and all Putin supporters as devils. We have WP:NPOV for a very good reason. I am a patriotic American but I know that my country committed what would now be called war crimes starting with the American Revolution and that horrible wartime misbehavior was a major feature of my country's involvement in every war from at least the Mexican-American War to the 21st century wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want all of that covered in this encyclopedia, not covered up. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not that she isn't notable because Russian propagandists focus on her, it's that she's notable because Russian propagandists is the only place where the coverage of her originates. Please tell me - what exactly has she done that is "notable"? Volunteer Marek 06:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as weakly sourcedWP:BLP1E violation and likely WP:CRIMINAL violation of BLP policies. I'll mention policy in the main and then make a comment about problems to do with propaganda because it IS in the encyclopedia's interest to know if someone is trying to manufacture notability. But before anything else, contra to some !votes already cast, can we please be clear that merely appearing in the media or another RS is NOT the same as notability. The fact that we can confirm she is exists is not enough. Notability has a much higher threshold, particularly with BLP. See WP:BUTITEXISTS.
The fundamental problem is what she's supposed to be notable for. Look at the lead:

Vita Zaverukha...is an Ukrainian nationalist militant and ex-serviceman of the volunteer battalion Aidar. Following Elle France's publication in 2014 of an article on pro-government female fighters in the war in Donbas, she became known for publishing neo-Nazi content on social media. In 2015, she was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force. A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles. She was released on bail in 2017 and later acquitted. She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv.

The Elle reference is to a mention in an Elle article as one woman among many. A fuss arose was because Zaverukha was a Neo-Nazi and they shouldn't have included her. That doesn't make Zaverukha a notable person. That's material for the Elle (magazine) page and the reaction they got for it. Likewise, the Georgetown University book on women at war mentions her in passing. To quote WP:NBIO, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Those articles are not primarily about her. It's poor pickings when we are supposed to be careful with BLP. Essentially, she is supposed to be notable because a journalist who didn't write much about her didn't know she was a neo Nazi that one time. But being a neo-Nazi in itself isn't a notable achievement.
Then, consider the final sentence: "She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv." Neither of these is grounds for notability, especially not the last bit when there's an all-out war going on.
So what we are left with is this:

In 2015, she was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force. A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles. She was released on bail in 2017 and later acquitted.

In other words, for her connections as one among many to a single event which is a crime. What does WP:BLP1E say?

Knowledge (XXG) is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

And then there is WP:CRIMINAL, the guideline regarding notability of people involved in criminal acts. Such a guideline is of course needed because anyone arrested for a serious crime gets into the press. It says:

For perpetrators,

  1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or
  2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
    • Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
Both those policies strongly suggest that Zaverukha should NOT be the subject of her own article, especially considering that she was NOT the only one arrested in this one event (three other members of the far right were also) and she was NOT found guilty. Much of the detailed coverage is actually local, including frequent sourcing to a local website that appears to solicit user content, vn.20minut.ua.
Regarding Russian propaganda: as others have already stated, we do need to be aware of the movement to make her into a much bigger figure in Ukraine than she actually is. There has been problematic behaviour on the page itself, with likely sock puppet activity and disruptive editing including from IPs. So I advise people look closely at what is actually there in sources, because it is a lot less than the cut and paste lists of RS supposedly establishing notability would lead you to believe.OsFish (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: Having reviewed most of the stronger-looking sources listed, this seems very much to be a WP:PSEUDO-biography, because her notability rests entirely on two incidents: the 2014 Elle scandal and the 2015 criminal case and subsequent trial. If she was substantially involved in just one of the events this would be a clear case under WP:BLP1E; the ambiguity arises because two events are involved, giving a stronger initial impression of general notability. However, looking at each case, the answer is a clear no to each of the following BLP questions: Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? Is the person notable for any other events in their life? Because of this lack of notability beyond the incident, there are no biographical elements in the article: no reliable source has reported on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle, and the incidents after the 2017 trial are fragmented non-noteworthy incidents about which there are fairly vague allegations. It does not appear that she is a significant leader in the far right, just a footsoldier who had 15 minutes of fame. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Hello BobFromBrockley, actually there is at least one source reporting on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle: see this 2014 dedicated article (with interview and photos) on the local press of Vinnytsia . During and after the trial we have various articles from Ukrainian national press entirely dedicated to her in connection with the trial and the public campaign for her liberation: I wouldn't say that she was mentioned only in connection with an event or organization there, since she was the main/exclusive focus of the event, be it the trial or the public campaign: (very incomplete random selection). Following the trial and her liberation, her vicessitudes continued to be reported by the national press: attack on LGBT activists , attack on her and her partner , and occasionally also by international sources (attack on Women's Rights March, US Department ). Finally we also have a detailed article on her whole life by the local press Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Gitz. I missed the vn.20minut piece. It's hard for me to assess the reliability of the local sources (or assess how event-focused rather than person-focused they are), but if it is clear that a complete biographical picture can be assembled from reliable sources then my concerns would be lightened. (I am not convinced that the more recent incidents are evidence of notability as too trivial, but worth mentioning if we conclude there is notability, although we need to attend to WP:BLPCRIME concerns.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I can't speak to all the sources posted here but none of the ones I posted are local coverage; they're all national or international. 20 Minutes is French for example. It's in the Ukrainian language but it's a French outlet. Levivich (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    According to its website, "The 20minut.ua website is part of the RIA Media publishing group, which is also part of the RIA © 20minut.ua Media Corporation", which appears to be a wholly Ukrainian endeavour. It has some EU connections and may well be RS, but it doesn't seem to be French. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Note also that it has a big button encouraging reader submissions for stories, and the source is a local instance of it: vn.20minut.ua. On the talk page prior to this AFD, concerns about vn.20minut.ua were flatly ignored, unfortunately.OsFish (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Bob's right, I did confuse the Ukrainian 20minute.ua with the French 20 Minutes publication; they are not the same. (The reader-submitted stories are published in a special "from the reader" section, neither of the two I linked to appear to be in that section and both have bylines with a link to an author page; there is also a named editor.) Levivich (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Just to note: she was 18 years old when she was interviewed by Elle so there isn't a lot of reason to expect coverage of her life before that, when she was a minor. She's been the subject of media coverage each year after that. She's lived literally her entire adult life being covered by national and international media. Also, in response to other votes (not Bob's), I want to point out she wasn't one of many women covered by Elle, she was one of like five, and she was the "cover girl" as it were, meaning the main focus of the coverage. Levivich (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    It is interesting, though perhaps not very relevant to this discussion, that Ukrainian sources almost always ignore the incident with Elle. For them, she is not significant for that minor and frankly uninteresting event, which is only significant for Western audiences, if at all. For the Ukrainian press, she's significant because, firstly, she was the youngest female fighter in the Aidar bataillion; second, because she had a very visible and controversial social media profile; third, because she was the protagonist of an important trial, which addressed a sensitive issue in post-Maidan Ukraine - the relation between far-right groups and the state ; finally, she is significant because of the campaign for her release, which explains why very minor events, such as the beating by the C14 group group, in 2017 got national (not local) coverage in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets GNG per sourcing above and the redirect is inappropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:BLP1E is often mis-cited by editors arguing that if a person is only notable for one event then they are not notable. That's arguing the shortcut instead of arguing the policy. BLP1E's 3rd requirement is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Considering the trial for murder of two police officers during a bank robbery is called by the press the "Zaverukha case" and received national media coverage for three years, it cannot be said that the event was not significant or her role was not substantial or well documented. BLP1E does not apply here and I hope the closer takes note. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    But if it's the case that the event (the case) is what is notable, then the article should be about the case and not the person, no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    No, because the criminal case is just one aspect of her notability. She was notable before being arrested in 2015 and still notable after being acquitted in 2017, as evidenced by sources ranging from 2014 to 2022, including one academic source that says in its own voice that she "stands out" among other women fighters in Ukraine and is "notorious" in Russia. That's not a one event situation, it's multiple events over a period of years. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    It is a major point of dispute whether her notability goes beyond her association with a criminal event. You should be careful not to confuse WP:DUE (what can be included in an article on a notable topic) and WP:NOTABILITY (whether the article should exist.) For example, you refer to events in 2022 - that she joined in the defence against the invasion by the Russian Federation. That is not a notable activity otherwise we'd have over a million articles on each Ukrainian citizen actively defending their country. The Elle palaver boils down to a journalist who wrote a bit about her in an article not dedicated primarily to her not knowing she was a neo-Nazi. That's not grounds for notability.OsFish (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    The word "notable" means, in this context, that an article subject meets the WP:Notability guideline. So something is or is not notable if it meets WP:N, of which WP:GNG is a part. This subject is notable because she is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (the ones I linked to in my !vote above). It doesn't matter what the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber, having the hiccups for a long time, literally doesn't matter at all. Notability is determined by the sourcing, not by what the subject did. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm afraid your claim that the notability rules do not address notability in various contexts - including notability via involvement in crime - is simply false. How else would various editors here - including YOURSELF where you quote WP:BLPCRIME - quote such rules if they didn't exist? You have been editing wikipedia far too long to mess around like this.OsFish (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I have not claimed that notability rules do not address notability in various contexts? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Then perhaps consider deleting this: "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber, having the hiccups for a long time, literally doesn't matter at all." As you now concede, that's false. Certain activities result in RS mentions more than other activities. The notability rules governing different kinds of people have been written to address that. OsFish (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I did not concede that's false. "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about" does not mean the same thing as "notability rules do not address notability in various contexts". If we want to consider WP:SNGs, she is notable under WP:NPERSON because she meets WP:BASIC (which is the same as GNG). Levivich (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm very glad you referred to WP:BASIC. Let me quote from it: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not." (Emphasis added). This whole thread is about BLP1E. Your assertion elsewhere that she's also notable for being a soldier right now (in a country suffering from an invasion by a major military power and so has quite a few other mobilised people) results from a confusion of the different principles WP:DUE (justified inclusion in an article on a notable topic) and WP:NOTABILITY (whether a topic is notable and should have their own article). OsFish (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    WP:BLP1E does not apply because the 2nd and 3rd requirements aren't met: she is a high profile individual, and even if she wasn't, she still had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Levivich (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    The event is the killing of two Berkut officers. She was acquitted of involvement in that event, and was not the only person arrested and charged. The thing is, that event is something you have compared on this very page to a "crime of the century". Someone who didn't do the crime of the century, but whose presence in substantive RS coverage comes from their connection to that crime, is obviously subordinate in notability to that crime itself. And since then, there hasn't been anything she has done that could possibly be described as notable as understood in Knowledge (XXG) policy (again, reminding you of the difference between DUE and NOTABLE).OsFish (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    Here's the thing, your own source that you cited for her continued notability says explicitly that she has been "forgotten" since that case. "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously married and has been living for the past few years." Your own source, endorsed by you, says she is now low-profile. OsFish (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm neutral on whether this article should be kept or not, but it should certainly not have been redirected to an article that doesn't even mention her. Instead of vitriolic discussion on the talkpage and edit warring it should have been brought to AfD straightaway. Why is an article under discussion at AfD currently a redirect so nobody can easily see what they're commenting on? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Because it was an edit war that landed at ANI followed by an AfD request. With the BLP concerns raised by established editors it seemed prudent to not have the article on public view while this was being sorted out. Merited IAR is my belief. As you're the second edit to ask this, moving my note to the nom so folks aren't confused. Star Mississippi 15:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:BLPCRIME similarly doesn't apply here because the subject is not a low-profile individual. WP:LPI sats A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. The subject actively sought media attention before she was arrested: the Elle interview was 2014, the arrest was 2015. She also actively sought out media attention during her trial, and after, as documented by the articles about her. As a separate issue, because the victims of the crime were police officers, and I'd argue any murder of a police officer is a murder of a public figure. BLPCRIME doesn't apply here because neither the accused nor the victims were low profile, and nobody arguing the policy seems to be addressing that part of it. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    With regard to who was murdered, the correct policy here is WP:CRIME, not WP:BLPCRIME. It states that "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal ...should be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article only if one of the following applies: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure..., or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." (emphasis added). She was acquitted. I don't enjoy defending her on this issue because she's a neo-nazi, but at the same time, being a neo-nazi who didn't commit a murder isn't notable separate from the event she was arrested for.OsFish (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    WP:CRIME: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. The 2022 article is an example of coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. The "Zaverukha case" is, indeed, a well-documented historical event in Ukraine, and the alleged motivation for the crime (domestic terrorism), and the execution of the crime (death of two police officers) were unusual and considered noteworthy (by the plethora of national media that covered it), as was the trial itself, which included her slashing her wrists in court, an elected lawmaker handcuffing himself to her, and her being beaten in custody allegedly by the authorities, as well as the ultimate acquittal. A bank robbery by alleged terrorists in which two police officers were killed is a huge crime in almost any country, and in some countries would be called the "Crime of the Century". That stuff doesn't happen every day, not to mention everything that happened during the trial. But even putting all of that aside, she's not only notable for the trial, because the GNG coverage of her preceded the trial and continued afterwards. She was notable for being a soldier before, and after, she was notable for being a defendant in a major criminal case. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    If this was something like the crime of the century, would Levivich support a RENAME of the article to turn it into addressing the history crime itself? That would be the most policy-based approach, it would dissolve the BLP issues and we could all get on being here to build an encyclopedia.OsFish (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Um, first let me say: everyone in this discussion is here to build an encyclopedia, and this discussion is building an encyclopedia. AFD is part of building an encyclopedia. I'm going to WP:AGF you're not suggesting otherwise. Second, no, I wouldn't support changing this into an article about the crime, because of what I said in the last sentence of my comment that you are replying to. Although the crime is probably notable enough for a stand-alone article, and having her biography merged into a part of that article could potentially be done in a WP:DUE manner in line with WP:PAGEDECIDE. However, I'd need to see the sourcing for the article about the crime, and the text of the proposed merger, to make up my mind about whether it would be DUE or not. But even though I'm a "keep", I would consider a later merger proposal if someone went and wrote the target article. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    The aspect of WP:BLPCRIME that does apply here relates to the post-2017 coverage that focuses on minor crimes where there are vague allegations but no convictions, e.g. the attack on LGBT activists and a woman's march. They might seem noteworthy in an existing article, but BLPCRIME cautions us that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If something can't be included for this reason, it seems like we couldn't hang notability on it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    But the article is not alledging "minor crimes". It is reporting that 1) she was involved in an attack on transgender activists. Whether that attack qualifies as a crime or not, we don't know. The source says that she was identified by the victims, but doesn't say if they pressed charges or if the attack was punishable under the Criminal Code as assault. "involved in an attack" seems a fair summary. 2) The article says that a human rights report by the US State Department stated that Vita Zaverukha and other activists of the Unknown Patriot group were among the suspects in an attack on participants of the 8 March. Once again, we are not claiming that she committed a crime, or that the US State Department claimed she committed a crime. The very fact that the US State Department writes that she is among the suspects in a political action is in itself noteworthy and deserves inclusion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources listed by Levivich (and Mhorg) seem more than sufficient. It does not appear that these sources are just routine police-blotter reporting; this was an incident with a significant amount of national attention, and so there was sustained and in-depth coverage on the incident and on Zaverukha's role in it; point #3 in BLP1E would not be met here ("the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"). I mean, more subjectively, I think that's evidenced by the fact that (and I'm trusting the translations from Levivich here) the case was given names like the 'Zaveruha case' in RFE/RL. Whether the article should be principally focussed on Zaverukha or the criminal case is a reasonable matter for editorial discretion, but given there’s other noteworthy biographical information about Zaverukha here, I do think it makes the most sense kept as a biography. Endwise (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, she is briefly mentioned in a number of news sources, but what she is notable for? She is not notable as a soldier. Yes, she is a former servicewomen of Aidar. That does not make her notable. She is not notable as a criminal (if she is a criminal; she did not kill anyone). She is not notable as a neo-Nazi (if she is a neo-Nazi or a person with "far-right" views, there are many of them). She is not a blogger or an internet personality. Yes, she posted something, but who did not? This all apparently started from Elle France mentioning her as an example of something, apparently an erroneous example, as follows from their apology/retraction. My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Source checking shows that she was covered mostly as a suspect of a crime, but she has been acquitted of all charges. I think she is just an ordinary (not a notable) person unfairly accused of the crime, which indeed does not warrant a separate page about her per WP:BLP concerns, as has been arguded by others. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep There's not an awfully highest bar for a biography to be notable. The fact that the against-notability arguments, above, are so numerous and intricate is itself a sign against their soundness. I have read a few of these arguments and I don't find them convincing. I don't think this article is a bunch of cookie-cutter indiscriminate info, and I think (per WP:10YT) it's reasonable that some readers would find the info in this article interesting. I'm also not convinced by the argument that many other people did similar acts: a) the same can be said for soooo many of the BLPs we have here which consensus has determined are more than acceptable for inclusion; b) sometimes the biography of certain individuals can be more representative and useful than talking in generalities; c) sometimes many 'common' things can, in combination, be uncommon (note arguments above address multiple routes to notability, largely disqualifying WP:BLP1E). In any case, it's clear the low bar of GNG is met, and I don't think there's been any compelling enough argument to override GNG here. WP:CRIMINAL (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Knowledge (XXG) article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.) doesn't apply least because there is no such existing article AFAIK and indeed some proponents above have argued this info shouldn't be added to an existing article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    Comment: WP:CRIMINAL then lays down when there should be an article. "only if one of the following applies...For perpetrators,
# The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or
# The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
#* Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. (emphasis in original)
  • I've just discovered that even the claim in the article that Zaverukha was acquitted (ie prosecutors felt there was enough evidence against her to move to a formal trial) is false: the source used says she was released from the investigation, ie without trial. WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E exist precisely because we need to avoid such BLP problems. An article on the event itself avoids these issues.OsFish (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    Nothing in WP:NBIO is overriding of GNG, and WP:CRIMINAL (as with all other sections of NBIO) are guidance which is most useful when applied to people whose notability clearly stems from one thing. Vita's (as argued by those supporting deletion above) does not derive from any singular thing, so no SNG is appropriate/relevant here, at least not as an exclusionary factor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Example: John Hinckley Jr.
  2. Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
  3. Example: John Hinckley Jr.
  4. Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 17:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wioletta Wilk (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:NBAD and WP:GNG. zoglophie 17:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: comment by Wjemather here can clear your query well. Thanks. zoglophie 12:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
Really? olympedia.org Florentyna (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
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 17:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Tim McEneny (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 source coverage to establish notability. In fact, this is borderline BLPPROD material since none of the links in the References section are actual references. They're just external links to press releases or primary sources. I've checked all of the S&DCE links and they're just reader-submitted tidbits (i.e. the subject submitted a bit of text to said magazine). There is a Dallas restaurateur of the same name who is coming up on Google News results, but nothing for this person. Blue Edits (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ian Prescott (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)

Appears that the subject does not meet the Knowledge (XXG):Notability guideline. Most of the article is unreferenced. The two secondary sources cited mention the subject but are about the subject's institution and the subject's successor, not the subject. The Knowledge (XXG) article about the subject's institution does not mention the subject. Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Englishbloke27 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you should mention that you are the creator of the BLP. Do you have any connection with the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC).
My account didn't create this article. Englishbloke27 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like it did with this edit. Perhaps you forgot? --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah, indeed I did. My mistake. Englishbloke27 (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Secondary school principals are generally not notable, except for those schools at the pinnacle of notability (Eton, say) or principals who have done something beyond their school to achieve WP:GNG-level notability. In any case, we need in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources, independent of the subject and his employer. WP:PROF#C6 definitely does not apply; that's for major universities, not secondary schools. Here we have no such sources in the article, and searching mostly finds local or occasional national news stories quoting him rather than in-depth coverage about him. A typical example: , which describes him as "former Bolton Wanderers professional footballer turned college principal" but does not go into any more depth than that before quoting him on some school issue or other. Searching for news of his football career found only a similar level of non-in-depth mentions. And in any case the article is written as an unsourced personal reflection and if kept would need to be stubbed far down to only material that can be verified from published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    Great feedback and explanation. Thank you! Englishbloke27 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@Englishbloke27Do you have any connection with the subject that you should declare under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC).
Thanks for checking. I have no COI. Englishbloke27 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 17:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Not a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 17:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Not a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 17:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Does not seem to have been a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The company owned patents for a unique mechanical pencil with a spiral mechanism. Major institutional customers included The United States Government, Bell System, Western Electric, H&R Block, and Esso. Millions of mechanical pencils were sold. I call that notable.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161024235818/https://unllib.unl.edu/Bolin_resources/pencil_page/mystery/SPIRAL_GUIDE.HTML#institutional_customers
https://web.archive.org/web/20160529022811/http://unllib.unl.edu/Bolin_resources/pencil_page/mystery/mystery.html Lyra Faust (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Robert Bolin's articles, which are currently cited in the article, look really interesting! But as one of them says at the very top, it is a "working paper based partially on conjecture" and they don't qualify as a reliable sources per WP:RS. I searched the Internet Archive, and got 277 hits, but what I'm finding is mostly advertisements for Dur-O-Lite Pencils in publications like Business Week, Forbes, Office Appliances, and Telephony going back to the 1920s, plus directory listings in Reprographics magazine; Google Books shows similar results, plus the US Patent Office Index to Patents. I searched Knowledge (XXG) Library as well and got 2 hits, both listings in product directories. What we are looking for per WP:NCORP is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, so unfortunately it doesn't look like it will pass according to current Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. I noticed as well that the page for John P. Lynn is a stub with zero sources, so it might be worth trying to add citations and references to that one if you are aware of any, per WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Jean Ritchie#Discography. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Courting Songs (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)

Unable to find reliable sources to prove this album's notability or verify any claims about it. Project Termina (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about Ritchie's discography. Yes, I agree that hers would be the better redirect target because she is listed on the album first, so I have adjusted my vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

2019 IFBB African Championships (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)

Moved to draft space as not ready but quickly moved back to main without much, if any, improvement. No results or other statistics or entry list. 'Naive' search revealed this page which may render it liable to speedy as a copy-vio. Eagleash (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 03:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Atera (software) (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:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. scope_creep 09:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

scope_creep, can you elaborate why the coverage cited in the article is not enough? E.g. the article in TechCrunch. Thanks Uziel302 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Uziel302: Are you getting paid to write this artice? scope_creep 09:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
scope_creep, no, I am just Israeli interested in tech. Uziel302 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Cool. scope_creep 09:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That first references as a bit of PR and an interview fails WP:ORGIND. The second one is a fundraising profile fails WP:ORGIND another block of PR with the founders and as its routine business about funding it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep 13:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I can't find the press release that this is based off of, but that phrasing is copy-pasted to other churnalism pieces as well. If Walla.co.il wrote that article (therefore owning the copyright) and didn't just copy-paste a press release you wouldn't find that wording on other websites, but with a press release they freely copy the wording because the company wants it spread around. Same with this one, copied here. These are not sources showing significant independent coverage, it's churnalism rewording press releases from the company itself. Neither one of those show notability for the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
These are the routine reactions that one can expect after a keep opinion at WP these days. It's not about the company, it's about {insert any parts of the company operations here}. And there must be a press release because all independent journalists at independent news portals are con artists, I just happen not to be able to find any press release which should have been all over the internet, just not this time. And this can go on and on under someone's opinion. 50 such reactions? 100 such reactions? There within minutes! No space for dissenting views, however weak the responses will be. I invite everyone to take a fresh look at the sources and at the policies, as I have done, and to express their opinion, whatever it might be! The nominator had their say in the nomination, now it's up to the community to decide! gidonb (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
When you share links to churnalism as a reason to keep an article, it's not unreasonable for someone to point out the problem with those links. Comments about "WP these days" have nothing to do with this article's subject or why it should be kept. I also said nothing about "all independent journalists...are con artists" so that's a strawman argument; you're commenting against things no one has suggested. The problem isn't that all sources have issues, the problem is that these two sources in particular have issues, and while you're entitled to your opinion, your opinion is not immune from examination, nor is your opinion consistent with how Knowledge (XXG) treats churnalism sources. - Aoidh (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The sources are great. This response and the next many responses were predicted above. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
So moving to trying to prove its notable to attacking editors working in good faith. You seem to always do this. I'm thinking of taking you to Ani. I will look at the your Afd history and see what I can find. If I find enough and there is no outcome at Ani, I'm going to take you to Arbcom. I've had my fill your antics. scope_creep 14:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
You can try to shut anyone up. It does not make the problem go away that people are afraid to share their opinion without endless arguments. On the contrary, it only worsens it! gidonb (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not following why you "predicting" that your comment would be responded to is relevant, especially since that doesn't address the problem with the sources, which despite the unsubstantiated claim, are far from "great" (whatever that means). They do not contribute to the notability of the subject, which has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's all I'm interested in discussing. - Aoidh (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
It's all relevant for me. Other people will write other opinions after analyzing this AfD and draw different or similar conclusions! Knowledge (XXG) needs to move to a system where providing one's opinion is less stressful and time-intensive. Let the person closing the discussion decide who has the best arguments and, of course, the respondents when we are inspired by each other! gidonb (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Let's please stick to the discussion of sources, personal attacks do not move the discussion forward. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete all I find are funding announcements and some product mentions, nothing about the history of the company or anything at length about them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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 09:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Loris Ceroni (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. Can't find any source about him in a google search. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 10:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 09:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ivana Milojević (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)

Recreation of page deleted in February for lack of notability. I don't think the notability situation has changed much since then, and the article certainly does not make the case for notability. As in the previous AfD, it is important not to confuse the subject with the Serbian pilot of the same name. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 09:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Murphy (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)

primary sourced only since 2015 - only notable in the context of his band Wotanluzo (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 08:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Feliciano, Venezuela (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:NGEO and WP:GNG. The only reference listed here is the home page of google maps, and I am unable to find evidence that this village is (1) a legally recognized populated place, or (2) that the village has been the subject of significant coverage by multiple independent RS. Looking at the coordinates in the infobox, I'm also not really seeing any substantial buildings or roads. There is a record of a "populated place" in GNS at about this location under the name of "San Feliciano" (UFI #-957223, has a listed alternative name of "Feliciano"), but it looks like this is more a database quirk than a real populated place being described. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 09:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete — I agree with Mangoe's analysis. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
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. Procedural close. No deletion rationale provided by the nominator. No problem with renominating this article. Liz 08:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Open.... (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)

Signed, Pichemist 08:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 06:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Barnes's place name book describes this as a station (a flag stop, to be precise), and the maps testify to that: they show a siding with nothing around, a situation which never changes. In the 1950s the airbase apparently forced a huge rerouting of the rail line, with this piece being converted into a spur into the base, eventually abandoned. Searching is yet again impossible given the number of notable/notorious people named Rankin in the county, but the maps and Barnes really tell the story. Mangoe (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 Highlander: The Series. Liz 06:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Seacouver (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 fictional location definitely fails WP:GNG; search results are a mixture of the non-RS typical of fictional elements, and unrelated things with the same name. Content is almost completely unsourced, including purported real-world background about the name. Can possibly be redirected to Highlander: The Series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 14:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Passing By the Earth (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)

Also including:

Set of non-notable poems that look to me like vanity spam. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • delete if for no other reason than that the poems themselves, when removed as the copyvios that they are, would reduce the articles to stubs lacking a claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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 List of professional wrestling promotions. Liz 06:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

I'm not speedying this, as it's one of Knowledge (XXG)'s earliest pages so maybe there's a reason I'm missing as to why it's survived eighteen years. (It's technically survived an AfD, but the page discussed then had little relationship to the current article other than the title.) I can see absolutely no possible use this page could ever have, as it's a pure content fork from Professional wrestling. I'd be willing to bet a sizeable sum that 99% of its pageviews are from people who are actually looking for List of professional wrestling promotions, and if there is any content on this page worth saving it would be more use to everyone involved if it served as a header to that page rather than a stand-alone article.  ‑ Iridescent 05:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge I agree that this article serves a purpose and the subject is likely independently notable. A merge may be sensible, but I don't think AfD is the right forum for this either way.LM2000 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
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 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

a "non-official organisation" (according to the author), which is non-notable. A WP:BEFORE does not give anything except a few passing mentions, and press releases. Most of the passing coverage comes from coverage of other companies. The subject fails all the criteria from WP:NORG, and as it lacks significant coverage, it fails general notability criteria as well.

This is clearly a work of either UPE, or COI. The article was created in one go by RajneeshPi, I moved it to draft with edit summary "clearly not notable for mainspace, kindly work on it in draftspace". I left a note on their talkpage recommending AFC (their talkpage has a few AFC notices). Three days later, another editor EditorPi moved it back to mainspace without any changes to the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is poorly written, has low-quality sources, and looks to be the result of UPE. While a WP:BEFORE search shows some results, none of them seem credible to me (and the ones that are credible are passing mentions, like this one). Unless better sources are found I do not see a reason to keep here. jp×g 07:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    Delete appears to be a convention center and all I find are various events they've held. Nothing we can use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wife acceptance factor (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 one reliable source. Furthermore, the topic does not seem to be that notable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange. Liz 02:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Arrest of Brittney Griner (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)

From what I can see, the content on Arrest of Brittney Griner is already contained in Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange#Background on Griner. Please point out if I missed anything. A lot of this content is also available on Brittney Griner#2022 arrest in Russia. My recommendation is to merge Arrest of Brittney Griner into Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange#Background on Griner because Arrest of Brittney Griner is redundant. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete Not really worth a merge. Most of it is/should be covered in her own section. Sharrdx (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete pretty much what BD2412 said, if there is anything in this article not covered in another article, then delete it, and if there is then add it to the other article.
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 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Fazhengnian (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)

Literally a tiny stub about falun gong practices which in all reality should already be in the main page. It even got delete consensus once prior! Heyallkatehere (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 05:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Rothschild (philosopher) (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 could not find any in-depth coverage about this person. RoostC(please ping me when replying) 03:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere. But there are some respectable (for philosophy) cites on GS so I am Neutral move to Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC).
Academic ranks in the United Kingdom Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
And so? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC).
That says UK "professor" encompasses the equivalents of US "professor", "distinguished professor", and "chaired professor"; that doesn't mean that all UK professors hold each of those titles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 and salt. Per WP:SNOW I don't see any reason to draw this out and waste more of the communities' time. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

B4Blaze (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)

Has been draftified and returned by a mix of users following a G11 earlier this year so bringing it here for larger discussion. A BEFORE shows only passing coverage and nothing at the CORP-level depth. Star Mississippi 03:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

sock disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
would like to know why this is tagged for deletion. this is an media platform who contributed huge in covid era by providing free platform for journalist. before putting to AFD please read the links and news.. hope you understand... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is not a case for notability which requires significant, in depth coverage. Do you have any connection with other editors working on this article that you should disclose? You seem to have found this very suddenly. Star Mississippi 03:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
would like to know firstly.. before putting this article to AFD , have you read the content or notability.. as how you found the article same way i got out.. we are here to support ..am not having any connection with others.. i felt good by reading links.. so i supported.. SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
important striking factor for me is free platform.. this has to be brought up..to public. we writers has to support ... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Companies are required to meet WP:CORP, being a free platform has no bearing on that. If you write for it, you need to disclose that. See also WP:PAID, WP:COI. Star Mississippi 03:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
again please donot change the discussion flow .. i would like to know why as of sudden you suggested this article for deletion. am seeing an social commitment in the article supporting this channel and new ideas put forward by this particular blaze.. so we have to bring it to other peoples , then only other can understand.. by this it will be useful to public.. secondly ..am not writing for corp.. and my intention is pure to bring new ideas to front and support as an writer... see the notability ... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey..
article and citation seems socially comitted and new ideas notability media platform.. please read the citations .
one more thing.. would like to know why suddenly tagged for AFD.please explain Annthomasjoy (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
i noted that same user is repeat trying to demotivate the writers and page named B4BLaze.. As writers we are not supposed to do that .. we have to support for good things and not aim for any other benefits... Annthomasjoy (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
It was tagged for AfD because rather than waiting for AfC, you moved it to mainspace when, as I said to your colleague, there is no indication it meets the requirements for a company. Socially committed and new ideas have no bearing on what makes a company notable. @SreenivasKrishnan I am not changing the discussion flow. You do not understand why it wasn't in mainspace. You're allowed to move it -- but that creates a community discussion especially when there have been so many versions of this article. and my intention is pure to bring new ideas to front and support as an writer is definitely not something you should be doing as Knowledge (XXG) is not for promotion. Would either of you care to disclose how you found this article? Star Mississippi 03:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
again .. have u read the citations.. link . please read it ..
second , how can u notify some other persons as my colleague .. did he told you.. he is my colleague and did i mentioned is somebody my colleague.. donot overwrite.. from your view point what makes notability .. ;please explain .. i will reconsider my thoughts after hearing this.. Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:CORP is what defines notability. I read the citations, and I did my own search. I am unable to find anything that meets the criteria. It is not my POV, it is the community's. If you two are unrelated, the results will show that. You two just happened to stumble on this article unconnected? Star Mississippi 04:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
please read the malayalam news attached also and what am feeling that this article is meeting the notability and this has to be shared to public.. how you happened to stumble on this article , same. i seen the same from you that you are acting as you biased . Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
how can it be an promotion .. if you are simply pointing out it as pomotion .. then all notable activities doing my an organisation or an person will fall to promotion right .. please donot mix the things.. would like to suggest you please read or undertsand the article values and understand the importance of the things.. if you are writing something .. then if suddenly an user comment it as promotion .. will it be right ... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
"Bring new ideas to front" is promotion as defined by Knowledge (XXG). This discussion will go for at least seven days and all editors are able to weigh in and establish consensus on whether there should be an article. I have read the article. Please stop insinuating that I haven't before nominating it. This article has been on my radar for almost a month. You haven't disclosed how you just happened to find it today Star Mississippi 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
same thing as how you radar am also analyzing this . am expecting few others will understand this importance Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to explain. It was created in mainspace in November in a way it shouldn't have been (the creator missed a step) and showed on the AfC logs because it had extra templates while in mainspace. I'm an AfC reviewer and the article in the log and moved it to draft space. Star Mississippi 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
yes this now turned to an interesting communication. For me i got few set of articles for correction and out of this one was this .. so i read the citation link and worked on it .. from my understanding no other media platform has provided an free platform to develop for journalist .. after completing the course.. so quite interesting ... Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
same as you are radar the article same for me .. i was analyzing the fact behind and supporting.. you are manipulating the things in a such a way to delete this article , i mean trusted article to AFD. This is not for promotion.. i hope still you donot know about the importance of promotion and writing the fact.. please donot include all articles in promotion and insult the writers... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Iamamiwhoami. Liz 02:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Claes Björklund (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)

ELs on page appear to only be to databases (the last two are dead; the latter it appears the URL was taken by some dating site) that don't convey notability, and I couldn't find any coverage of Björklund that wasn't just mentioning his work as a part of iamamiwhoami. The most I got is these two interviews where his more famous bandmate Jonna Lee talks about working with him, but it's still limited to discussing the partnership and not much on him individually. Redirect to iamamiwhoami. QuietHere (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Turns out there was an article for his pseudonym Barbelle (since changed to a redirect) which had this review in it, but nothing else of value. It's still not enough to change my mind but it's at least worth mentioning. QuietHere (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade 02:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 01:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Nickels (game) (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 (perhaps non-existent) game. Article cites no sources. The external link is dead but this archived version has nothing about 'Nickles.' Searching found nothing helpful. Fails general notability criteria. Previously nomination in 2006 resulted in no consensus. See previous nomination Gab4gab (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. The consensus here seems to be that the Chinese sources allow this article to meet WP:GNG. Liz 02:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Jinlong station (Shenzhen Metro) (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)

Have attempted tagging and redirecting this article, hoping that it would be improved. Currently, there is not a single in-depth source. Fails GNG. Onel5969 02:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Jumpytoo Talk 06:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources given above, among others. @Onel5969: Could you please hold off on nominating any other Shenzhen Metro Like 14 stations for deletion? It doesn't look like any of these deletion nominations will succeed, and they're becoming a waste of the community's time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Be happy to, if someone would bring them into compliance with GNG. I've tried draftifying them, redirecting them, and finally tagging them. Only bringing them to AfD seems to prompt folks to want to provide the sourcing necessary to show they pass GNG. I agree, it is a waste of time, pity that someone interested in the subject doesn't take the time to source them properly. There are probably about another 15 or so in the queue with the same issues. I've been waiting to see if anyone improves them, or if it will be necessary to nominate them as well. Onel5969 16:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    I've been refusing to review these (I almost exclusively review transport-related articles in NPP) because I'm sick of people attacking me for daring to enforce GNG. I don't speak Chinese, but when I try to find sources the best I can I get attacked for the crime of not being Chinese literate. I won't approve things in the queue that fail GNG, no matter how much certain editors think otherwise. The editor mass-creating these has no interest in working collaboratively or adding anything approaching sufficient sourcing. Blame them for wasting community time, not those of us who work at NPP and hold back the floodgates of crap, promo, and copyvio that show up in the queue every day. Of course, those who've never done a single NPP review are all too eager to criticize those who do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
    Per WP:CONTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Knowledge (XXG) article." These subjects are notable, even if the sources haven't been added to the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    That's easy for someone who doesn't participate at NPP at all to say. When crappy articles like this appear in the queue, we have to figure out if they're notable or not. That may sound easy to you, but most of us at enwiki are not fluent in Chinese. Just the same, we try our best, while the usual crowd at AfD is only too happy to let them sit in the queue with nearly zero sourcing until one of us tries to do something about it. But by all means, please keep educating us on how notability works. A better use of your time would be to demonstrate that sources exist (Template:Sources exist) for the remaining stubs created by this author so we can mark them as reviewed and AfD is unnecessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    I think all Shenzhen metro stations are likely to be notable and can be marked as reviewed (assuming no other major issues are present). I will try to go through and add Template:Sources exist. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    Done – I've gone through the Shenzhen metro station articles listed at that page and checked that multiple independent sources exist for each. Please let me know if I've missed any. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    But you have not added any sources to any of the articles. That's what needs to occur. Onel5969 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    Honestly, even just dropping a few links to sources on the talk pages would be sufficient, as far as I'm concerned. It would be better if they were in the article directly, but so long as a GNG pass is demonstrated, and the article doesn't violate any other policy, I would accept it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources found. --Rschen7754 01:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
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 01:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Cramble Cross (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NGEO. No reliable sources, nothin' on Google–what else is there except a poultry farm and an unrelated video game? Sarrail (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 01:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Mija Kulić (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 indication of passing WP:GNG–nothing on Google, no article on Serbian Knowledge (XXG), no reliable sources to be found. Sarrail (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete Only source is primary questionable (and don't click on it!). Not notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 02:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The article is self-promotion. Independent coverage is difficult to find. Fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per Gnomatique and nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Unsure - it does seem overly promotional and the episodes only seem to suggest a short run. Also the links to the episodes on the radio station website are broken, perhaps suggesting something about notability. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable with deleting something simply because it is a Turkish radio programme. Again, it doesn't help that the page is so promotional. JMWt (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    I do agree that Knowledge (XXG) needs more Turkey-related content. That said, articles must meet general requirements. In my view, this one doesn´t. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Shabarish (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)

Only acted in two films, not multiple (three or more). This article was created with the intention that the third film would release. No independent notability. Only other source found was this, which doesn't say much.

Also, the creator of this page also created the page of Shabarish's unreleased film here. If Asurakulam released, this actor could be notable, but the film remains unreleased since 2017. DareshMohan (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑